180-200mm for A7r

[ThomasZ]

Hi all,

I'm looking for a lens in the range from 180-200mm. My primary interest is sharpness. I do not need a fast lens, I'm a landscape shooter. Weight is an issue for me. Since I already have the 105/2.5 AI-Nikkor and the Novoflex adapter, I would prefer a manual Nikkor. I don't want a zoom.

I've read good reviews about the AIs 180 2.8 ED Nikkor. Do you have an opinion about this lens?
Or are there better options for me?

Thomas

 

[mlynds]

Hi, Ive been using a the nikon 180mm 2.8 ed ais on my a7 as my telephoto lens along with a 2x nikon teleconveter when I need a bit extra reach.

Ive been happy with results from it, wide open there's a bit of softness but stopped down a bit and when focused accurately I get good sharpness all over. it is quite sizeable on the a7 but I've found it alright handheld, hardest parts getting focus spot on, especially with the teleconverter.

I'll eventually get the fe 70-200 but when I can afford it (which probably won't be any time soon) but the nikon is doing the job for now.

 

[ThomasZ]

Anyone using the Leica APO-Telyt 180/3.4? The lens seems to be quite good but the ebay price is twice as much as the Nikkor.

 

[DigitalGreaseMonkey]

Anyone using the Leica APO-Telyt 180/3.4? The lens seems to be quite good but the ebay price is twice as much as the Nikkor.

I have the 180 3.4, 135 2.8, 90 2.0 and 2.8 and 50 2.0

I also have the Nikon 135 2.0 AIS and 105 2.5 AIS.

Years ago I had the Nikon 180 2.8.

I would say, if you are doing black and white work, you would probably not see any meaningful difference. If you are doing color work, you will probably notice the different color rendition between the two brands (or not, depending upon how critical you are of such things.)

I have come to appreciate (obsess) over the renditions of the Leica R lenses. It will be different from your Nikons, but you may not care.

My decision process began with scouring the web for examples of photos from both lenses. If you look at enough examples, you begin to gather a general impression that goes beyond individual photographer styles and even camera brands. I then brought in a sample lens to try out myself, and sure enough, it gave me the signature that I had seen in many other samples on-line.

The down-side to the 180 3.4 is the very long minimum focusing distance. This lens was intended for distance use. I get around this by using two adapters. A Leica R to M adapter and an M to E adapter with a close focus helicoid. This lets me focus much closer.

Long way around, but I like the 180 3.4 very much. You, however, may want to stay with the Nikon brand due to the color rendition matching your other lenses. In essence, the old saying about the composition being paramount applies. I, however, love to obsess over subtleties that the average civilian will not see.

Best regards,
DGM

 

[ThomasZ]

Thanks for your thoughts, DGM.
I'm following your advice and stay with the Nikkors. I've just ordered a 180/2.8 ED AIS Nikkor. I hope it will not disappoint my CSO (corner sharpness obsession).

 

[DigitalGreaseMonkey]

Thanks for your thoughts, DGM.
I'm following your advice and stay with the Nikkors. I've just ordered a 180/2.8 ED AIS Nikkor. I hope it will not disappoint my CSO (corner sharpness obsession).

I suspect you will be happy. In the unlikely event that you are not happy with the AIS version, the later Autofocus version is reputed to be a bit sharper (the AF version was the one I had). There is also the sample variation variable to contend with, but for landscape work, you will most likely be stopping down the lens anyway. I found that most lenses, when stopped down a couple of stops, are more than acceptably sharp.

I hope all goes well.

Best regards,
DGM

 

[Glina]

Photozone tested the Nikkor 180mm/2.8 ED, as well as the Minolta 200mm/2.8 APO G.
Both did fine, but Minolta better.
Nikkor AF 180mm f/2.8 D ED (FX) - Review / Test Report
Minolta AF 200mm f/2.8 APO G HS - Review / Lab Test

I own both the Minolta and a Leica APO Telyt-R 180mm/3.4. Both easily outresolve the A7 and both have outstanding color, although not identical. Leica's weak spot is vignetting. Minolta's are LoCa's wide open.

They weight pretty much the same, but Minolta is more bulky as it is a F2.8 lens. Minolta has very fast autofocus with the LA-EA4 adapter and it's not very well suited for manual focus operation (short focus throw, ring small and not damped).

In the grand scheme of things, I would say there are more advantages to the Minolta, but the Leica is certainly very lovable. I'm really spoiled to have both.

 

[ThomasZ]

I've also seen the outstanding test result of the Minolta at photozone.de and was impressed. But the lens is just too big for me, also I was looking for a manual focus lens. So I was left with the Nikkor and the Leica. 180-200mm is focal length I rarely use, so I decided to go for the much cheaper Nikkor (im comparison to the Leica APO Telyt).

 

[kuau]

I use the Minolta 200/2.8 APO HS with the Sony LAEA3 adaptor, manual focus, but razor sharp and very small lens. On a A77, A99, or the new A77II AF even though old school screw drive, very fast and very accurate AF

 

[Godfrey]

I've owned three Nikkor 180s over the years. The best IMO are the last series Nikkor 180/2.8 ED-IF AI-S and its AF sibling, the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D AF ED-IF.

But they're big and heavy. I sold my last one to a friend and he's loving it.

When I first got involved with Leica R lenses last year, I acquired an Elmarit-R 180/2.8 v1 in the mix. It's a monstrously heavy lens (3lbs) but produces beautiful rendering qualities, and they go relatively inexpensively (I paid about $300 for this one, in minty shape). However, the weight and size will keep me from using it much.

Then I heard about the Elmar-R 180/4; a friend had one in his shop at a reasonable price (about $500). I bought it and was stunned with how small and light it is, and I can't really tell much different between it and the Elmarit f/2.8 in terms of rendering and image quality.

I'm sure the later model APO lenses are even better, but this little Leica R 180/4 lens is my baby. It's lighter than either the 90/2 or 135/2.8, and just barely a touch longer than the 135.

All the photos in this flickr.com album were made with it:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto/sets/72157642815063025/

This is one of my favorites of the set:

Sony A7 + Elmar-R 180mm f/4​

Sometimes less is indeed more. ;-)

G

 

[philip_pj]

Since we branched out from Nikon, let me suggest the Voigtlander 180/4 APO Lanthar SL. Purists argue about some aspects of it, but my word it makes nice photos. CV really need to make more of them, as the 2nd hand prices are quite silly at times.

Here is a PZ test, note how small it looks on a D200:

Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 180mm f/4 SL - Review / Test Report

485 grams, 9/7 design, 49mm filters. They would sell loads to a7/r users.

 

[Godfrey]

Here are the two Leica R 180mm lenses fitted on the A7:

Note that the 180/2.8 is mounted to the tripod with its own foot; the 180/4 does not have tripod foot, I'm using the Novoflex ASTAT/NEX tripod mount with that one.

G

 

[philip_pj]

It's quite sad many of the great tele lenses are so large - like the huge R telezooms and my (as yet unused on the a7r) converted to A mount Contax 100-300. I reckon one I could get interested in for travel - for a manual tele is the smallish and lightish (680g) Contax 80-200/4.

Nice images, thanx Godfrey for the info, both look very good considering the diminutive size of the a7/r, and the hood size.

 

[fotoingo]

Bought a Canon nFD 200mm f2.8 some weeks ago for one hundred bucks in nice condition.

@ 2.8 it has some glow but @ f4 it is not tooo bad ;-) (means it´s sharp)

Maybe give it a try ?

 

[ThomasZ]

I've already got the AIS Nikkor 180mm 2.8 ED. It performs similar to the current 70-200 F4 zoom, which is enough for me. I really like the look and feel of it. The old lenses are so beautifully build, I really love to use them again. The new AF-S Nikkors feel souless in comparison.

This is how it looks:

Now my quest for manual lenses continues. The next step is to find a decent 35, preferably in Nikon mount.

 

[Godfrey]

Nice, I hope you enjoy it.

Can't go wrong with either the Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI-S or Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AI-S. I had both in the past, and would buy either again in a heart beat. (Since I'm focusing on Leica R lenses now, I acquired the Summicron-R 35/2 ... a lovely lens, if a tad on the pricey side.)

G

 

[Mark K]

The old Minolta 200/2.8 HS is also a very sharp lens. With LeA3 or LEA4, you can use the metering as well as autofocus.

 

[Stefan Steib]

The old Canon FD 4/200 Macro.
one of the sharpest lenses I ever had.
Shows in the prices, good ones are still traded 300€ and up.
Goes to 1:1 directly and with the original clamp it is rockstable.
No shutter problem with the A7R, not on closeup nor on infinity.

Highly recommended !

Greetings from Germany
Stefan

 

[k-hawinkler]

I've already got the AIS Nikkor 180mm 2.8 ED. It performs similar to the current 70-200 F4 zoom, which is enough for me. I really like the look and feel of it. The old lenses are so beautifully build, I really love to use them again. The new AF-S Nikkors feel souless in comparison.

This is how it looks:

Now my quest for manual lenses continues. The next step is to find a decent 35, preferably in Nikon mount.

Very nice!

I have moved the downward pointing Novoflex tightening pin to the other side and pointing up. That way it doesn't interfere with your fingers when gripping the camera. BTW, older Novoflex collars came that way.

I like the Minolta MD 24-35/3.5 lens.
It's small, inexpensive and works well on the A7R.

I also have the Leica Vario-R 28-90/2.8-4.5 lens.
That's a beauty but prices for it have gone way up.

 

[Chuck Jones]

I'll put in a plug for the old Canon FD 70-210mm f/4 Zoom. Not too big, GREAT image quality on the A7R, peanuts to buy Cheap, and a wonderful drawing signature.