Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/04/08

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

Subject: [Leica] Re:News of BD
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Sun Apr 8 23:04:23 2007

On 4/9/07 12:30 AM, "Eduardo Albesi" <eduardoalbesi@ciudad.com.ar> typed:

> Same experience here with Canon lenses. Both my old 20-35/2.8L and
> 17-35/2.8L produce consistently much better images than the 20/2.8
> and 35/2 primes, and just a tad better than the 35/1.4L and 24/2.8.
> The 28/2.8 maybe the cheaper lens in that focal length range, gives
> about the same quality of the L zooms.
> 
> Ed
> El 09/04/2007, a las 01:15, Will von Dauster escribi?:
> 

Lets see em!
I'm not buying it!


I realize there's an ongoing internet urban legend that Canon primes are a
little weak and who cares because no one uses primes anyway (I do) but it
doesn't take much to make a prime perform better than a zoom. Lift a pinky.
Unless all your going by are shots of the want ads. maybe. 5 elements
instead of 18. Less things floating around in plastic helicals which go bump
in the night and never perform as well again. All an all a more elegant
imaging experience with a lens one forth the size and 4 times the speed.
Give me a prime anyday.
And old non AF one maybe.
A non super multi coated one with a dented lens hood or no lens hood.
A slow one wipe marks or a scrach. I am shooting Nikons but in this regard I
don't think there's much difference. I can just put more old primes on a
modern body. A canon person can just use an old film body.

Mark Rabiner
8A/109s
New York, NY

markrabiner.com




Replies: Reply from eduardoalbesi at ciudad.com.ar (Eduardo Albesi) ([Leica] Re:News of BD)
In reply to: Message from eduardoalbesi at ciudad.com.ar (Eduardo Albesi) ([Leica] Re:News of BD)