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 Alan, It's good to know that these lenses aren't on par with Leica glass: I always wondered if the Canon L series was a good runner up. And I will keep my MP ofcourse: I might be a bit foolish, but not crazy... ;-) Cheers, Philippe Op 11-feb-07, om 00:22 heeft Alan Magayne-Roshak het volgende geschreven: >> Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 >> From: Philippe Orlent <philippe.orlent@pandora.be> >> Subject: [Leica] not entirely OT: the recurrent dilemma > >> I'll go the Canon 5D route, and I have almost decided on lenses, too. > >> 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? >> >> Other -and wise(r)- suggestions? >> Thanks, >> Philippe > ...................................................................... > ......... > This isn't a suggestion, but more of an account of my experience. > I'm sure > I'm part of a very small minority (of one?) with my preferences. > > FWIW: > I use Canon 1D, 1D MkII, and 1Ds at work. The 70-200mm f2.8 IS > lens is my > favorite. It is sharp wide open, and has that stabilizer, although > I use > it on a monopod 90% of the time. It must be tough, too. I slipped > on a > wet patch in a building lobby, and this lens, mounted on a 1D and > monopod, > slammed down onto the floor. I was sure it would need repair, but it > tested out as good as ever. I think the lens hood took most of the > force. > My second favorite lens is the 85mm f1.8, third is the 50mm f1.8. > > We have the 28-70mm f2.8L lens and the 16-35mm f2.8L. These don't > satisfy > me as much as the 70-200. I always counted on being able to use > Leica, > Nikon, or even my Olympus lenses wide open, but when I try that > with these > Canon wide zooms, I get soft images, especially off center. Even > stopped > down to 4.5 or 5.6 they don't give the crispness I want. To be > fair, maybe > it's my technique. I have never been comfortable with autofocus, > even with > the film Canons, and the screens are not anywhere near as suitable for > manual focusing as the ones in Nikon F2's and F3's for example, so > I have > to rely on AF. > > Maybe these cameras sense that I'm an RF kind of guy. I think I've > gotten a > greater percentage of out-of-focus pictures since our lab went to AF > cameras. Before this I thought nothing of shooting at f/2, and got > great > results with those prime lenses and bright screens, or with my Leicas. > > Strangely, since I like fast lenses, I seem to have gotten pleasing > results > with our bargain lens, the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS. It's sometimes > slow to > focus, but at the tele settings even the wide-open f5.6 aperture > seemed to > give better results than I'd expected. > > Partly because I have to haul these big lenses and bodies around > all week, > I look forward to getting away from them on my time, so getting rid > of M > equipment is foreign to me. It's just such a pleasure to pick up > an M or > other small camera. I know the 5D is smaller than the 1D, etc. but it > still is large compared to an M or OM-2. If I were ever to go > digital, I'd > probably would want to save money and bulk by getting just prime > lenses. > > Long winded Alan > > Alan Magayne-Roshak > Senior Photographer > Photo Services > Univ. of Wis.- Milwaukee > Information & Media Technologies > amr3@uwm.edu > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Alan+Magayne-Roshak/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >