Re: [Leica] Leica 400 2.8 vs Canon 500 f4

[Dave Yoder <leica@home.com>]

I use Canon telephoto lenses at work, they call it "pool" equipment. We've got all
the fast telephoto lenses. My recommendation would depend on what you use it for. If
you shoot sports, go Canon and accept that the image quality won't be as good. Many
of the other photographers at my paper rave about the quality of Canon telephoto
glass, but I've yet to see what they are seeing. It may be sharp, but the other
qualities are missing. But if you are shooting fast-moving objects, the sacrifice is
worth getting most of the moments you're looking for.

Otherwise, the Leica should be better quality by a wide margin, but I haven't tried
the Leica telephoto glass, so I can't say for sure.

Dave Y.

"Gary D. Whalen" wrote:

> This is NOT a troll.
>
> I presently shoot all Leica 35mm (R stystem).  My longest lense is the Leica 280
> f4 and I have the 1.4 converter.  I am very happy with this lense but I want to
> add a longer lense to my setup.
>
> My question?
>
>     The Leica 400 2.8 runs around $11,000.   The new Canon 500IS runs around
> $7,500 plus I would need to buy an EOS 3 to use with the lense for a total cost
> of around $9,000.
>
>     My question to anyone with experience with these systems is do I stay with
> all Leica or should I save some money + give myself a 3rd camera body and go with
> the Canon?  My heart says to stay with Leica but I'm wondering if the autofocus
> and lightness (Canon 500 weighs around 7lbs while the Leica 400 weighs almost
> 13lbs.) make a huge difference.
>
>     Has anyone seen "side-by-side" comparisons of 35mm transparencies shot with
> Leica long lenses vs. Canon long lenses?   I want to be able to make Ilfochromes
> out of selected slides up to size 16 x 20.  I can do that with my Leica lenses so
> far but am not sure about the Canon stuff.
>
>     Thanks for your help.
>
>     Gary