RE: [Leica] long lens tests

["Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>]

Ted Grant:

	<snip>Because if you bring that into the conversation, then I guess
I'll have to
> call my buddies at Canon in Toronto and see how soon they can get one to
> me
> or my son, who is fully committed to Canon and uses a 400 2,8 on a regular
> basis shooting international sports.
> 
> So tough life!  I had access to all the Canon lenses made and in
> quantities
> that would make you cry.:)  All I had to do was ask and they turned up,
> great arrangement for free!  Also an opportunity to try Canon for all it's
> worth under all kinds of conditions. I must confess, occaisionaly with
> flash attached. Jeesh I'm never going to live that one down.:)<snip>
> 
	I have not moved the goal posts but after your bragging about all
this, sounds like you are ready for a challenge.  Go for it!  I had not idea
you used Canon equipment.  I will say, and this is not to send needles, but
comparing slides is a very subjective way of comparing lenses.  

> So on many occaisons during Games Trial events, these are preliminary
> competitions prior to the actual Games. I used the 400 2.8 on competition
> sports as though I were shooting during the actual Games or the Olympics,
> which I've done on many occaisons since 1968. All but a couple!:) Winter
> and Summer.
> 
> Did I like the Canon gear? Yes!  And if I wasn't committed to Leica and
> it's glass I'd use Canon! Period.  No questions!
> 
> As far as the 400 2.8 Canon to what I knew from my Leica 400 2.8? The
> Leica
> images just looked different, more pleasing to the eye, crisper, better
> colour saturation. Was this film?  OK so who knows?  But I've had my
> slides
> on light tables so many times with Canon and Nikon images and the art
> director has always been able to pick Leica slides from all the rest at
> any
> time.  
> 
	Sounds good.  COuld it be the image?  Or was it the fact that it was
so much sharper?

> Let me qualify that.  These were 4' X 8' light tables and a dozen in use
> on
> some projects with each table completely coverd with images. Now that's a
> reasonable test case.
> 
> No he couldn't pick Canon over Nikon as quickly, but he said on more than
> one occaision, "Hey folks, either Ted has to buy one of these other
> camera's or everybody else has to buy Leica!" He didn't care who's
> feelings
> got hurt, but he sure made me and my Leica's feel pretty good on more than
> one occaision.
> 
> Ummmmm! Eye ball, use and look! Is there any better?
> 
> Did I do one of those mickey mouse tests side by each like you see in the
> photo magazines? Nope! not worth the time, as there is only one real test
> for any of them and that is what they produce on film at the time of
> shooting real time stuff,  not all that fancy BS super over controlled
> analysis.
> 
That great.  Sometimes subjective is better than scientific.  Hopefully all
the films, times of day, apertures, shutter speeds, angle of available light
matched so when this subjective comparison was made it was near accurate.

> In my humble opinion.:)  it may not be yours!
> 
	Thank you very much for your kins response, but please tell me what
is an SD?  You referred to me as this and I do not know this acronym.

	Peter K