Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/05/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>>Do you feel that Leica R lenses have a significantly better feel than, >>for example, a Canon 70-200/f2.8 lens? Just curious. > >Yes. In some ways. Though the Canon is a solid lens for sure, it's the >exception in the Canon line. Most of their wide angle and short tele L >series lenses aren't made that well, let alone the majority of their >lenses. I can't see any difference in the quality between the Canon 70-200L and "Most of their wide angle and short tele L series lenses". If you like the 70-200 I can't see why you would not like, say the Canon 24L. >The mount on Leica R lenses is much more substantial. I don't know what the above statement means, but I sure know it is irrelevant to the argument. If the R mount is more substantial (Gee I wish I knew how), then fine. Whack a couple more electrical contacts on it and implement AF. >That might sound good to you. But the realities of the market have to be >taken into consideration by Leica. First of all, Leica has to produce AF >lenses that meet their standards. Nobody does yet, let alone Leica. >Technology isn't there to meet all of their criterion. Bottom line. If the Leica 70-180/f2.8 lens had the same AF motor and feel as the Canon 70-200L, what would be the problem? You really think you are missing something by having them harder to turn? I don't believe the feel of the Canon lenses is determined by the battery power or motor power available. The natural characteristics of USM motors are... "Holding torque is large. In other words, when the motor is stopped the lens is automatically held in place by a disc brake effect.". I think Canon could provide as much disc brake effect as they want without affecting power needed to turn it. I believe they chose the amount they did purely as a matter of taste. Leica could choose a different amount if they really wanted to. What technology are we missing here? >So Leica can't count on a big conversion happening in quick order to help >pay for the conversion, R&D and other expenses with such an effort. So the >conversion will take some time. That's all we're saying. Not that Leica >won't do it. Just that it will take time, because anybody with a >substantial set of lenses isn't going to want to switch them over all at >once. So the sooner Leica starts the slow change over, the sooner they will stem the tide of potentially obsolete R equipment on the market. I don't think Leica has to ever change over if they don't want to. They have a niche they can probably hold. But they could sell a lot more stuff if they took the best of the AF technology and used it. > Besides, AF isn't THAT important for most photographers. I guess that's why most photographers are using Contax, Olympus and Leica right?