Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/05/10[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
adrian bradshaw wrote: >Ben (....) wrote, >which Canon lens would you compare to Leica's 50s by way of an obscure and >exotic example? The 50/1.8, 1.4 and 2.5 are all flimsy and all have IME play >in the focussing ring. But the 50/1.0 has a passable focussing ring I grant >you:) Yeah, why not the 50/1.0. It's in the same price bracket. But there is another option - The manual focus Canon 45/2.8. Oh, and you get tilt/shift thrown in for free. >I would agree that the L series generally have better focussing feel >on MF but the L series has a number of important omissions which mean that >one is inevitably left to compare Leica fixed focal lengths to 'budget' >Canons from the 15mm fisheye through to 100mm. Serious omissions? Well there are basicly the same number of Canon L lenses as Leica R lenses. Therefore if there are omissions on the Canon side there must be at least as many omissions on the Leica side. >Let's not be silly - by 'ploy' I meant a marketing ploy not a covert attempt >to destroy the world as we know it. I for one had no problem focussing with >my pre-AF Nikons Perhaps, but then Nikon lost enormous market share to Canon purely on the basis of AF. It's hard to argue that an advancement that people clearly want is a "ploy".