[Leica] Re:Run on Leica R lenses

[FELIXMATURANA at telefonica.net (Félix López de Maturana)]

>I have used extensively a 20D and a 1D Mark II mainly with Leica  
>lenses and some Canon lenses in the same situations I was using the  
>R8 and R9 in the past. Mainly on stage photography with tripods and  
>reportage  in the wings, both available light.
>
>IMO, the ergonomic of the R8/R9 is much better than Canon's.
>
>As an example, let say you want to change metering from multi pattern  
>to spot.
>
>It will take 1/2 second on the R9 (without removing you eye from the  
>finder), several on the Mark II, no spot on the 20D.
>
>To change a lens is also quicker and safer on a Leica.
>
>Almost everything is on the right place.


Lucien

I've used -and still I do- EOS 650, EOS IX, EOS 1, EOS 1n, EOS 1V, EOS 
D30, EOS 350D and EOS 1Ds last twenty years -of course from the moment 
every model was launched- and I use a Leica R8 with some lenses -my park 
is increasing in forecast of digital back-. If we say ergonomic is the 
relative position in which different buttons and other physical commands 
are set in order to get a natural use we have to accord that Leica R has 
*less* commands so their use is simpler  but I 'll not say EOS has bad 
ergonomic as every button is well placed and even their use paired allow 
other use so that few buttons cover *more* functions.. Setting manually 
the iso in a R8 is more difficult. You need discover the back lid and 
pushing one or other button awhile in a EOS 1 is just pushing a visible 
button and roll a command. When you start up a R8 you need select the 
P,Av,T every time while in a EOS is set for ever. Make a choice of 
single picture or shooting in bursts is very easy in a EOS. On the other 
hand some commands on the R8 are simply brilliant as the + and - EV 
correction in the left of the finder. Changing lenses is very similar.

I think that is more a matter of photographic habit. I feel myself 
perfectly with bot cameras knowing they are different beasts. More 
complex more complete -this does not means for itself better - the EOS 
cameras and simpler the R8/9. No problem and a quick use in both I had 
in my hands in the Photokina the R digital back but not enough time for 
getting an idea of ergonomic and I couldn't shoot a pic. The samples 
I've seen on the web have not given me a absolute idea of the final 
quality of the image which inevitable will have less definition having 
less number of pixels of my 1Ds-a truth that owners of Nikon D2X are not 
still ready to accept and that I personally checked- so we arrive to 
color rendition which is in part due to the inimitable quality of some 
-not all- R lenses and the sensor own quality. I'll wait to see the R 
digital output to achieve a opinion but I'd like before to match it with 
the really many color options that a EOS 1Ds MkII gives the photographer.

The lenses? As someone have said it's really difficult to make a 
comparative test. The last weekend I was at home looking after my wife 
ans I did some test of R lenses and Canon L lenses in Canon digital body 
not scientifically but seriously, that,s

1. The camera on a sturdy tripod
2. The camera leveled with bubble level either horizontally and vertically
3. The camera fired by wire
4. Strict measures of perpendicularity of lenses to the wall -The wall 
was of my terrace and however I measured uprightness that was OK-
5. Every lens was placed to 50 times his focal distance as Chasseur 
d'Images recommend
6. Light was measured by Minolta Autometer incident light
7. Focus was measured simply with a manual meter and settled in the 
lens. No mistake possible

I tested Leica R21-35mm, R Makro 60mm, R28-70 and R180 and Canon 
16-35mm, 24-70mm and 100-400mm among others. As I fired full open, at 
f8, center and borders and many different focals in every zoom and in 
the whole morning I had time for testing many more Canon lenses I have 
some hundreds of pictures for analyzing and publish the results but in 
short, I can summarize

a. The Leica 21-35 is much better lens than 16-35mm Canon which revealed 
from 16 to 20 as very bad full open, so much that this week I've ordered 
a Canon EF 20mm for using in couple with my EF14mm which resulted to be 
truly excellent instead of the 16-35 condemned from now to remain in the 
bookshelf.

b. The Leica Makro is better that any 50/60 Canon lens which I was sure 
before.

c. The Canon 24-70 is excellent at any focal and *almost* from full 
open. Better than Leica 28-70. I have not yet the R35-70ASPH nor the new 
28-90, The Canon will be my main lens for digital.

d. I cannot still believe the results of my  Canon 100-400 which was 
supposed to be a mediocre lens. At 200 is outstanding. Almost no 
difference with the very good 70-200 and not worse than R 180 and at 
400mm where I thought it was not but crap -but comfortable as it can be 
used though the IS system at hand held and 1/60 second- gave me very 
good pictures.

Having realized my difficulties for focusing manually R lenses through 
less contrasty finder of EOS I'll not use any more these lenses with 
these bodies with the risk of getting defocused images but with R body 
and -just in case- with digital back.

So as someone said before: comparative is finished. I'll use Leica and 
Canon and every one with his own lenses. If generally speaking R lenses 
are better, until  the moment of R digital back launching I'll use Leica 
for film and Canon for digital.

Excuse for the long mail and I think that my defective use of language 
becomes more cruel in such a complicated message.

Regards

Felix