Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2021/07/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Frank Filippone via LUG <lug at leica-users.org> wrote: > Paul, can you elaborate on the comparison? Different focal lengths produce > different areas of interest. Both areas were centered (approximately) in their optical fields. The Leica, off axis, would probably have had a (more) major advantage over the Canon. > Do you blow up the Leica image in LR or other > so that the comparison shows the same area of interest? > I just used Photoshop, and it's just the monitor view that was enlarged. You can see the PS degree of image enlargement in the upper left of each image border. > Did you put the 2x converter on the Leica ... No, I don't have any extender for the Leica on a Sony. The Canon extender fit the Canon zoom, and then a Canon to Sony adapter allowed me to put the combination on the Sony. > ... With converter and lens set at 135? > It would be even worse for the Canon. > What about the corners? > Again, the comparison would be even worse for the Canon. The zoom is relatively soft off axis. The Leica apo is very good across the field. But if anyone wants a Canon 70-200 f/4 L zoom, it's for sale and will soon be on eBay. Paul > On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 1:12 PM Paul Roark via LUG <lug at leica-users.org> > wrote: > > > I already knew the Leica 135 apo could seem more detail than the Canon L > > series 70-200mm zoom at 200mm. What about the Canon zoom at 200mm with a > > Canon 2x extender? I just tried both on my Sony a7c, focused on a > distant > > hilltop. > > > > See https://www.paulroark.com/Canon-zoom-v-Leica-apo135.JPG . > > > > Close, and no comparison on a weight & size adjusted basis. > > > > For what it's worth, > > > > Paul > > www.PaulRoark.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >