RE: [Leica] long lens tests

["Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>]

Robert,

You are a gentleman and I appreciate your answer.  I have no doubt that it
focuses better manually, after all it is a manual focus lens while the Canon
is designed primarily for AF and to do this may have to compromise something
to achieve focusing speed.  I don't know though since I am not a lens
designer.
Now before the flames come out form the other LUGs, I am not saying anything
bad about the Leica in what I have said.  There is a Canon 400mm F2.8L Model
II that would be interesting to test.  Photodo tested it and they indicated
it was better than other 400mm but did not test the Leica which may prove
better still.  
I am surprised that the Leica is less expensive as a demo than the Canon.
Wonder why?  Supply and demand perhaps?  If the Canon is well used then
perhaps many are using it, as to the Leica probably, fewer just a guess.
Thanks again.

Peter K

Peter K

> ----------
> From: 	Robert G. Stevens[SMTP:robsteve@istar.ca]
> Reply To: 	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Sent: 	Saturday, February 20, 1999 3:40 PM
> To: 	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: 	RE: [Leica] long lens tests
> 
> Peter:
> 
> I like the RSX 100 too.  In Canada it is $63 for a 100 foot roll or about
> $42 USD.  I have found though it is not sharp enough for things where you
> need fine detail such as bird photography.  I am going to try the new RSX
> and if it has the Tgrain like sharpness I will probably buy some 100 foot
> rolls of it.  You are right about the great colour of the RSX.  Everybody
> that tries it comments on its good colour.  I use it almost exclusively
> for
> sports as it is so cheap, I can shoot four of five rolls and not break the
> bank.
> 
> As for the ski shots, I will need to practice some more to get good
> downhill shots.  I have some good of the Snowboards doing the GS the week
> before.  It was overcast though and not as bright as the day of the ski
> racing.  
> 
> I have not compared the Leica 400 to the Canon 400, but the Canon is the
> best of the 300 2.8's with the exception of the Leica which tests better.
> I was just asuming the Leica 400 would show similiar better performance,
> but all in all there is probably little difference.  I will also remind
> you
> that I got my 400 2.8 as a Leica Canada Demo, and it was cheaper than
> buying a new Canon 400 by about the cost of an R8!  Mine was in like new
> condition as it was only used in trade shows, unlike Canon Demos that look
> like they have been through a war.
> 
> In regards to handling, I showed my 400 to a photograper that had used a
> Canon 400 2.8 for two weeks in Ding Darling and he said the Leica focused
> more precisely then the Canon in Manual.  What he said is the canon had
> some drive line lash to it while with the Leica it snaped into focus and
> stayed there when you let go of the focusing ring.  I assume the Leica
> uses
> a traditional helicoil system while the canon uses some other system that
> make it posible to use variable focusing rates in manual.  The Leica is
> also lighter and focuses closer.
> 
> My lens is version 11260 ,prior to the modular sytem.  A picture of it and
> my friend George looking through it taken with a Tamron 17mm lens is
> below.
>  The wide angle distorts the scale a bit, but it is an R7 mounted to it.
> 
> http://home.iSTAR.ca/~robsteve/photography/images/George-Ghiz.jpg
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Robert
> 
>  
> 
> 
> At 02:43 PM 2/20/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >Robert,
> >
> >Thank you for taking the time you did to explain your comment and show me
> >the photos.  Your skis shots are good.  Judging by the shadows it was
> late
> >in the day (I am assuming), and the sidelighting adds to the contrast and
> >apparent sharpness of the image.  This really makes the lens and images
> >standout.  I am sure the Leica 400mm F2.8 is a fine lens, I am not
> doubting
> >that, I just commented on the fact of what appeared to be a comparison of
> a
> >Leica lens with a Canon lens, the latter of which may not have been
> actually
> >used, therefore the comparison was moot.
> >
> >BTW, Personally I like Agfa RSX films, whites are white not gray as with
> >Velvia.  The new RXS II is even better.
> >
> >Peter K
> >
> >
> >
> >Peter K
> >
> >
> >
> >
>