Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/01/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Doug, I have your prints made with Leica, I have John Shaw's prints made with Nikon, and I have Art Morris' prints made with Canon, and I cant tell the difference at the A3-A4 sizes, I really dont understand how anybody can, except by pixel peeping. I think you just use what suits you in handling - the results are pretty much the same. As far as Nikon lenses go (I know nothing about Canon), I think the following would be very close to or exceed Leica R standards, comparing like to like: 1. 85mm f1.4 2. 180mm f2.8 3. Recent lenses in the 70/80-200 zoom range 4. 200-400 f4 5. Most lenses over 300mm if they are stopped down to the Leica R equivalent Cheers Jayanand On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:34 AM, <wildlightphoto@earthlink.net> wrote: > Chris Williams > > > ... I know some of my prime Nikon lenses give Leica a run. > > No disrespect intended, but every time I've taken remarks like this at face > value (be it Nikon or Canon) I've been disappointed. There may be certain > aspects of the (N, C) lens that rival the performance of a comparable Leica > lens but the total package isn't there. It might be color quality, > distortion, flare, bokeh, handling... something has always been missing. > > Doug Herr > Birdman of Sacramento > http://www.wildlightphoto.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >