Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/12/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Certainly the difference in resolution between a Leica lens and others will not be exploited most of the time without a tripod and high resolution film. People get too hung up on resolution IMHO. They go on about needing more pixels etc.. My experience is that the benefits of the Leica look are clearly evident on the Epson RD1. I have tested the following R and Canon lenses over the last week on a Canon digital body. Canon: 500 f4, 400 f5.6 FD 300 f2.8 plus dedicated FD to EOS convertor 100-400 zoom 100 f2.8 macro Leica: 560 f6.8 400f6.8 280f2.8 100 f2.8 The only disappointment is the Leica 280 f2.8 which is just back from service and "performing to specification" according to leica Germany. It was disappointing in a previous test compared to the Canon 500, unexpectedly, so I had it serviced and ROM fitted. I was expecting it to be much better than the Canon but it was clearly a touch worse with quite a bit lower contrast. The best lenses are the 500 f4 Canon and 100 f2.8 Leica, though the Canon macro is not so far behind so good value. The Leica telescope lenses a were very good but a bit difficult to focus. The 300 f2.8 + convertor was also surprisingly good. I have not tried any others yet. Erwin Puts was surprised how close the Leica and Canon 100 macros were given the difference in price, mind you I can easily imagine the difference in price when considering mechanical quality and production quantities. Frank On 26 Dec, 2004, at 13:32, Eric wrote: > Ted: > >> Certainly when so many say.."Well it's the lens >> that counts the most with any Leica camera anyway!" > > Has anybody done a comparison between the best Canon lenses on the 20D > vs. > Leica glass? > > Looking at negatives and prints made the old fashioned way, I can tell > the > difference from my own equipment. Once I scan a negative at 4000 dpi, > I can > no longer tell the difference in terms of resolution between normal to > moderate telephoto lenses. > > On the other hand, Leica wide angles are better than Canon's in terms > of > less distortion. Canon's wide angles are their weakest lenses, from > what I > can tell. > > I was reading a thread the other day where somebody was comparing a > $100 > Canon 50mm to a $1000 Leica 50mm. Somebody else asked, "But did you > use a > tripod?" Well, the tripod use really doesn't matter if you rarely use > a > tripod. I'm wondering the same thing about digital capture. > > -- > Eric > http://canid.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >