Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/08/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>It seems that Canon's wide angle lenses are fairly weak and old. >Nikon may be a little better off in this department, but I still >would put my money on the Leica glass. I cannot remember which Nazi hierarch said "If you repeat something enough number of times it will be considered as a unanswerable truth" . I can speak by myself as I'm a user of 14mm, 15mm, 16-35mm and 24-70mm Canon L lenses. Enough wides? As every non Leica lenses they get some softness on the corners full open but the situation becomes much better just closing a couple of stops. This situation is worse with a full format body than with a film camera as the sensor lacks sharpness when the light dos not hit it perpendicularly but with a big angle like as is the case of the corners. The 14 is very good lens almost at the level of the excellent Leica R 15mm but at a fraction of the price while the 16-35 is not worse than Nikkor equivalent -I own all of them- Summarizing the extreme weakness of Canon wides is a extended urban legend. They are not worse than Nikon, Minolta or Pentax and not very worse than Leica and Carl Zeiss but much ,much cheaper...I begun using Leica R lenses in my Canon DSLR -1Ds MkI and MkII and Rebel XT- but right now I use Canon and if there is a slight loss -certainly- of quality there is a much bigger comfort. Felix