4/80-200 or 2/90

[pongpeera_thiapairat]

<p>I know it sounds weird.<br>

I am now owning 70-200VR and 105/2.5P and considering changing one of them. The 50'cron 1.ver and 35-70/4 really got me to Leica glass. So I will be purchasing the 80-200 to replace the 70-200VR, or the 90'cron(Canada) to replace 105/2.5.And will be using it on D700 -Leitaxed-<br>

My main type of shooting is life, candid, and travel, so which one would fit me better? I want the rendition of Leica, and its bokeh so much. Will the 80-200 give narrow DoF enough to do portraits and kind a thing? I noticed that the 35-70 gives me much wider DoF at 50mm F4 than 50'cron at the same setting, does the 80-200 behave the same?<br>

I have no problem using prime lens anyway. And I love the way 35-70 renders so much.</p>

<p>Thank you so much for your help :-)</p>

[michael_a._shapiro]

<p>Yes, it does sound weird. You need to learn enough about lenses at least to understand how depth of field works. <br>

The logic in the first paragraph makes no sense. Is the 70-200 an f/2.8 Nikon lens? Keep it! The 105/2.5, keep it, too. These are two of the best lenses in the Nikon line. If you want to get rid of the 105 for anything, get an 85/1.4 Nikon.<br>

Re the 35-70, is that the Nikon f/2.8 or the Leica branded Panasonic?</p>

 

[wgpinc]

<p>I owned the leica 80-200mm R 4.0 lens for a while. I hated it and got rid of it. Way too clunky for me. Much prefer my Canon 70-200mm L 4.0 IS lens on EOS bodies. I loved the 180 R 4.0 lens for the size, sharpness and image quality. R Leica lenses are cheap right now. There are great choices in the 90mm, 135mm (a great bargain right now because it is out of fashion), 180mm and 280mm. The Leica R bodies I have owned have been what I call shop queens, needing almost constant maintenance to keep them working (my R4S needs to be serviced right now because the meter cell isn't working), but producing beautiful images. Now that I have a full frame DSLR I have to give my Leica R lenses another try with the adapters.</p>

[cd_k]

<p>I have used both Leica and Nikon systems. The Nikon 70-200 VR and 105/2.5 lenses are on par with Leica lenses you mentioned. You will not gain very much if anything by switching. If you really want 'better' performance lenses, you may try the Zeiss ZF 35/2 and 50/2 Macro as they are better than Nikon's 35 and 50 lenses. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Re the 35-70, is that the Nikon f/2.8 or the Leica branded Panasonic?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Definitely not. the 35-70 is superb Leica Solms lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know it sounds weird.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to say it does sound a little weird to me. I would not replace my Canon 70-200IS with the Leica zoom because the Canon is so good and the Leica zoom would be a pig to use on a non-Leica body (great on a Leica body).</p>

[cd_k]

<p>I have used both Leica and Nikon systems. The Nikon 70-200 VR and 105/2.5 lenses are on par with Leica lenses you mentioned. You will not gain very much if anything by switching. If you really want 'better' performance lenses, you may try the Zeiss ZF 35/2 and 50/2 Macro as they are better than Nikon's 35 and 50 lenses. </p>

[pongpeera_thiapairat]

<p>First of all, thank you for all your reply<br>

-Michael S. well I do understand pretty well how DoF works, but each lens gives "unequal" of it, it depends on each lens. My experience I meantioned was that the 35-70 and 50'cron give not equal ammount of DoF at the exactly same setting, many post in websites do confirm my experience. And it's not Nikon 35-70/2.8, but it is 35-40/4 Rom converted to Nikon-F. So my question is that will the 80-200 do the same thing with 90/2 as 35-70 did in DoF comparison with 50'cron.</p>

<p>-Gil P., well should I just get primes; like 90, 135 instead of a single zoom?</p>

<p>- Robin S. Thank you fo your opinion :-)</p>

<p>- CD K, I once used the 50/2ZF and, amazingly, it didn't impressed me like what Leicas did, I just don't like its rendition with strong sat. and contrast, but I do confirm your point that it is one of the lens that really exceed Nikon's lens.</p>

<p>Thank you all, I still need couple of nights to consider the change lol</p>

[doug herr]

<p>I've used both the 80-200mm f/4 Vario and the 90mm Summicron-R and they're both great lenses, with different character.</p>

<p>The Vario is the first zoom lens I've really liked. It has no obnoxious habits and it behaves as a Leica lens ought to: excellent image detail at full aperture, great color quality, excellent bokeh, little flare to speak of, and it has the added bonus of a non-rotating front so it's easy to use polarizing filters. It will show more light fall-off at full aperture than the 'cron will, and you'll get some linear distortion at the ends of the zoom range (pincushion at 200mm, barrel at 80mm) but there's really no focal length or aperture I'd avoid with this lens.</p>

<p>The 90 'cron is a much older lens, a bit soft at full aperture, sharpening well a stop or two down from full aperture. This lens is known for excellent bokeh, color quality and flare resistance. Beware of field curvature when using extension tubes.</p>

<p>I decided that I prefer the compactness and faster aperture of a prime lens so I sold the Vario. I'm just not a 'zoom' person.</p>

[jeremy jackson]

<p>I have an 80-200 f4 for sale on photonet. This is a mechanically gorgeous lens. Makes a Nikon feel like a toy. Call/email me if you are interested. Cheers, JJ </p>