Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

APO-Telyt-R 180/3.4 vs. APO-Lanthar 180/4
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Which lens is the APO-Telyt-R 180/3.4?
Lens A) is APO-Telyt-R 180/3.4
38%
 38%  [ 5 ]
Lens B) is APO-Telyt-R 180/3.4
61%
 61%  [ 8 ]
Total Votes : 13



PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My bit of opinion about the slight greenish cast of Leica lenses:
It is there in all R lenses, not just the Apo-Telyt.
I noticed it in all my R lenses.
I don't think it's really obnoxious. Surely not with digital cameras. With film, it may depend. For instance, all Kodak negative films abund in reds. Leica lenses balance that nicely. With Fuji negative films, the green may be a bit too much.
I find the greenish cast of Leica lenses excellent for portraits. I think it makes the skin tones more realistic than any other lens I know.
Green landscapes do also take advantage.
Brown-red landscapes, such as houses, sand, rocks, do suffer some greyish tone due to that cast.
One final note, greenish cast can help 3D perception in images, like all cool tones.
You can verify here in the car photo, the greenish cast does not impact the image much negatively colour wise, but the cooler tone of the white gives a little bit more dimensionality to the image. I can perceive it especially looking at the bottom of the car.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I must agree with Orio. The greenish cast is insignificant in real life. And portraits I did with Leica lenses, are my favorite.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just received the Leitax mount for the 180 APO Telyt yesterday and took some hand-held nighttime shots with focus at infinity (quick and dirty on a rainy night). First impressions are that the Leica is still an impressive lens despite its age. Point light sources remain well contained instead of "blooming" and diffusing widely, interfering with close-by objects, something I have seen in shots of the same nighttime scene below with the CV 180 and Nikkor 180 ED. Detail in the corners is well maintained overall by the Telyt. It was very, very sharp. I shot the identical image with the CV 180 (not posted) but had difficulties hand-held at f/4 (windy night, difficult to stabilize it well at 1/30 sec); the Leica appeared to pull out more details from the shadows. I posted one I liked as an addendum to the daytime images by Vilhelm; shot at f/3.4, 1/60 sec, ISO 3200 (!!!) on the D700:
(I intend to add more from all my 180's, including the Nikkor 70-300 VR II)



Slightly off-center crop:


Left edge:


PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Time for small update, close-focus resolution - something for pixel-peepers Wink
Please don´t compare corner sharpness. The corners might be slightly off, due to small differences in focusing and small tilt and shift effect when placing camera on tripod. All settings same, only lenses changed. ISO100, f5.6, 1/180 s, tripod, flash, shot with remote control and 3s mirror-up. Paper size is A4 (printed on ordinary laser printer, so lines over 15 are distorted already on paper), camera about 3m from paper. DNG file developed with same settings in RawTherapee, to get maximum resolution.

I think that both lenses easily outresolve 14MPx sensor of my camera. I don´t see any meaningful differences in sharpness. Again, APO-Lanthar is little bit more contrasty, APO-TELYT is little bit better corrected for CAs.

APO-Lanthar


APO-TELYT


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From what I have seen myself, read and been told by long-time Leica aficianados, you may not find a dramatic difference by shooting target patterns or daylight subjects at f/5.6 where other superior lenses hit their peak performance on a modern digital sensor. The Leica seems to differentiate itself in lower light situations (and low contrast/flat light conditions) by pulling more detail out of shadows and delivering greater microcontrast and better color tonality in these circumstances. The shot above was at a distance of over 1/2 a kilometer and though not posted, results in the center crop from the CV 180 and Nikkor 180 ED bore that out. When I have some free time, I plan to shoot and post a comparison of these three at dusk and/or nighttime. Lloyd Chambers (in his excellent review site, www.diglloyd.com) did a 180mm comparison on the Nikon D3X of several lenses, including the Leica 180/2.8 APO. In his review, the Leica was the gold standard right from f/2.8, well exceeding the others in sharpness, contrast, clarity and resolution but the CV180 once stopped down to f/5.6 acquitted itself quite admirably against the Leica at f/5.6, a lens 10 times as expensive. He was so impressed that he mentioned he would part with it for no less than $2000 (he paid <$500 for it new).

I should mention that the the CV was the most difficult of the three to focus at infinity; at near-infinity and infinity, getting the green-dot confirmation in the dark was more challenging. Focus was very 'twitchy' in that even the slightest adjustment of the focus ring or mere breathing would throw off the camera's rangefinder whereas the Nikkor and Leica were far easier to obtain correct focus confirmation. Vilhelm mentions the same issue with the CV at infinity and near-infinity and relied on live view in his daytime shots.


Last edited by james on Wed May 05, 2010 10:47 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

james wrote:
Vilhelm mentions the same issue with the CV at infinity and near-infinity and relied on live view in his daytime shots.


Yes, the CV 180/4 is a bit tricky close to infinity. I used Live View to 100% rule out focusing incompatibilities, it's not required for normal use...

The official name of the lens is Voigtländer SL 180mm f/4 APO-Lanthar Close Focus, which explains why it's better geared than the APO-Telyt 180/3.4 for near focusing distances.

I suspect the higher shadow detail with APO-Telyt-R is due to slightly lower contrast, noticed the same when I compared my contrastier Nikkor wide-angle zooms with the older design Nikkor 28/1.4D in night shots. Cosina made the APO-Lanthar in Asian style, contrast preferred. These are just differences how they paint, I find it good to know how the lenses paint but with differences these small it doesn't make a difference as long as you know how to pp (as mentioned in previous posts).


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We must remember the special "conditions" in which the Apo-Telyt-R was made.
It was a Army lens, optimized for infinity focus and for performance wide open.
In fact, I think I have seen reported somewhere, that the lens actually worsen the performance when stopped down; maximum quality is at wide open, which is where I shoot it at, always.

I think it was not even supposed to be sold commercially. Then maybe somebody thought "we have the project ready, why not?"

The Apo-Lanthar is a lens that is 30 years younger, and more complete for universal use.

The Apo-Telyt-R is able to stand a comparison still today thanks to the very special and costly glass that it is build with. See Marco Cavina's article for details about the special glass used.

It is also the very special glass that makes it possible for the Apo-Telyt-R to be even better than the Apo-Lanthar with regards to Chromatic aberrations.

Under all the other respects, the Apo-Lanthar is a more modern, complete and desireable lens today. Except maybe for collectioners of old rarities like I partly am Wink


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're spot on about the contrast, Vilhelm. The two lenses are clearly complementary pieces to my lens options rather than redundancies.


PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
In fact, I think I have seen reported somewhere, that the lens actually worsen the performance when stopped down; maximum quality is at wide open, which is where I shoot it at, always.

Actually, APO-Telyt should provide best performance at f5.6 as stated in Leica R-Lenses September 2003 by Erwin Puts, Chapter 3: 180 mm and 280 mm lenses
"The 180 mm f/3.4 Apo-Telyt-R lens is at its optimum at f/5.6, implying that there are some residual aberrations that disappear when the lens is stopped down."

But I don´t see any differences between f3.4 and f5.6, except the DOF of course.

Orio wrote:
Under all the other respects, the Apo-Lanthar is a more modern, complete and desireable lens today. Except maybe for collectioners of old rarities like I partly am Wink

I strongly disagree with this, Orio. The CV is more compact and maybe little bit better build, has better contrast and focuses closer, that's all. Leica is better corrected for CAs, is easier to focus at longer distances and has integrated lens hood. But the biggest advantage to me, it is one half stop faster (not at the expense of image quality). And i noticed, this is often the difference between well focused and missfocused shot. I find astonishing that more than 30 years old design can fully compete with modern lenses and even still beat them in some areas. Anyway, both are top quality lenses. But I realized that Telyt finds it´s way to my bag more often.

Esox lucius wrote:
james wrote:
Vilhelm mentions the same issue with the CV at infinity and near-infinity and relied on live view in his daytime shots.

Yes, the CV 180/4 is a bit tricky close to infinity. I used Live View to 100% rule out focusing incompatibilities, it's not required for normal use...

Yes, I constantly have more focusing errors with CV than with Telyt, especially at longer distances. Partially because of the short run on CV near infinity and probably the larger aperture of Telyt makes some difference.

james wrote:
From what I have seen myself, read and been told by long-time Leica aficianados, you may not find a dramatic difference by shooting target patterns or daylight subjects at f/5.6 where other superior lenses hit their peak performance on a modern digital sensor.

I did the chart comparison more for fun, I wanted to compare resolution of my 14MPx GX20 with my friends 12.2MPx K-x and this was just two shots more. Anyway, even Erwin Puts states in above mentioned article, that Telyt is optimized for infinity performance. CV, on the other side, for close focus performance. But from everything I have seen till this time from both lenses, even if the Leica lags behind CV at near distances, I just can´t see it. Or my camera is not able to resolve the differences.

james wrote:
The Leica seems to differentiate itself in lower light situations (and low contrast/flat light conditions) by pulling more detail out of shadows and delivering greater microcontrast and better color tonality in these circumstances.

Yes, the performance of Leica lenses in bad light conditions is outstanding. But I guess, that Leica handles better the high contrast scenes too. I didn´t make direct comparison, but I'm constantly getting better exposed images with fewer blown out highlights with Leica lenses than with others. And without sacrifice the details in shadows or middle tones and still with plenty of contrast.
This is nice example, made in harsh light conditions with wide-open APO-Telyt . Boy in trees shadows with bright sunny background:



PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BRunner wrote:
Yes, I constantly have more focusing errors with CV than with Telyt, especially at longer distances. Partially because of the short run on CV near infinity and probably the larger aperture of Telyt makes some difference.


Like the original comparison noted, differences between the lenses are very very small. Just like many have written later here, the choice is decided by preferences: what feels better in your hands and what you appreciate more for your shooting needs.

My spine is programmed for the APO-Lanthar, I have learned it so well that manual focusing on a crazy dog at 3m is not luck, but experience.

180/4 APO-Lanthar @ f/5.6 and about 3m distance



Original size http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/4504464755/sizes/l/

During my stay in Mexico, I actually made money on the beach shooting fast moving surfers, using the 180/4 APO-Lanthar because of reach. Focusing near infinity requires attention, but is not that difficult really.

Surfers at medium to near infinity distance, all with 180/4 APO-Lanthar









I solidly believe this pixel-peeping comparison of mine was useful: I learned both lenses, how they differ and what use both should be dedicated for. Knowing your equipment I believe is more important than the marginal differences glass of this quality might show.


PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BRunner wrote:
Yes, I constantly have more focusing errors with CV than with Telyt, especially at longer distances. Partially because of the short run on CV near infinity and probably the larger aperture of Telyt makes some difference.

I have never used the 180/4, but I have experience with 125/2.5 - near infinity focusing is problem despite f/2.5. I think these lenses are simply designed for close focusing. They are too sensitive for distant subject, so minor movement of the focusing ring can cause significant misfocus...


PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With 180mm lenses at f/3.4 to f/5.6 you will notice that focus requires more accuracy mostly because of narrower depth of field. Wider lenses are more forgiving, especially closer to infinity.

no-X wrote:
I think these lenses are simply designed for close focusing.


That is correct, it's also what the print on the lens boxes says:

Voigtländer SL 90/3.5 APO-Lanthar Close Focus
Voigtländer SL 125/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar
Voigtländer SL 180/4 APO-Lanthar Close Focus

The APO-Telyt is more easier focused near infinity, which is quite natural given it was designed for U.S. naval forces for marine surveillance.

There's a tool for every job, fortunately.

Vilhelm


PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Speaking of Cosina Voigtlander Close Focus Wink, I noticed that the new SL II 90mm/3.5 APO Lanthar is now available for order in the US from Cameraquest for US$549. Others are sure to follow....


PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I simply like more Leica APO results rather than APO Lanthar 180

I hope that I am allowed to write, Vilhelm...

I can clearly see that Lanthar has a problem with highlights not with shadows only ..

And I am repeating the same again - it's my view....

tf


PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As Vilhelm aptly noted:

Quote:
There's a tool for every job, fortunately.



In the final analysis, we're splitting hairs on two very high-performing optics with distinct personalities.


PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

trifox wrote:
I hope that I am allowed to write, Vilhelm...


Stan, What you (or anyone else) sees, thinks or decides is a choice that belongs to the personal liberty of what's called democracy.

I started the topic because I found lots of comments on how the Lanthar is inferior to the Telyt, but no-one posting facts to support opinions. I prefer facts before opinions, because it's my money and I decide how I spend it. I've been very happy to see other members add and share their experience in using these lenses, here in the same topic I started. I am also happy to see this topic has stayed civilized, and I hope it will remain this way all over the forum as well.

Personally: If I had neither lens, choice would depend on what I shoot and how Nikon-compatible it is. Since I already have the APO-Lanthar in original N/Ai-S mount, I don't see results justifying an extra 600-800€ for what to me would essentially only mean overlap and lesser handling with aperture control.

Someone in a different situation, using a different camera system would easily favor the APO-Telyt, which is equally understandable and justified purchase decision.


Last edited by Esox lucius on Fri May 07, 2010 8:55 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Vilhelm -- I fully agree with all you've mentioned --

What I am saying is that I am missing something in highlights -- that's all ..

Enjoy your lens as much as you can --

I have done several shots with my APO Lanthar 90 3.5 and it's beautiful but any if this lens is under strong light -- there is not too much texture.

tf


PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One thing about buying a quality lens that appeals to you is that if you tire of it or it disappoints, you can always sell. Good glass will always find an interested buyer.
I was always curious about the Leica and had no intention of buying one but happened upon it in a shop for ~450 euros. Despite owning the CV 180, I couldn't pass up the opportunity. And if I find that it's getting little use, I'll sell it. I did the same with a ZF28 whose performance wasn't as expected so I sold it for what it was bought at and a Nikkor 17-35 whose performance was far from stellar (at its widest end) so after shooting with it for an entire year, I lost just a few hundred dollars for the experience. Pros like Vilhelm have a more practical sense of equipment, but for a hobbyist like me who doesn't shoot day in & day out this is an appealing way to learn about a lot of different glass characteristics.

I look at it as a reasonable cost for the education.


PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 7:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

trifox: Do I understand you well, that you find better texture in highlights on pictures taken by Leitz? If so, it can be easily explained. Lanthar is more contrasty lens. It means that the image projected on the camera sensor is more contrasty (has higher dynamic range). If the sensor isn't able to capture the entire dynamic range, highlights are clipped and detail is lost. In this case I wouldn't criticise the lens, but the camera.

I think it would be interesting to see a comparision made with several high-end cameras with high dynamic range (D3x, S5PRO, 1Ds-III, A900) Smile


PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Please don't add 90/3.5 data here, that belongs in another topic.

Highlight tests with the APO-Telyt & APO-Lanthar... waste of time because results are pre-determined by choice of sensor.

Highlight conservation is more dependent on how much dynamic range sensor can capture. D3/D3s/5dMk2 can all do a bit more than 12 f-stops, a D3x already does almost 14 full f-stops. Go to http://www.dxomark.com and compare them (and other sensors) from the drop-down menu.

What I would like to see, in stead of highlight detail tests, is more photos taken with these lenses. Posted in another, dedicated topic Smile

Vilhelm


PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@ no-x -- I meant that was MORE contrast in Lanthar output .. Telyt has some greenish 'haze' as noticed by other people too and this may be a reason why we can see highlights 'with some texture' ... it's also hard to say if this greenish texture (in highlights by Telyt) is exactly what we want to get ... whether we can call this as a BENEFIT:).

@ Vilhelm -- yes, send more pictures, of course..


PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

after I saw this samples... I like more the apo-lanthar 180 than leica apo-telyt-r 180.
apo-lanthar is for close focus. ok.
apo telyt-r is for infinity focus but I don't like the greenish cast..
Rolling Eyes
so if I would a 200mm lens, a bit better than my Jupiter-21M what can i buy ?
and you must consider that in general I use my Jupiter-21M for infinity focus.
excuse me ... but I am a bit pernickety...


PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

metallaro1980 wrote:
after I saw this samples... I like more the apo-lanthar 180 than leica apo-telyt-r 180.
apo-lanthar is for close focus. ok.
apo telyt-r is for infinity focus but I don't like the greenish cast..
Rolling Eyes
so if I would a 200mm lens, a bit better than my Jupiter-21M what can i buy ?
and you must consider that in general I use my Jupiter-21M for infinity focus.
excuse me ... but I am a bit pernickety...


Go for APO-TELYT, the greenish cast is most of the time unnoticeable and when shooting landscapes, maybe even desirable. In either case, you can easily fix it in PP. With TELYT it's much easier to get right focused shots at long distances and it's half stop faster.
And lastly, TELYT is much easier to get and is probably cheaper too. 3-5 on eBay every week and between 400€ and 500€ for good copy.
On the other side, you can get Lanthar in native mount. But I´m not sure, if the 4/180 was ever made with Canon EOS bayonet.
There is lot of other options. Tamron 2.5/180 ED IF, Pentax A* 200/2.8 ED, ultimate Pentax A* 200/4 Macro ED, Nikkor 2.8/180 ED. But, I don't have any experiences with those lenses and they will be (with exception of Tamron) probably much pricey than both APOs.
If you don´t mind LoCAs, the choices are almost infinite. Zeiss, Rollei, Pentax... Good and cheap is SMC Takumar 4/200, it's hell sharp wide open and has much better contrast than Jupiter.


PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Nikkor 180/2.8 ED AiS (a lens I've owned for 15 years and know well) is readily available and its price has fallen in the past 1-2 years. It can easily be found for less than €250/US$325 from sources in the US. Sharp and quite heavy, it demostrates lots of axial and lateral CA (the former gone by ~f/5.6; Nikon Capture now purports to eliminate axial CA but I haven't had any experience with the new software). The very inexpensive and surprisingly capable Nikkor 200/4 is another great and compact alternative to the CV180.
The CV 180 has become very scarce (see Vilhelm's production estimates) and I haven't seen one on eBay for some time [UPDATE: Vilhelm, of all people, is selling a new-in-box duplicate copy on eBay as of this writing]. The last time I can recall one at auction, it sold for about $1,100 in Nikon mount. If anyone is interested, Cameraquest in the US still has them new in Pentax mount for $900/€700. If memory serves, the 180 was made for Nikon, Pentax, M42 and maybe Contax/Yashica; Vilhelm is the authority on this. I don't believe EOS mount was one of them. Cosina's recent release of a new SL II version of the sought after 90/3.5 suggests to me that an updated 180 can't be too far off. Definitely worth the wait and superior in IQ to the other options mentioned especially if it's priced similar to the new SL II 90 (US$550).


PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BRunner wrote:
Time for small update, close-focus resolution - something for pixel-peepers Wink
Please don´t compare corner sharpness. The corners might be slightly off, due to small differences in focusing and small tilt and shift effect when placing camera on tripod. All settings same, only lenses changed. ISO100, f5.6, 1/180 s, tripod, flash, shot with remote control and 3s mirror-up. Paper size is A4 (printed on ordinary laser printer, so lines over 15 are distorted already on paper), camera about 3m from paper. DNG file developed with same settings in RawTherapee, to get maximum resolution.

I think that both lenses easily outresolve 14MPx sensor of my camera. I don´t see any meaningful differences in sharpness. Again, APO-Lanthar is little bit more contrasty, APO-TELYT is little bit better corrected for CAs.

APO-Lanthar


APO-TELYT


i think ...the apo telyt-r is the best.