vidom Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 I'd like to expand my R range, the longest lens I now have being a 2,8/135. As a 180 would be too close to the 135 I already have, I think about buying a 4/250 (1. version) because it is quite cheap. Any first hand impressions here? I've read Erwin's "expertise" on this lens, but it can't really be that bad, can it? Regards Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_lee3 Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 I have been using the 250 (non-rotating tripod collar) for family sports (soccer on a mini field) and general nature photography (whales and some birds). The lens is a decent but not stellar performer. It is sharp but is nowhere near as sharp or contrasty as the 100 Macro or the 35 or 50 Summicron. The 250 is also somewhat flat with respect to colour rendition. I used to have a Nikkor 300/4.5 back in my Nikon days and I would rate the 250 in that league. Decent, but nothing to get really excited about. f4 is a bit dark in the R9 viewfinder and the focusing prisms have a tendency to black out. The bokeh is quite nice though and the lens balances well on an R9/DMR. The lens is well made and the focusing action and throw are very comfortable for me. I bought it because it was cheap and I don't use a long lens that much. You get what you pay for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 I gave my first to my son. Heavy and hard to handle. I purchased a second version and the pic are nicer and the lens is far easier to handle especially with the Leica shoulder stock. Then it is a dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_piper2 Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Actually, I found the first version (short and tubby - and heavy) to be slightly sharper and contrastier than the second version. Not a lot - but noticeable on a flat gray day. Fewer elements and fewer air/glass surfaces. But it did have a bit more color fringing. And it has a rather long minimum focus distance and a very long focus throw. The 2nd version focuses faster and closer with internal focusing. Better for sports and the like, as well as lighter. If you can live with the physical limitations, it produces rather a nice image for the price. The differences between the two 250s is tiny compared to the exotic leap in contrast, resolution - and price - one gets in the 280 APO f/4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot_rosen1 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I think Andy is right. The 250/4 R lens had very good performance for its generation, but it will not compare with the newer generation 280/4 APO R, which is the benchmark for this focal length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now