Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Gary: Your 280 F4 is one of Leica's best lenses. I have shot my 280 2.8 APO versus a Canon Eos 300 2.8L lens and found the Leica transparencies were much better. The Canon's were sharp, but the Leica had more snap to them and a more 3d look. Anybody I have shown them to agrees. As Ted Grant said a while ago when this topic surfaced, "The art directors could pick the Leica images out of the others on the light table". I would find a Leica 400 2.8 used and stick with Leica. The 400 2.8 is also awesome with either the 1.4 or 2x extenders. I have posted a web page with two soccer pictures, one taken with a Canon 300 2.8 EOS and EOS 1n with the other taken with a Leica 280 2.8 and R8. Why don't we do a survey and see if people can tell which is the Leica shot. Both were done on the same film (RSX 100 II) and in the evening. One is on grass, the other on artificial turf and no direct sun. Pay attention to detail in the black shorts. http://home.istar.ca/~robsteve/photography/Misc.htm A local dealer had called me a few months ago to see if I knew where he could sell a APO 400 2.8 Demo. This lens may still be available and could probably had for the price of the Canon. If you want info on this demo lens, email me privately. As for the Canon lens, remember that IS is not used when using a tripod or for sports. A lens like this would always be used on a tripod. If you want to do nature, you will use manual focus all the time anyways to get the eyes of the subject in focus. EOS lenses on manual focus have a shitty feel to them since you are not actually moving the lens with the focus ring, but providing input for the ultrasonic motor to know where to move. As for weight, if you compare the Leica 400 2.8 to the Canon 400 2.8, the Leica is quite a bit lighter. Regards, Robert At 10:47 AM 8/18/99 -0400, you wrote: >This is NOT a troll. > >I presently shoot all Leica 35mm (R stystem). My longest lense is the Leica 280 >f4 and I have the 1.4 converter. I am very happy with this lense but I want to >add a longer lense to my setup. > >My question? > > The Leica 400 2.8 runs around $11,000. The new Canon 500IS runs around >$7,500 plus I would need to buy an EOS 3 to use with the lense for a total cost >of around $9,000. > > My question to anyone with experience with these systems is do I stay with >all Leica or should I save some money + give myself a 3rd camera body and go with >the Canon? My heart says to stay with Leica but I'm wondering if the autofocus >and lightness (Canon 500 weighs around 7lbs while the Leica 400 weighs almost >13lbs.) make a huge difference. > > Has anyone seen "side-by-side" comparisons of 35mm transparencies shot with >Leica long lenses vs. Canon long lenses? I want to be able to make Ilfochromes >out of selected slides up to size 16 x 20. I can do that with my Leica lenses so >far but am not sure about the Canon stuff. > > Thanks for your help. > > Gary > >