Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thanks Don, You really simplified it: 17-40 and 70-200 might do perfectly indeed. As for the 35 on my MP: I might go for the Summicron. I love to have the shallow DOF option, but maybe there's not that much difference between 1.4 and 2 after all. Cheers, Philippe Op 11-feb-07, om 04:34 heeft Don Dory het volgende geschreven: > Philippe, > Ah, now you ask a question up my alley. If you don't have to have > the speed > then the 70-200 F4 IS and the 17-40 are far better choices. > Sharper, less > distortion, less weight, faster focus, and less money. If you need > speed > then go for the 70-200 2.8 either IS or not. I still would not go > for the > 16-35, it's quality is too variable sample wise. The 24-70 is a > very good > lens but if you have the previous two lenses then why? As to > speed, the 5D > has a very nice image at 1600 and not too shabby at 3200. > > As to the lens for the M, if you see a little wide then the 35 > ASPH, my > preference is the 1.4 but then I like no dof. However, if you see > less wide > and more to isolating your subject then the 50 Summilux current is > without > peer, absolutely stunning lens on a film or digital camera. > > Cheers and happy snapping. > > Don > don.dory@gmail.com > > On 2/10/07, Philippe Orlent <philippe.orlent@pandora.be> wrote: >> >> Since I won't be buying an M8, and waiting for an M9 -not being sure >> if it will be worth all the bucks, and if it will be full sensor- is >> not really an option, I have some decisions to make. >> Digital has always been a bit on the side: not that I don't have good >> digital cameras, but the ones that I have, have their quirkinesses. >> Until now, that wasn't a problem, because most of the time that I was >> really concentrating on photography, it was still an analog process. >> But the beast of full digital has been roaring in my head for too >> long now. >> So I've come to the conclusion that, to keeps things simple and >> pleasant, digital is the way to go, even if my hearth still tends to >> these mechanical beauties that were made in former eras. >> I'll go the Canon 5D route, and I have almost decided on lenses, too. >> I'm pretty sure that a lot of you switched to or embraced Canon, so >> some first hand experiences would help to smoothen out the 'fear' for >> the steep costs involved. >> >> What are your impressions of the following lenses? >> Canon EF 24-70mm L f2.8 USM >> >> Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM >> >> Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM >> >> And, if you'd only keep one lens on your analog M, which one would >> that be? >> >> I was thinking of selling everything except for one good M body, and >> then buying a Summilux 35 ASPH to glue on it forever. A perfect B&W >> street dedicated machine, so to speak. >> >> Other -and wise(r)- suggestions? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Philippe >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >