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

Leitz Apo-Telyt-R 3.4/180
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:10 pm    Post subject: Leitz Apo-Telyt-R 3.4/180 Reply with quote
I have had the incredible luck of finding an A/B condition copy of the mythical Leitz Apo-Telyt-R 180mm lens, at HALF (or even less) the price it is usually sold for on Ebay!
I wasn't planning to make any purchases in this period, but I just couldn't let this one go.

Here's what Marco Cavina says about it in the introduction to his article about the lens:

Quote:
A spot of light on the famous 554666 Leitz optical glass,
the secret behind the venerable 180mm f/3,4 apo-Telyt-R stunning
performances: composition, properties, melting workflow...
Everything you dreamed to know about this legendary glass is here.
Unprecedented, obviously.


Here is the full article link:
http://www.luciolepri.it/lc2/marcocavina/articoli_fotografici/Leitz_Apo-Telyt_180mm_glass/00_pag.htm

And here's a link to the google online translation:
http://tinyurl.com/m8ddvf

I will receive the lens in a few days.
I also have the Elmarit-R 2.8/180, so I will make a comparison of the two lenses, which I think has never been published online.
After, I will sell the lens that I like the less. So in case you are looking for a great 180mm lens, you are prevented Wink

Hopefully to come back with news soon!

P.S. take a look near the end of Cavina's article, to his sample photos... the 100% crops look like photos made with a longer lens! Shocked
Also take a look at the MTF comparison chart with the Contax Tele-Tessar 3.5/200 and the Nikkor AI 4/200 Shocked


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
HI Orio

Congratulations!!!

I never had it, but a friend of mine had and I saw a lot of pics taken with it and the colors are . . . . . .excelents.

I don't know how good is it comparated with the elmarit, two greats lenses endeed, but the colors of your new lens are unsurpased, sure.

Good luck. Rino.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very impressive!! Shocked
You are a lucky guy...Congrats ! Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rusty wrote:
Very impressive!! Shocked
You are a lucky guy...Congrats ! Very Happy


Thanks! If I'd tell you what I paid for it, you would change that into "very lucky" Wink


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Last one sold on Ebay, 605 Eur:
Click here to see on Ebay

Currently for sale, 709 Eur:
Click here to see on Ebay

Currently for sale, 655 Eur:
Click here to see on Ebay

Currently for sale, 803 Eur:
Click here to see on Ebay

My purchased copy: 300 Eur Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
My purchased copy: 300 Eur

wow! I am green!


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Orio wrote:
My purchased copy: 300 Eur

wow! I am green!


And this is the fourth great bargain that I make off Ebay.
My previous ones:
- Distagon Hollywood for 170 Euros : at local shop
- Flektogon 2.8/20 for 90 Euros : at local shop, mistaken as a Minolta MF lens (it had a M42-Minolta adapter attached and the shop owner did not realise it...)
- Helios-40-2 for 100 Euros : used camera fair

I start to think that it's increasingly difficult to make the "bargain of a lifetime" over Ebay.
Ebay users are becoming more and more aware of the value of the manual focus lenses.
Instead, in the local shops, it is still possible to find great bargains. You have to monitor them constantly, and of course you have to jump on occasions even if they happen in a moment when you don't plan to buy or don't need a particular lens.
All these great bargains are surely because of people who have these old lenses at home and want to sell them to buy new digital cameras.
At the same time you also need another condition, that is that the camera shop is not really informed of the used prices of manual focus lenses, and/or is one of those shop sellers that think high of digital and very low of analog equipment and tends to underestimate it...


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow... you're lucky Laughing

The lens is amazing Shocked


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've just got a copy of it from an online store (not as cheap but still better than they go on eBay) and will be testing it against Zeiss Tele-Tessar 3,5/200 and Canon 70-200/4 IS. I'll post my impressions here.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here is what I've got from a quick test between Canon 70-200/4L IS (very sharp copy, calibrated by Canon) (~ USD $950?), Leica APO-Telyt 180/3.4 ($800?), Zeiss Tele-Tessar 200/3.5 ($350?) and, for fun, Tamron SP 500/8.0 mirror lens ($200?). Click on all images to get better picture.

Wide open:


100% crop:


Example of bokeh:


At F/8.0:


100% crop (I think Zeiss shot got some motion blur because it looks less sharp than at F/3.5):


Tamron's pictures are both at the same aperture (it only has F/Cool but the first one was handheld and the second one was fixed. BTW, Canon's IS feature was turned off.

My impression is that Canon lens is the sharpest one (and it's zoom!) and has the smoothest bokeh but the colors are way too yellow. Overall, Leica looks best to me because of its contrast and colors, but Zeiss is not far behind, so it is underrated at 1/2 of Leica's price.

And Tamron is a pleasant surprise - not enough contrast but pretty sharp. With its short size I can use it in stealth mode to take pictures of girls on Miami's South beach Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pirius,
there is no significant enlargement by clicking on the pictures (the popup is nearly the size of the embedded image)

It is difficult to say anything from the small size, except that the colours of the Canon lens really suck. How can people spend a thousand to get those unuseable colours, it goes beyond my understanding.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Congratulations on a great find Orio, i've been hunting for one of this for some time but they always go above 550€. I like the marcometer in the link you provided Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Everybody that use Canon know that the 70-200f4IS it's a very very good lens, but Leica and Zeiss.... for any reason are the optical summun...and it's evident


Orio, Above the Canon colors....I think the same.... when you try another lens with good quality (zeiss, for example) you understand that some people that only try AF lenses, are wrong about their equipment Laughing




Regards


PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Chiti wrote:
Everybody that use Canon know that the 70-200f4IS it's a very very good lens, but Leica and Zeiss.... for any reason are the optical summun...and it's evident
Orio, Above the Canon colors....I think the same.... when you try another lens with good quality (zeiss, for example) you understand that some people that only try AF lenses, are wrong about their equipment Laughing
Regards


yes... but it's not just a matter of Zeiss or Leica or Nikon. Even a budget Tamron mirror lens gives colours that are more proper.
This Canon lens' colours are completely unuseable. Look, everything is yellow: the ground is yellow, the soil is yellow, the leaves are yellow. What is that?
And I don't mind that I can fix that in PP. What if I use that lens on a film camera? Imagine a set of slides like this: all to go to the trash can, not one can be saved.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio, congrats! That's a real bargain!

tf


PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Chiti wrote:
Everybody that use Canon know that the 70-200f4IS it's a very very good lens, but Leica and Zeiss.... for any reason are the optical summun...and it's evident
Orio, Above the Canon colors....I think the same.... when you try another lens with good quality (zeiss, for example) you understand that some people that only try AF lenses, are wrong about their equipment Laughing
Regards


yes... but it's not just a matter of Zeiss or Leica or Nikon. Even a budget Tamron mirror lens gives colours that are more proper.
This Canon lens' colours are completely unuseable. Look, everything is yellow: the ground is yellow, the soil is yellow, the leaves are yellow. What is that?
And I don't mind that I can fix that in PP. What if I use that lens on a film camera? Imagine a set of slides like this: all to go to the trash can, not one can be saved.



You're completly rigth....

However, mi 17-40L have a good colors... I supose that the problem of this big production lenses is the difference between units....it's "normal"

We can fix it with PS... but in film, like you said, this lens is unuseable...


But there is not a problem... we have a lot of lenses to use Laughing


regards


PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Chiti wrote:

But there is not a problem... we have a lot of lenses to use Laughing
regards


true Laughing Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Chiti wrote:
However, mi 17-40L have a good colors...

I have a 85:1.8 who is considered a good lens
Usually I get nice results but I have some raws that I cannot correct and get acceptable colors
I still wait the magic raw converter to rescue those shots
Until then I prefer to use my Zeisses Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Chiti wrote:
However, mi 17-40L have a good colors...

I have a 85:1.8 who is considered a good lens
Usually I get nice results but I have some raws that I cannot correct and get acceptable colors
I still wait the magic raw converter to rescue those shots
Until then I prefer to use my Zeisses Rolling Eyes



I'm my case I get a good colors (good, not magnific like the Zeiss)
But in any case I need correct it with a raw editor... and with "Curves" in PS...touchin' each color channel.


I'm very happy with the 17-40 but, when i have a canon FF, i will kick the lens ass ( Laughing ) and get a Zeiss wide angle... I love the zeiss performance Laughing


Regards


PD: However, I will buy in a few days the Canon 100-400L. in this range is the better lens....


PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry, I've uploaded pictures at 1600x1200 size but I guess the software won't show them at full size if your monitor does not have enough resolution. Actually, even on my 1920x1280 monitor they still show up resized. Anyway, just trust me - Canon is the sharpest here Smile

As for its colors, I've done some 50mm tests and Canon's 50/1.4 is even more yellow. With digital cameras it can be fixed in multiple ways, including manual white balance in the camera, but with film you are stuck.

However, you need to consider that I shot these at about 4PM, so the actual colors were slightly warmer than what Leica shows.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

This Canon lens' colours are completely unuseable. Look, everything is yellow: the ground is yellow, the soil is yellow, the leaves are yellow. What is that?
And I don't mind that I can fix that in PP. What if I use that lens on a film camera? Imagine a set of slides like this: all to go to the trash can, not one can be saved.


Ektachrome G film.

The canon warm tonality was the response to the more cold leicas (in LTM) and, after, to nikkors in SRL.

Remember that who used the cold films (like kodachrome -as we know it depended on the date of overcome- , ektachrome professional, certain stage of more green fujichromes, etc) found the nikkor so cold. If we read the discussions in the 60's and 70's magazines, we will remember it.

Without one sufficient reason is difficult to think about Canon doing lenses with yellowish tonality.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio, congratulations! Great catch at a great price. Look forward to seeing your samples.

Also, thanks for the link to the interesting article.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excellent deal, Orio!! Congratulations! Of course, you could not let this one go! You would have been mad about yourself later.

The 3.4/180 is said to be (by many Leica experts) the best tele lens that Leica has ever produced. Faster than the 4/180 and sharper than the 2.8/180.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is not fair to compare these prime lenses with a special USM AF lens as it is a tele-zoom. It is pricey yes I'm agree with that but these primes were also expensive at their times. Whay can't we compare them?
1) EF 70-200/4 L IS USM is a zoom
2) EF 70-200/4 L IS USM focuses much more faster than me and tack sharp at it.
3) EF 70-200/4 L IS USM has the best IS out there, love or hate IS but it helps in love-light situations and I can shoot sharp pics at 200mm with 1/16 (I have shakey hands).

And for the yellow colors, I'm not sure if it is lens' fault as I got pretty decent color reproduction with it (under harsh summer midday light):

Original file:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yalcinaydin/3654713345/sizes/o/in/set-72157619996750307/
The set:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yalcinaydin/sets/72157619996750307/

But if I have time to focus (not good for the model though:)) and have enough light (like studio environment) I prefer the lovely colors of my Tele-Tessar 4/200 Smile


PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
source Wikipedia:

1975
E. Leitz APO-Telyt-R 180mm f/3.4 (West Germany): first apochromatic lens for consumer cameras (Leicaflex series SLRs).


The refractive index of glass increases from red to blue of the light spectrum (color dispersion). Blue is focused closer to the lens than red causing rainbow-like color fringing (chromatic aberration). Most photographic camera lenses are achromatically corrected to bring blue and yellow to a common focus – leaving large residual red and green chromatic aberrations that degrades image sharpness; especially severe in long focus or telephoto lenses. If red, green and blue are brought to a common focus (plus other aberration corrections) with very little residual aberration, the lens is called apochromatic.

-------

tf
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2