Stuart Richardson
Active member
I know I will get flak for this, but I think the 180/2 is a nonsensical lens choice unless you make a living shooting concerts at night from the 20th row on a tripod. The 180/2.8 APO is dramatically cheaper, dramatically smaller, dramatically lighter, and has essentially the same performance, only one stop slower. Even Erwin Puts admits this: http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/lenses/page88.html
He characterizes the 180/2 as a "tripod only lens". He also says, "The 2.8/180APO is on the same level of image performance if not better." While he is many things, he is trustworthy when it comes to the technical characteristics of Leica lenses. The 180/2.8 APO is just so much more practical. For all the extra expense, size, weight and detrimental effect on handheld use, all you get is another stop. BAD DECISION.
Ok, back under the bridge...
He characterizes the 180/2 as a "tripod only lens". He also says, "The 2.8/180APO is on the same level of image performance if not better." While he is many things, he is trustworthy when it comes to the technical characteristics of Leica lenses. The 180/2.8 APO is just so much more practical. For all the extra expense, size, weight and detrimental effect on handheld use, all you get is another stop. BAD DECISION.
Ok, back under the bridge...