Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/12/20

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re:the Canon Noctilux...
From: don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory)
Date: Wed Dec 20 19:26:06 2006
References: <200612200710.kBK75aSf075465@server1.waverley.reid.org> <4589255E.3020001@telefonica.net>

Felix,
I too have many Canon lenses dating back to 1948.  Almost all of them are
very well built, especially the mid-production FD breech lock and the EOS L
lenses that I own.  I have owned both the 1.8 and the 1.4 versions of the
current EOS lenses: I am not really exaggerating about the build quality or
optical performance of either current lens.  When I use a 50 in the EOS
system I currently use a late production AI Nikon 1.4 with an adapter.  In
no way was I trying to say the EOS lens line up was not of good to great
quality, just that the fast 50's left something to be desired.

Don
don.dory@gmail.com


On 12/20/06, F?lix L?pez de Maturana <FELIXMATURANA@telefonica.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >  but people
> > who are used to lenses that might last a couple of years wouldn't touch
> them
> > unless they could carry a few spares.   :)
> Hi Don
>
> I think the right English word is exaggeration. I own, besides eight SLR
> Canon -five if them digital-, a vwery significant bunch of Canon lenses
> some of them with more than 20 years and the only who needed service was
> the 16mm f2.8 fisheye, by far the less used. I agree the building
> quality is not the Leica one, but they are not crap at all and if full
> open they have not the figures of vignetting, sharpness, distortion, etc
> of Leica lenses you just need close some stop to get very good outputs
> as many, many photographers do perfectly know. I have too the Noctilux
> and it's an extraordinary lens for his *features* much more than for his
> *performances*. So often our tools are better than our skill.
>
> Regrads.
>
> F?lix
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>

Replies: Reply from harrison at mcclary.net (Harrison McClary) ([Leica] Re:the Canon Noctilux...)
Reply from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] Re:the Canon Noctilux...)
In reply to: Message from FELIXMATURANA at telefonica.net (Félix López de Maturana) ([Leica] Re:the Canon Noctilux...)