[Leica] Leica v. Canon zoom lens comment - Thank you

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

Hi Robert,

Thanks for pointing that out.  I agree that tests point to how well an optic
may perform but its the user that determines if it meets their own criteria.

One comment, Canon's newer lens is the 70-200 F2.8L, unfortunately is rates
a 4.1 vs. the older 80-200 F2.8L which rated slightly better at 4.2 is on
par with the Leica 80-200 F4 Vario-Elmar, which incidentally  I verified
with Leica as being made in Japan by Kyocera.  I didn;t want to risk the
flames having been burned so often.  

BTW, adding to your reference "who needs Velvia," last year when I was in
India, I was shooting in Agra (city of the Taj Mahal) and I had Velvia
loaded when I arrived at the Taj Mahal around 10 AM.  It was an overcast day
unfortunately, but as I was looking at the Taj someone was looking over me
because the sun peaked out for only about 2 minutes illuminating the white
Taj.  I had 2 cameras with me.  The Velvia shots came out beautiful except
it reproduced the white Taj much warmer than it appeared (Velvia does this
to white making them green/grayish) and looking as if it were dirty white.
The other camera loaded with print film showed the Taj as it should look,
beautifully white. Wish I had Agfa RSX loaded in the camera instead of
Velvia that day.  I know for fact it produces whites as white not off-white
as with Fuji and Kodak Ektachrome.

Peter K


- -----Original Message-----
From: Robert G. Stevens [mailto:robsteve@istar.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 8:47 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] Leica zoom lens test


Peter:
In regards to the Leica Telephoto zooms, you may have mistakenly looked up
the older Leica 70-210 which was Minolta made.  It was a fine lens, but the
new design is much better.  The old 70-210 rated a score of 3.3, while the
newer 80-200 rates at 4.2.  The 4.2 rating is better than Canon's 70-200
2.8 lens and on par with Canon's new 80-200L lens.  It also surpasses the
Nikkors which only rated 4.0.  This would make the Leica a fine performer
even though it is a pretty conservative F4 lens.  Even the older 70-210
Minolta made lens rated pretty high amongst its peers if you exclude the
2.8 lenses.

If the Leica's lowly 80-200 F4 can best or match the best from the
competition, I imagine the 70-180 would probably trounce them with a rating
in the 4.4 to 4.5 range.  If you read Leica's literature, they tend to rate
their lenses in the descriptions.  For example in Leica's latest
literature, they make no mention of the optical qualities of the 28-70, but
say it is easy and pleasant to use.  The description of the 80-200 F4 says
it offers good to very good imaging quality.  While they describe their 100
APO macro as outstanding imaging performance.  This 100 APO macro rated 4.5
at photodo.  All we need is the translation of these terms to a grading
scale.

This all brings us back to the validity of ratings compared to use in the
field.  I have seen a series of slides taken in China with the 28-70 that
definately had the Leica look to them.  They were contrasty and sharp, with
great colours.  As I have said before, who needs Velvia, when you have
Leica glass to provide the saturation and contrast?
 
Regards,

Robert


 At 07:47 AM 3/2/99 -0800, you wrote:
>I checked Photodo and it appears that the lens is the 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
which
>I believe is made by Sigma.  Interesting to note that this lens and the
>70-200 F4 whicg I believe is a Kyocera made lens, both test below the Leica
>made lenses.  As Mr. Spock would say, "..Fascinating."
>
>Peter K
>SD dujour
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric Welch [mailto:ewelch@ponyexpress.net]
>Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 8:23 PM
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Leica] LUG, Leica culture, lens testing and No BS
>
>
>At 07:29 PM 3/1/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>Take a look at the latest
>>Photodo.com test of the 28-70.
>
>Are you talking about the Leica 28-70 made by Sigma?
>
>Eric Welch
>St. Joseph, MO
>http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch
>
>Computers can never replace human stupidity
>
>
>
>