[Leica] Leica apo 135mm M v. Canon 70-200 f/4 L zoom at 200mm with Canon 2x extender

[Paul Roark]

Frank Filippone via LUG <lug at leica-users.org> wrote:

> Paul, can you elaborate on the comparison?  Different focal lengths produce
> different areas of interest.


Both areas were centered (approximately) in their optical fields.  The
Leica, off axis, would probably have had a (more) major advantage over the
Canon.


> Do you blow up the Leica image in LR or other
> so that the comparison shows the same area of interest?
>

I just used Photoshop, and it's just the monitor view that was enlarged.
You can see the PS degree of image enlargement in the upper left of each
image border.


> Did you put the 2x converter on the Leica ...


No, I don't have any extender for the Leica on a Sony.  The Canon extender
fit the Canon zoom, and then a Canon to Sony adapter allowed me to put the
combination on the Sony.


> ... With converter and lens  set at 135?
>

It would be even worse for the Canon.


> What about the corners?
>

Again, the comparison would be even worse for the Canon.  The zoom is
relatively soft off axis.  The Leica apo is very good across the field.

But if anyone wants a Canon 70-200 f/4 L zoom, it's for sale and will soon
be on eBay.

Paul


> On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 1:12 PM Paul Roark via LUG <lug at leica-users.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I already knew the Leica 135 apo could seem more detail than the Canon L
> > series 70-200mm zoom at 200mm.  What about the Canon zoom at 200mm with a
> > Canon 2x extender?  I just tried both on my Sony a7c, focused on a
> distant
> > hilltop.
> >
> > See https://www.paulroark.com/Canon-zoom-v-Leica-apo135.JPG .
> >
> > Close, and no comparison on a weight & size adjusted basis.
> >
> > For what it's worth,
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>