Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/06/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>All, > >http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c012.html >http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c013.html > >The second is of particular interest. > >David W. Almy >Annapolis David I use a considerable collection of Leica and Canon lenses. Right now is not so easy make a right comparison - at home not at the laboratory but we shoot for our clients and our homes not for a laboratory- as the prints scarcely are bigger than 50x60 cm where the differences in sharpness are less obvious but some months/years ago the difference could be more easily detected when projecting slides on the screen. Certainly the Canon prime lenses have borders less sharpen full open but with one or two stops the difference is not so easy to observe at least by my own eyes. Another different matter is concerning zooms; by its own construction a zoom is much more prone to vignette and to distort. Even my Leica zooms do perhaps in a small lesser degree than Canon. I can shoot Canon with a 14mm 2.8, 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1, 85mm 1.2 and 200mm 1.8, but the bag will need a carrier! We live in a real world and three zooms 16-35,24-70 and 70-200 2.8 will cover most of a photographer necessities. This can be done and probably with a slight better quality, with film not yet with sensor, with a R8/9 and a15, 19, 21-35, 50 and a 70-80 but this package is not really so far of the Canon equipment. Another question apart to could be for most of us the price factor.This is the main reason I use Canon EOS 1Ds as DSLR and Leica M as rangefinder with corresponding lenses. After some attempts using Leica lenses with adapters in Canon bodies I abandoned the idea for my problems in right focusing. Erwin is, for sure, a honest man who loves Leica but he's not the right man for a comparative with other brands as, however he would try to be objective is not easy he would be. Felix