michael_fan1

<p>Hi Arthur,<br>

Thanks for your recommendation.<br>

Yes, I have read various comments by different people including Erwin Puts.<br>

But I really want to go into some objective evidences (e.g. MTFs, I agree MTF may have its limitation) and critically appraise the comments made by others rather than just listen and believe to them.</p>

<p>Thanks all for your quick responses!<br>

Good comments by Nee Sung! Unlike other Japanese manufacturers, Leica lenses with smaller aperature do not mean they are inferior in quality!<br>

As this lens is considered 'not a lengendary Leica lens' and I would like to find out 'how terrible' it is, so I ran into the MTF published in my newly bought book by Puts.<br />Yes, actullay I just bought this lens no long ago (because it is cheap!) but I have not tried it out yet (I usually use my 80-200/4). Having seen some pictures taken by this lens in the web and its MTF, I will definitely to try it out soon!</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

I have just purchased the Leica pocket book by Laney and Puts and checked out the MTF for the Leica R135/2.8 Version II, surprisingly, I found the MTF of this lens is really good.<br>

It is not only better than Zeiss 135/2.8(C/Y), but the Zeiss 135/2(C/Y)! (According to the Zeiss site)<br>

I also compared the MTFs of Canon 135/2.8 and 135/2 (From photodo.com), it shows that the Leica is better than the Canon 135/2.8 and is very close to the 135/2 which has a weighted MTF of 4.5!<br>

Compared to the Leica 90/2.8 (Weighted MTF at 4.6), the 90/2.8 is a bit better.<br>

Do we underestimate this super lens by Dr. Walter Mandler?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Can anyone tell me some informations about the early <strong>R lenses</strong> with red scale? When did they stop using the red scale/reasons? Are these lense scare? I think this is an important information for collectors but cant find the info. in any ref. books. Thanks very much!</p>

<p>Thanks Eric.<br>

So, there're 2 different kind coatings for the later 11242? And I wonder if there's any different in the coating for the last production run in 1997-1998?</p>

<p>Thanks for your info. Any different in practical shooting ?</p>

<p>What is the coating color of the front and rear element of the Leica 180/3.4 APO? Thanks!</p>

<p>Many people say the Rom lenses have higher resolution than the non-Rom 3 cam version. Is it due to the change in the coating (more magenta)? And when Leica made this change? Thanks!</p>

<p>John, thanks for your info. <br>

There's a picture of the lens hood 14164L in Lager's book pg.261. In the description, it states 'Normal production lens hoods are 12564'. But I can't tell the difference bewteen 12564 and the 14164L, I wonder if the 14164L is the prototype lens hood? </p>

<p>What is the difference between the hoods 12564K and 14164L that fit the 1 version R35/2.8 and R50/2?<br>

What do K and L stand for? </p>

<p>I recently came across with a Leica R lens that have a newer font inscripton type(more squarish) on the front ring whereas the inscriptions on the barrel has got the older inscription font type (more rounded). I wonder if some Leica lenses do have this kind of combination fonts ?</p>

<p>What about the Leica 50/35 summicron-r second version in silver chorme? As I saw some of these lens but cannot obtain any informations, can you tell me when were they made and were they limited/special production? Thanks</p>

 

<p>Which R lens has silver chrome version ? Where can I obtain info.? Thanks</p>

<p>Can anyone tell me which version of summilux-r 50mm in photodo for MTF data?</p>

<p>Any idea which one is better at 28?</p>

<p>Is R 90 AA the sharpest tele lens in the world?</p>

<p>Hello, Anyone knows what is the last year of production for the Leica Elmarit R90/2.8 and Summicron R90/2? How's the performance of Canadian Elmarit compared to the 1st German version? thanks!</p>

<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>

<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>

 

<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>

<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>

<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>

 

<p>Can anyone tell me which lens gives a better image in term of contrast, resolution etc....?<br>

As from the MTF data, they dont differ from each other very much (Correct me if I'm wrong) but the price of 28-90 is a lot more than the 35-70.<br>

What is the resolution in term of lp/mm for 35-70/4 ?<br>

Thanks!</p>