Re: [Leica] Canon EOS for Leica-style...sorry!

[Sipulmanjones@aol.com]

Simon Pulman-Jones wrote: 
> Does anybody have experience of the Canon EOS 24/1.4 or 85/1.2 lenses? I'm 
>tempted to try them to extend my available light shooting longer and wider, 
>and would be very interested to hear about their quality wide open and any 
>problems of focusing them in low light. 
 
Mark Rabiner replied: 
>Simon Simon Simon! You pushed my button. 
>You don't post much i checked the archives and you were selling your R8 after 
>running two rolls though it because it didn't work well with your Viso 
>lenses. You love the M system. ?????
..then Sonny wrote:
>I agree with you several hundred percent, Mark. When people blunder 
>their way in here with questions about NikonandCanonsupergeewhizz, I 
>think of a person entering a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse and ordering 
>vegetarian.Ouch! I obviously needed to provide a little more context if I wasn't going to get some hearts racing early on a Monday morning:)  I'm sorry Mark, I haven't posted much recently. I've been a regular reader of the LUG for three or four years, and used to contribute a little more a couple of years ago when I had more time. Your efforts to trace me in the archives may have been thwarted by several changes of e-mail address. As I am sure is true for many others on this list, I have learned a huge amount from it over the years in the course of discovering a whole new photographic world. My photography is almost all of people doing stuff indoors. Either my family and friends, or, for my work as an anthropologist working in human-centered design, people going about their business doing stuff or just experiencing stuff in ways that it is my job to 'bring to life' for designers who are designing things for those situations. Leica rangefinders are by far the best tools for this. This is all familiar territory for the 
LUG - the Leica heartland.
Mark Rabiner wrote:
>This particular thread (It's not your fault Simon you'd have no way of 
>knowing) 
>would be less personally annoying of a thread for me if it was prefaced by a 
>vignette about how the ones shots were stunted by lack of 1.4 glass in these 
>particular focal lengths. 
>How that 24mm shot of a million had just a tad to much camera shake or could 
>have benefited from an extreme ultrathin selective focus approach. So near 
>yetso far. Just out of reach. 
>Tell us about the shots you missed!! 
>What made you go shopping? 
>WHY are we talking EOS!?
For several reasons I need, and prefer, to work in color - which means that I use ISO 400 or slower (color grain is nasty), which means that I am more often than not shooting at f1.4 at 1/60 - especially early or late in the day. Because the people I am photographing are moving about doing things shutter speeds shorter than 1/60 start to show significant softness or outright motion blur. So lens speed really makes a difference.
I use the 35 Summilux Asph. and Noctilux, and I also try to wrestle good results out of a Summarex, which is pretty hit and miss at f1.5. I'm often very close to what's going on and would love to have a wider view than the 35. The exposure conditions are still the same, and subject movement is the limiting factor on shutter speed, so if it's f1.4 at 1/60 on the 35 Summilux that's exactly what I'd need with a 24. Which is why I'm curious about the Canon lens.
Obviously there is more choice for f1.4 at 85 or 90mm. I've never tried the 75 Summilux - I think it is too close in focal length to the Noctilux to make enough difference for me. With subject movement being a major limiting factor on shutter lens speed makes a big difference - hence my curiosity about the Canon 85/1.2.
So, Mark,  I would love a 24 or 90 Summilux Asph. - and that's why I'm curious about the two Canon lenses as ways of getting something done that I can't quite get done now. I feel the same way as you about the design ethos, the aesthetics and the use characteristics of the EOS system - but in this situation the possibilities of the Canon glass are interesting. 
One other possibility that I have been thinking about is using a 90 Apo Asph. as if it were an f1.4 lens. (I don't have the 90 Apo Asph.) I'd be interested in what people think about this. Could it be possible that, given it's superior contrast and resolution, the 90 Apo Asph would be a viable alternative to ordinary mortal 80/85mm f1.4 lenses - even though it would have to under-expose a full stop in order to compete?  This is something I'd love to try. I have a feeling the 90 Apo under exposed on stop would easily outperform the Summarex properly exposed at f1.5 - not a huge challenge.
Simon Pulman-Jones




- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html