michael_fan1 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 <p>According to the technical data published in Leica web site. When I compared the MTF graphs of R80-200/4 to M APO 135/3.4 and R APO 70-180/2.8, I noticed the MTF of R80-200 is better than M135/3.4 APO all the way. Then I compared it with R APO 70-180/2.8 at 135mm, when both at wide open, the 80-200 has a better MTF (I know this is unfair as one at 2.8 and the elmar at 4), however, at 5.6 and 8, again the elmar has a better MTF and this also applys at the 180 end. (The MTF of Elmar is not as good as the APO 180/2.8 but very very close)<br> Base on the above, can I conclude the R80-200/4 is the best Leica 135mm lens ever (or just in term of MTF)?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert meier Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 <p>Very interesting. The R80-200 was made by Kyocera, wasn't it? How does the R80-200 compare to the R90/2.8?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart_richardson Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 <p>I wouldn't conclude anything until I had actually shot with the lenses. The 80-200 is a great lens, but MTF can be difficult to interpret, and of course, it doesn't tell you everything. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtdnyc Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 <p>Michael, I just took a very quick look at the MTF graphs on the Leica site, and it appeared to me that the M 135 had better performance than the R 80-200 at the three apertures tested, though the results weren't really comparable since graphs for the 80-200 were at the 80mm setting.</p> <p>Could you provide a screen shot of the graphs you're referring to? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie_chan2 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 <p>The 80-200/4 ROM is one of Leica's bargain lenses. It was designed, I believe, shortly after the 70-180 APO. It's like a baby APO lens and is stunningly good regardless of money (accepting of course its max f4 aperture). Looking at the files from this lens and my 180/2 APO, there's some difference, but not it's not vastly inferior to the 180 cron.</p> <p>Charlie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug herr Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 <p>I agree with Charlie, it's a great bargain! Whether it has the best MTF curves or not it's a great lens with no bad habits.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_fan1 Posted August 7, 2009 Author Share Posted August 7, 2009 <p>Hi Johnathan,<br> In Leica site, there're MTFs of 80-200/4 at 80,100,135,180 and 200 and I used the 135 to compare with the M 135 APO since I think we need to use the same focal length for comparsion.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_fan1 Posted August 7, 2009 Author Share Posted August 7, 2009 <p>Hi Robert,<br />As MTF for R90/2.8 is not available and no comparsion can be made. <br />I looked at the MTF of R90 AA, since only MTFs at 80 and 100 are available for 80-200/4, again no direct comparsion can be made. When I compared 80-200/4 at 80 with 90AA, the 90 AA is better.<br />For 80-200/4 at 100, overall the 90 AA is better but at 5.6 , 20lp/mm up to 5 mm(Y'), the Elmar is slight better and at 5.6 40 lp/mm up to about 7 mm(Y'), the Elmar is more obvious better than 90AA.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_fan1 Posted August 8, 2009 Author Share Posted August 8, 2009 <p>By looking at MTFs, I wonder if in some aspect in actual photos taking, the 80-200/4 is superior to its APO big brother? And as the 80-200/4 is too good, so Leica didnt make it an APO as it would beat its APO brother!?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary e Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 <p>I can't say if the 80-200/4 is best at being a 135, but I will say it can keep up with the 70-180/2.8 with the exception of being a beast of a lens plus being one of the most expensive. The 80-200/4 is one of Leica's great bargains and only can be bettered by adding a tripod collar. I just feel uneasy locking this setup on a tripod only by the R8/9's tripod lug. Oh, you do know you probably just increased the prices on the last remaining stock by boasting about this gem of a lens...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtdnyc Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 <p>Michael, you're right! My "quick look" at the Leica site was too quick. I scrolled down to the MTF graphs for the 80-200 at 135 and it indeed looks better, at least on paper, than the vaunted M 135. Very surprising!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_fan1 Posted August 8, 2009 Author Share Posted August 8, 2009 <p>Hi Jonathan,<br> Yes, I was very surprised,too when I first looked at the MTF of 80-200/4 and compared with other famous Leica lenses.<br> Although people may argue that MTF is not everything but I still think MTF can serve as one of the objective reference of lens performance.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_york3 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 <p>As compared to the 135mm APO lens in the M mount, the mtf graphs of the zoom shows that it drops off more toward the corners. The M lens is more flat across the field. And of course, the M lens is 1/2 stop faster. Stopped down to f/5.6 it looks like the zoom is sharper in the center, but, as mentioned above, drops off toward the edges. They are both very, very good lenses.</p> <p>With regard to the Elmarit zoom, please keep in mind you are dealing with an f/2.8. The faster the lens the harder it is to make it good. It's f/2.8 performance is comparable to the f/4 performance of the less expensive zoom. That's phenomenal. Of course, it is a heavier lens (but your wallet is a lot lighter).</p> <p>All three are phenomenal lenses. In practical use, I doubt anyone would see a difference. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_york3 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 <p>As compared to the 135mm APO lens in the M mount, the mtf graphs of the zoom shows that it drops off more toward the corners. The M lens is more flat across the field. And of course, the M lens is 1/2 stop faster. Stopped down to f/5.6 it looks like the zoom is sharper in the center, but, as mentioned above, drops off toward the edges. They are both very, very good lenses.</p> <p>With regard to the Elmarit zoom, please keep in mind you are dealing with an f/2.8. The faster the lens the harder it is to make it good. It's f/2.8 performance is comparable to the f/4 performance of the less expensive zoom. That's phenomenal. Of course, it is a heavier lens (but your wallet is a lot lighter).</p> <p>All three are phenomenal lenses. In practical use, I doubt anyone would see a difference. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert knapp md Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 <p><em>I have used the 80-200 f/4 as wsell as the 70-180 f/2.8 APO extensively for many years and found the latter to be in a class of its own. The 80-200 is great but the 70-180 even with a 2X is a stunner....</em></p> 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