Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Philippe, I am late to this party, but anyway...you know my style, since you always look at my PAWs. At this time, I have the following Canon L lenses: 2.8/16-35mm: I must have a good copy, since I am quite pleased with the image quality 1.4/35mm: superb lens, comes close to the Summilux; most of my available darkness images are made with this lens 2.8/24-70mm: this is the lens I use most often, simply because of convenience. The quality is good, but it is IMO not on par with the fixed focal length lenses in this range, but then again, that is usually the case with zooms. But the quality is still very good. The lens is big, and it has a weird form factor, since it becomes loooong when you zoom to 24mm. 2/135mm: From the point of view of optical quality, this is probably the best lens I own. It is fully on par with the Leica R lenses I used to own. I recently sold my 2.8/200mm--it was an excellent lens, but I like to keep the outfit small enough to fit into my Domke bag, and so I got a 1.4x teleconverter instead--when I put it on the 135mm, I end up with a 2.8/190mm lens, i.e. almost the same as before, and with a considerably lighter bag. When reading my comments re optical quality, keep in mind that I use a body with a 1.3 sensor crop, so I do not see the imperfections at the very edges of the image circle. Also, the people who have praised the 17-40mm are right--it is an excellent lens, and the choice between it and the 16-35mm depends largely on whether you need the extra stop of the 16-35. I do, but your mileage may very... All of the lenses mentioned will seem big compared with Leica M lenses of similar focal length and aperture, but they really are not bigger than corresponding Leica R lenses. Cheers, Nathan Philippe Orlent 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 > > -- Nathan Wajsman Almere, The Netherlands Opportunistic Image Acquisition General photography: http://www.nathanfoto.com and http://www.greatpix.eu Picture-A-Week: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com Stock photography: http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=wajsman http://myloupe.com/home/found_photographer.php?photographer=507 Prints for sale: http://www.photodeluge.com Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog SUPPORT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUY DANISH PRODUCTS!