Telyt-R 250mm f4 - the current view?

<p>There are not many posts (on pnet) about the Telyt-R 250mm f4 versions, and I am wondering what are the virtues (etc) of these lenses in real photographic use?</p>

<p>The Hove Leica Pocket Book shows that the earlier model (11920) has a generally better perfomance than the later (11925) model, at least in Erwin Puts' view. Photos from Doug Herr and others show good out of focus rendering at close distances, but does this break down as the subject to background distance, etc, varies?</p>

<p>Finally, the Pocket Book doesn't explicitly state that early version has a rotating tripod mount, but I assume that, logically, it must have?</p>

<p>I already use a 180mm f4, so 250mm is not a really significant increase in subject magnification. However, as the first models are now really quite cheap, so I am tempted to complete my focal length coverage. The lens will be used only occasionally, mainly for landscapes, on a SL2 or R5/7: hence, an Apo-Telyt isn't an option.</p>

<p>Any comments about the 250/4 Telyt and maybe how, or if, it pairs up with the 180/4 Elmar-R? Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I also use a 180--in my case it's the f/3.4 APO. I agree that the 250 is probably too close in focal length to bother with. There is a 350 that might make more sense as a companion to the 180. I note that Erwin describes both lenses as having "good performance." While "good" is probably good enough, I'm not sure that it warrants carrying both the 180 and the 250. Might as well go for the extra reach of the 350. FWIW, for a lens longer than 180 I use the 300mm and 400mm Nikkors on an FE2 or FA.</p>

<p>The first version of the 250mm f/4 Telyt-R does not have a rotating tripod mount. It has a tripod mount but it does not rotate for vertical compositions. This and the first model's long minimum focus distance are why I chose the late model 250 instead.</p>

<p>Rob, Doug, thanks. Your comments tip the balance. As I have a 135mm f2.8, a 250mm could <em>substitute </em>for a 180mm at times, giviing a bit more 'spread' of focal lengths. However, given the limitations, the early 250/4 doesn't seem a wholly convincing bargain at present.</p>

<p>Alan, wanna have a really good time? For app. $300, you can grab a 400mm 1:6.8 TelytR -- on your SL2 you will have a great "hand-holder" for super tele-portraits a la David Duncan (and our Birdman, DH).</p>

<p>Hey Paul - I always like a good time! The sad fact is that the curency exchange rate for US Dollars to GB Pounds is $1 = £1 when it comes to price comparisons across 'the pond'. So a lens that costs $300 in the US generally costs £300 in the UK - or around $500.</p>

<p>However, I take your point - the 400mm Telyt (even here) is not overly expensive. However, I don't use many of my other-make 200mm lenses very often, so 250mm is pushing things, and 300mm and longer lengths are scary territory for me. I am using a 300mm f5.6 Tamron SP very occasionally - and might stick with that for a few months.</p>

<p>I'd like to have something longer than 180mm for a personal 'trans-Europa expedition' to the Carpathians and Hungary in a two months time. A 400mm would definately have uses in the flatter parts of Hungary, especially for the wildlife. Anyway, I have a short while in which to get organised. The early 250/4 Telyt that Iinitially attracted me was on offer at £210 and has now been reduced to £175 - with another £30 or so off the price I just <em>might </em>be tempted.</p>