Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/01/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Donal: You've hit it exactly. The EF 35 is just a freak. Outside the LUG I'll tell you it's sharper at f2 than the Summicron. It handles very well in high contrast situation, rendering nice open shadows. It's a dream for Velvia with shaded foliage. I can't tell you about flare, though, I've never tried it. You are right about the 180mm. It's the only thing about my Nikons that I miss. I kept an 8008s and the 180 for about six months after I sold the rest of my Nikons. But then I never had it when I wanted it so I sold it too. Canon's 200L is a great lens, but it doesn't have the magic of the 180mm. My lens hall of fame 28mm on the nikon 28Ti EF 35mm 2.0 - I bought it used for $150 50mm summicron-M - Don't shoot B&W without it. 180mm ED Nikkor 50mm for Mamiya 6, perfect detail corner to corner. Ugly Boke, but perfect for landscapes. 120 Makro for the blad 240mm 5.6 Rodenstock. I was shooting jars of preserves, and in the trans under magnification you could see the rosettes from the trapped color on the labels. I even still own some of them. Tom At 08:36 PM 1/25/98 -0800, you wrote: >Thomas Kachadurian wrote: >> >> Dan: >> >> I did some side by side tests of my Canon EF 35mm f2 and my 35mm >> Summicron-M. IT lenses are amazingly similar in almost every respect, (even >> boke), except color balance. You only notice it in neutral grey, like >> conctere, in shadows. The Canon lens makes it look yellow and the Leica >> glass makes it look exactly the color it is. >> >Tom, >Have you tried both into the sun with flare? Or in high contrast >situations? Or near wide open? Or is the 35 Canon a brilliant anomaly >such as Nikon 180mm? > >donal >--- >Donal Philby >San Diego >http://www.donalphilby.com > > >