Re: [Leica] shall I compare thee to a Summilux? :)

[Ben <ben@teco.net>]

adrian bradshaw wrote:
> 
> Ben (...) wrote-
> 
> >Yeah, why not the 50/1.0. It's in the same price bracket. But there is
> >another option - The manual focus Canon 45/2.8. Oh, and you get
> >tilt/shift thrown in for free.
> >
> Well of it is unfair to compare zooms with primes then is it not unfair (or
> at least unrealistic) to compare a 50/1.0 or 45 TS-E with a leica 50/1.4?

Why? Not for me anyway. The only disadvantage is weight which doesn't
worry me, and the Leicas are way over-weight for what they are anyway. I
don't regard the 50/1 as specialist apart from the price, but then the
price is a bargain by Leica standards anyway.

> Both former lenses are specialist optics designed for a very different set
> of applications to the 50/1.4

The 50/1 is different how?

> besides they are huge and heavy. You might
> just as well compare a Leica $2500 lens with a Hasselblad or Mamiya lens if
> price point and image quality are the criteria (the weight is not so
> different either).

That's right, the price/weight isn't so different. So why 35mm? I would
have thought largely because you have the option of much wider
apertures. In that case the Hasselblad option is not an option.

> The serious omissions are of standard focal length and aperture lenses built
> to professional standards - e.g. between super wide (say 17mm) and 100mm. 

Well where are the fast Leica lenses? At least you can get the lighter
non-L Canons if you have an unhealthy aversion to weight, but how to get
some fast glass for Leica?

Well, let's take 135mm. The Canon 135L is the same weight as the Leica,
a full stop faster, half the price and the same rating on Chasseurs.

Or we'll go to super-wide. The Leica 15/3.5 weighs 60% more than the
Canon 14/2.8L, costs twice as much and is 2/3 stop slower. Chasseurs did
not test the Leica but it's unlikely to better the **** of the Canon.

Of course you pick on the 50mm because Canon only make one ring USM 50 -
the 50/1. But I wouldn't accept that there is anything wrong at all with
the manual focusing feel of the non-L ring USM lenses like 85/1.8,
100/2.

> I
> would rather have a 50mm f1.8 built to L standards than the current
> offerings in that focal length which are either too flimsy or too big and
> heavy (and not too sharp either - that 50/1.0).

The 50/1.0 is plenty sharp. It's sharper than the Canon f1.4 in the
centre at all apertures. In my experience it is plenty sharp even at
f1.0 for general purpose photography.

> I do not want a 24/1.4 as
> much as a wide angle with sharp even coverage from corner to corner at
> normal working apertures: none of the Canon wides whether zoom or fixed
> manage to do that consistently or at all.

Why do you say that? Chasseurs says that the Canon 24/1.4 gives only
"slight" light fall-off at f2.8 (<0.4 stop) - the widest aperture of the
Leica. Can the Leica do any better than that?

> Now I admit that the 24/1.4 is
> about the only Canon EF wide I have not tried but the (Canon) published data
> indicates it is not so sharp in the corners (similar to the 17-35).

Chasseurs rates the corner sharpness as "good" at f2.8 and "very good"
at f4. Hardly what you would call "not so sharp", especially at only a
150 grams extra weight, 2 extra stops when you need it and a
considerably cheaper price.

- ----
Mr Judah-"Ben" Hur-Holmes TecoBen MichaelJackson-Ben