Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/12/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Okay, we've heard glowing (sorry) reports of that apparently-quite-remarkable
19/2.8 R lens; but as we know all too well, it's damned expensive. If you'll
permit me a touch of blasphemy, I'm wondering just how it compares to another
exceedingly-well-respected (among the friends of *its* marque) exercise in
optical design: the Canon EF 17-35/2.8L.
The reason for my interest is not hard to fathom:
Cost to Me of 19/2.8 Cost to Me of 17-35/2.8
-------------------- -----------------------
Lens $3.0K Lens $1.5K
R8 $2.4K
------------- ------------
Total $5.4K Total $1.5K
(all before tax, of course... just a long way of saying I already have an EOS
lying about).
There may be places I could find information like resolution-test results and
the like, but I assume that one thing I have in common with most readers of
this list is an interest in the visual/emotional impact of photos taken with
particular glass, rather than a column of numbers representing some subset of
the lens's characteristics whose effect on the whole image as taken in by the
eye isn't always obvious.
Does anyone here own both lenses? If so, comments would be welcome; but if I
were to wish the world, I'd love to see some of the same photos taken with the
R lens and the Canon lens at 19mm. If anyone's interested enough to take on
this project and doesn't have web-space, I could put up the images for all to
see; or if anyone in the New York area has the R lens and feels like a
weekend project, I could probably rent the EOS lens from Lens & Repro and we
could try this...
...or am I the only one who's interested in this particular comparison?
-Jeff