RE: [Leica] More digital comments

["bdcolen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

As you know, Feli, I'm not a Canon shooter. But the primes you site are
said to be truly outstanding. Actually, the lens that keeps getting
mentioned is the 50 1.4, which is said to be a real stunner.

B. D.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Félix
López de Maturana
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:26 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE:[Leica] More digital comments



>I know what you mean...too many people treat their Leicas as cult
objects >rather than simply good tools.  But there is a visible
difference, >depending on which lenses you are comparing.  I don't
bother with testing >lenses, but I can spot the imaging characteristics
of certain specific >ones.  As an example, I often will have a mixed bag
of images from a shoot >done with the 16 or 17-35 f2.8L Canon EF lenses
and the Elmarit 21 ASPH and >Summilux 35 ASPH.  Anyone who cannot spot
the differences between these >three lenses must have a glass eye, as
the differences are obvious:
>
>The 16/17-35s will exhibit markedly lower contrast, color saturation,
and >sharpness than the Elmarit or Summilux, especially at large
apertures.  The >difference in backlit situations is even more obvious
because the 16/17-35 >images will have alot of flare (esp 16-35) and
color fringing (esp 17-35) >in areas of extremely high contrast.  Edges
and corners with the 16/17-35 >will have a smeared appearance.  At 21mm,
the EF 16/17-35s exhibit severe >barrel distortion.  I can often spot an
image taken with the 16/17-35.  On >the other hand, if you are shooting
in a fast moving situation, with crowds >all around, there is nothing
like the 16/17-35!

Jim

Your mail is quite correct but, IMHO, you have had to compare the EF
16/17-35 with his true competitor in the Leica field, the Vario Elmar
21-35. I've done but superficially as last months I do not shoot but
digital. Mi first feeling is that overall the Vario Elmar is a better
zoom, but not so much and 16 is much wider than 21. I've tried to use
it, unsuccessfully in my 1Ds. Finally I'm using, obviously, the Vario
Elmar in the R8 and the 16-35 in the EOS 1v/1Ds.

The right comparison could be too among the 35 ASPH and the EF 35 1.4.
But with SRL cameras I shoot practically only with zooms. A matter of
laziness. Some Canon EF lenses as 24 1.4, 35 1.4 50 1 and 85 1.2 may be
not worse than equivalent Leica R lenses. In my experience only the M
lenses are unbeatable and the second in this race are the Contax G
lenses. But I do not own the jewels like Leica 35-70 2.8, 70-180 2.8,
100 macro and all APO Teles. May be some day I get all of them and can
compare...But my horizon is digital and Leica is going too slow.

Felix



- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html