[Leica] not entirely OT: the recurrent dilemma

[ISILVERMN at aol.com (ISILVERMN@aol.com)]

Hi Phillipe,
 
As one who resolved my version of the same dilemma with first a Digital  
Rebel and now a 30D, let me add my $0.02.
 
Like Don, I would endorse the 17-40 unless you absolutely need the faster  
aperture.  The lens is extremely sharp (but with the 30D I don't have to  
worry 
about edge sharpness).  What impresses me most is its speed of  focus. The 
lens seems to lock on instantly.
 
In general, the DSLR is a large camera to begin with; you're always trading  
off aperture against size/weight.  So I'd look at the both the f/2.8 and  
f/4 
lenses and decide for myself if the extra f-stop is worth it.
 
One other thing I'd suggest looking at with a DSLR system is the DXO Optics  
Pro software.  I believe you can download a free beta version.  It's  got an 
optics algorithm that corrects distortion, vignetting ,  aberrations and 
purple 
fringing based on the camera/lens combination (huge  impact on the bottle 
glass kit lens on a Digital Rebel, but still quite  effective). It also has 
a 
lighting engine that pulls detail out of the shadows  without blowing out 
highlights and a good noise control engine.  The  latest version adds 
perspective 
controls, which I have not used  yet. Except for the basic optical 
adjustments, 
all are user  controllable.  DXO also has an excellent RAW batch  processor.
 
I have no affiliation with DXO, just a satisfied customer.
 
Best regards,
 
Ira Silverman
Irvine, CA
 
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
>
>