Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/09/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>I know what you mean...too many people treat their Leicas as cult objects >rather than simply good tools. But there is a visible difference, >depending on which lenses you are comparing. I don't bother with testing >lenses, but I can spot the imaging characteristics of certain specific >ones. As an example, I often will have a mixed bag of images from a shoot >done with the 16 or 17-35 f2.8L Canon EF lenses and the Elmarit 21 ASPH and >Summilux 35 ASPH. Anyone who cannot spot the differences between these >three lenses must have a glass eye, as the differences are obvious: > >The 16/17-35s will exhibit markedly lower contrast, color saturation, and >sharpness than the Elmarit or Summilux, especially at large apertures. The >difference in backlit situations is even more obvious because the 16/17-35 >images will have alot of flare (esp 16-35) and color fringing (esp 17-35) >in areas of extremely high contrast. Edges and corners with the 16/17-35 >will have a smeared appearance. At 21mm, the EF 16/17-35s exhibit severe >barrel distortion. I can often spot an image taken with the 16/17-35. On >the other hand, if you are shooting in a fast moving situation, with crowds >all around, there is nothing like the 16/17-35! Jim Your mail is quite correct but, IMHO, you have had to compare the EF 16/17-35 with his true competitor in the Leica field, the Vario Elmar 21-35. I've done but superficially as last months I do not shoot but digital. Mi first feeling is that overall the Vario Elmar is a better zoom, but not so much and 16 is much wider than 21. I've tried to use it, unsuccessfully in my 1Ds. Finally I'm using, obviously, the Vario Elmar in the R8 and the 16-35 in the EOS 1v/1Ds. The right comparison could be too among the 35 ASPH and the EF 35 1.4. But with SRL cameras I shoot practically only with zooms. A matter of laziness. Some Canon EF lenses as 24 1.4, 35 1.4 50 1 and 85 1.2 may be not worse than equivalent Leica R lenses. In my experience only the M lenses are unbeatable and the second in this race are the Contax G lenses. But I do not own the jewels like Leica 35-70 2.8, 70-180 2.8, 100 macro and all APO Teles. May be some day I get all of them and can compare...But my horizon is digital and Leica is going too slow. Felix - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html