Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/04/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I suspect the well known sample variation may be in play here. Whatever you have the 35 f1.4 will be better at f1.4 than the 17-35mm f4 :-) which is 3 stops slower, high iso lifeboat to the rescue! :-) On 9 Apr, 2007, at 05:30, Eduardo Albesi wrote: > 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?: > >> On Apr 8, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Robert Schneider wrote: >> >>> As is comparing Leica primes to a Canon zoom. Granted, Canon has >>> more than a few primes that can be considered underachievers, but >>> all of their primes will test better than a zoom covering the >>> same focal length. >> >> Actually, I find the 17-40mm f4L produces a better image at 20mm >> than the 20mm 2.8 "prime." >> >> Though I'm also waiting a little while for the teething problems >> to abate before plunking 5K down for an M8. >> >> Will von Dauster >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information