Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Sam: > > Of the R glass, the Nikon glass cannot touch any of the R lenses designed > in the 1990's or later. This includes lenses like the 70-180APO and the > big APO-Tely glass. Even the moderately priced 35-70 f4 would perform > better than the Nikon equivalent. > > If you compare the Minolta designed 24mm or even the 80mm Summilux to the > Nikon equivalents, you will find similar performance. The Leica lenses > will tend to have a better colour rendition and better flare control. > > I had the Canon Eos 400mm 2.8. It was the version prior to the IS lens. I > also have the Leica 400mm f2.8. I found the Leica produced images with > more snap to them and better shadow detail. I noticed when shooting soccer > and football , the Leica would have detail in the shadows and black shorts > or Jerseys, while the Canon lens didn't hold the detail. The leica lens > also gave a nice 3d look to the muscles in the arms and legs. The Canon > lens might have looked more contrasty and thus sharper, but the images > lacked the snap of the leica and looked 2d. > > Regards, > > Robert Robert This must be true as you have used both equipments and therefore I accept it, unless up to the moment I can do the test myself. But then what is your opinion about the fact that I never see in soccer any Leica lenses but Nikon/Canon ones? Kind regards Felix - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html