Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/10

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

Subject: [Leica] not entirely OT: the recurrent dilemma
From: don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory)
Date: Sat Feb 10 19:34:08 2007
References: <3280493C-7263-4F11-BD0E-F63FE0ED2D6C@pandora.be>

Philippe,
Ah, now you ask a question up my alley.  If you don't have to have the speed
then the 70-200 F4 IS and the 17-40 are far better choices.  Sharper, less
distortion, less weight, faster focus, and less money.  If you need speed
then go for the 70-200 2.8 either IS or not.  I still would not go for the
16-35, it's quality is too variable sample wise.  The 24-70 is a very good
lens but if you have the previous two lenses then why?  As to speed, the 5D
has a very nice image at 1600 and not too shabby at 3200.

As to the lens for the M, if you see a little wide then the 35 ASPH, my
preference is the 1.4 but then I like no dof.  However, if you see less wide
and more to isolating your subject then the 50 Summilux current is without
peer, absolutely stunning lens on a film or digital camera.

Cheers and happy snapping.

Don
don.dory@gmail.com

On 2/10/07, Philippe Orlent <philippe.orlent@pandora.be> wrote:
>
> Since I won't be buying an M8, and waiting for an M9 -not being sure
> if it will be worth all the bucks, and if it will be full sensor- is
> not really an option, I have some decisions to make.
> Digital has always been a bit on the side: not that I don't have good
> digital cameras, but the ones that I have, have their quirkinesses.
> Until now, that wasn't a problem, because most of the time that I was
> really concentrating on photography, it was still an analog process.
> But the beast of full digital has been roaring in my head for too
> long now.
> So I've come to the conclusion that, to keeps things simple and
> pleasant, digital is the way to go, even if my hearth still tends to
> these mechanical beauties that were made in former eras.
> I'll go the Canon 5D route, and I have almost decided on lenses, too.
> I'm pretty sure that a lot of you switched to or embraced Canon, so
> some first hand experiences would help to smoothen out the 'fear' for
> the steep costs involved.
>
> What are your impressions of the following lenses?
> Canon EF 24-70mm L f2.8 USM
>
> Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM
>
> Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM
>
> And, if you'd only keep one lens on your analog M, which one would
> that be?
>
> I was thinking of selling everything except for one good M body, and
> then buying a Summilux 35 ASPH to glue on it forever. A perfect B&W
> street dedicated machine, so to speak.
>
> Other -and wise(r)- suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Philippe
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>

Replies: Reply from philippe.orlent at pandora.be (Philippe Orlent) ([Leica] not entirely OT: the recurrent dilemma)
In reply to: Message from philippe.orlent at pandora.be (Philippe Orlent) ([Leica] not entirely OT: the recurrent dilemma)