Leica 180/2 vs. Nikon 200/2 VR

[carstenw]

This shot was done to examine CA. Apart from a very teensy amount of green in the boke on the edges of the chrome on the Leica shot, I see nothing to be concerned about from either lens. An excellent result.

 

[carstenw]

Comparing shadows and highlights, as well as foreground and background boke. The Nikkor is typically slightly blue, and in this shot, I was having a hell of a time getting it to focus on the darker leaves in the centre. It wanted to focus on the brighter leaves in the background. The Leica focused correctly the first time. AF is not always a win. There is a little more detail in the highlights on the Leica shot, otherwise the shots are very similar.

 

[carstenw]

Well, that's all for today. The differences are puny in most cases, at least those seen in the images. I could imagine someone preferring one lens or the other for boke, but the other differences are equalizable in post.

The main difference, as mentioned, is in the handling. The Nikon is a larger lens, and the shape is different. Someone with big hands might prefer the Nikon, but I prefer the Leica's shape. The AF and VR are also notable differences, for some, but not for my work.

I am hoping to find someone willing to let me do some portraits and post the results here, but I don't have any models in my circle of friends, so I might be out of luck. I will do the tests anyway, but may have to just write about it here. I am expecting the Leica's near limit of 1.5m instead of 2m to be the only notable difference, and am curious if manual focus loses badly to auto-focus, but other than that, I expect no surprises.

I will probably sell the Nikon in a week or so. I just want to try making portraits first, but unless the Leica totally sucks, my conclusion is already done. For my purposes, the smaller size and manual focus are preferable.

 

[Paratom]

Hi Carsten,
even though I dont see much difference I have to say overall I very slightly prefer the Leica images having little more pop and little more 3D-look from the images you posted.
If you dont need AF and if you prefer the handling of the Leica than I think you make the right decision.
By the way you know my choice for this focal length: the 70-200VRII
Tom

Well, that's all for today. The differences are puny in most cases, at least those seen in the images. I could imagine someone preferring one lens or the other for boke, but the other differences are equalizable in post.

The main difference, as mentioned, is in the handling. The Nikon is a larger lens, and the shape is different. Someone with big hands might prefer the Nikon, but I prefer the Leica's shape. The AF and VR are also notable differences, for some, but not for my work.

I am hoping to find someone willing to let me do some portraits and post the results here, but I don't have any models in my circle of friends, so I might be out of luck. I will do the tests anyway, but may have to just write about it here. I am expecting the Leica's near limit of 1.5m instead of 2m to be the only notable difference, and am curious if manual focus loses badly to auto-focus, but other than that, I expect no surprises.

I will probably sell the Nikon in a week or so. I just want to try making portraits first, but unless the Leica totally sucks, my conclusion is already done. For my purposes, the smaller size and manual focus are preferable.

 

[carstenw]

Hehe, have you compared the 70-200 VRII against the Leica I have a Contax 80-200/4 which I quite like, for when I need the smaller size. I just find that I use AF less and less, and so I am strongly considering cutting back to one or two AF lenses, perhaps Sigma 50/1.4 and Nikkor 24-70/2.8.

Did you ever try to compare the Nikkor 200/2 VR and the Leica 180/2, or did you only use them on the D3x and DMR respectively? Were you ever aware of any significant optical or IQ differences?

These lenses are so close, both truly excellent. The Nikon is just a fair amount larger.

 

[mpmendenhall]

Hi Carsten,
although you've played down the differences in your posts, I agree with t_streng in generally preferring the Leica versions. The contrast difference on the tree trunk image is actually rather stark, and I think gives many of the Leica images a decent edge in "3D"-ness, with the Nikon left looking a bit flat in comparison. No doubt some of that could be corrected in post. The Nikon seems to have generally smoother background bokeh, but I personally prefer the bit of extra "character" in the Leica backgrounds that gives a better sense of depth even for objects well behind the focal plane (instead of flattening everything into a uniformly blurred background). It would be interesting to see a direct comparison against the Canon 200/1.8 or 2, since I think this is the lens that Brainiac (a real "3D connoisseur") ended up preferring after comparing many of the 200/2-ish variants.

 

[carstenw]

Yes, I agree that I prefer the Leica slightly, but I don't think the differences are big enough to cause the decision to sway either way, unless everything else was an absolute tie. The Nikon's smoother boke, slight sharpness edge and the AF and VR could just as easily sway the decision the other way.

Richard preferred the 200/1.8L because of its greater 3D, IIRC. He also tried the Contax 200/2, but this lens is older and not as good as these newer lenses. He never tried the Nikons, to my knowledge, being a Canon fiend. He did post some comparison shots on FM, although never of the same subjects, and I was never able to see a significant difference, without the possibility of doing a direct comparison.

 

[Paratom]

Hehe, have you compared the 70-200 VRII against the Leica I have a Contax 80-200/4 which I quite like, for when I need the smaller size. I just find that I use AF less and less, and so I am strongly considering cutting back to one or two AF lenses, perhaps Sigma 50/1.4 and Nikkor 24-70/2.8.

Did you ever try to compare the Nikkor 200/2 VR and the Leica 180/2, or did you only use them on the DMR and D3x respectively? Were you ever aware of any significant optical or IQ differences?

These lenses are so close, both truly excellent. The Nikon is just a fair amount larger.

No,
I haver never compared the 70-200II to the Leica.
I had the Leica for the DMR - so when I sold the DMR and the Leica lenses and just had Nikon as DSLR I wanted the 200/2.0. The idea was to have a 200/2.0 and 300/2.8 and 400/4.0 all i one lens (with TC).
I never compared it to the Leica but I was surprized how good the Nikon is even wide open - when I got it.

I also had the 70-200VRI before but wasnt happy so sold it for primes. The 70-200VRII seems much better for me (contrast and sharpness) than the vers.1 so I didnt feel anymore that it was worth to go primes in this range.

No doubt the 180 Leica is better optically (and faster), but the 70-200 is surprizingly good.
Now if I didnt have the S2 for the times I want "super duper IQ" I might have kept either the Nikon 200/2.0 or the Leica 180/2.0
So I understand your decission.
The only thing I see is that if you say you dont want to use it for portraits and not for action that its a limited choice of subjects for such an expensive lens.
Cheers, Tom

 

[carstenw]

I *will* use it for portraits, but probably not much for action. The primary use will be neither though, although since it fits in my shoulder bag, I suspect I will carry it more and find new uses for it.

 

[Paratom]

I *will* use it for portraits, but probably not much for action. The primary use will be neither though, although since it fits in my shoulder bag, I suspect I will carry it more and find new uses for it.

Do you use it with Leitax?

 

[carstenw]

Yes, and a Dandelion chip, but the first one didn't work, and I didn't install the replacement yet, although it is here. The Leitax mount is super-nice, and mounts smoother than many of my OEM mounts.

 

[jjphoto]

It's probably worth trying to get a polarising filter but it all depends on the kind of work you do. I tend not to use mine, because I normally use the Cron for shooting people, but it's there if I need it. I paid over $600 for the filter, but that was new. Mind you I had the lens for well over 10 years before I finally bought the filter, so clearly it's not a 'must have' item.

Not sure how you would even get one now but I suppose it doesn't matter to me either.

JJ

 

[carstenw]

I bought a nice 77mm polarizer filter when I first got into DSLR photography. I used it in my film days, so I figured I would need it again. In fact, I never really used it. At $600 (or even somewhat less than that), I think I will wait with the purchase until I really need it

 

[mpmendenhall]

If you did need a CPol for the 180/2, a B+W 105mm KSM CPol is "only" $200; add a 100mm->105mm step up ring, and you're all set for a lot less than $600 (though this probably wouldn't play well with the built-in hood).

 

[carstenw]

That's a lot of glass, 105mm! I'll keep my eye open for a good deal.

 

[carstenw]

Nikon for sale: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30087

 

[carstenw]

I have traded my Nikon 200/2 VR for a 24-70 and 70-200 VRII, so at this point the comparison will stop, at least from my side. Feel free to post images from any other comparable lenses here. I will post the odd shot from the 180/2.

 

[williamkazak]

Wow. A rich mans hobby here. No wonder Nikon sells the 180mm F2.8 AFD; compact, built in hood, AF, less expensive than these toys! Thanks for the examples.

 

[freaklikeme]

Interesting stuff, Carsten. I do think the focal length difference and slightly higher contrast of the Leica play significantly with the bokeh. There would still be differences with an equalized FOV, but I think they the overall visual impact would be reduced to the point of insignificance.

Overall, it's nice to see the big guns catching up with a long-discontinued lens.:clap:

 

[thrice]

Wow. A passionate mans hobby here.

There, I fixed it for you.
This is not the forum for complaining about the price of gear.
I'm not a doctor of any kind, nor do I earn 6 figures yet I have a camera/lens collection that makes many amateurs blush.