Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/06/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Fri 5th (OK I know I'm a bit behind!), Eric Welch wrote: >... I hear the Zeiss 300 2.8 Tele > APO Tessar is a tad better than the 280 2.8, but not by much! The Canon 300 > 2.8 is right between them. ... I take it the Canon 300/2.8 is known to be a bit special then? I was looking at the Canon EF L lens brochure recently, and I was interested in Canon's mtf graphs. The 300/2.8 is good, undoubtedly, but it and all the other L lenses seem to pale by comparison to the 180/3.5 Macro lens. Has anybody used this lens and compared it to the equivalent focal lengths in Leica's R range? Is it really as exceptional as these graphs would indicate? I currently own a Leica M system, and a Canon EOS system (no Leica R), and I use the EOS system for areas in which the M struggles, such as longer teles and macros, so this information would be particularly pertinent to me. Thanks, Simon.