Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/04/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You're absolutely right. Canon sample variation is said to be huge. OTOH, I tested them at the same aperture. Ed El 09/04/2007, a las 07:16, Frank Dernie escribi?: > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >