Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/07/24

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Leica 19mm vs. Canon 17-35
From: Dave Yoder <leica@home.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 19:28:21 -0700

- --------------262231CEBFC0BF317A48E8BE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi there Henning,

Perhaps I meant field curvature or something. Sounds like you know much more about it than Moi. My
experience has mostly been seeing what the two lenses do to human bodies. Sure, the Leica has
distortion to roughly the same degree as the Canon when compared side by side at the same focal
length, but it seems to be more controlled in the Leica. That is,  the figures seem less stretched
and tortured than with the Canon. I've used them both extensively and I'm pretty sure it's not my
imagination. But ask me to prove it and I'll be at a loss. Whatever the difference is, I doubt the
images would have held their own shot with the zoom. But I'm biased, I hate Canon.
Though I didn't write it, I did mean to compare their hypothetical performance at the same focal
length.

Henning wrote:

It's great that you got those pictures into the paper and that it all
worked out, and I'm sure the Canon would have produced optically inferior
pictures. HOWEVER, distortion is not the issue, unless you had used the
Canon at 17mm focal length and had the people in the part of the frame that
the 19 didn't cover. If you had used the Canon at 19mm, the difference in
the distortion levels between the lenses would not be discernible in
pictures of people. Rectilinear wideangles (which both the 19R lens and the
17-35 Canon are), do not have enough difference in their distortion levels
to be noticeable in pictures of people. Astigmatism, coma, lateral color
and even possibly field curvature are noticeable differences between the
lenses when taking such pictures. Not distortion. Categorically.

Distortion levels in wideangles are a big thing with me. At present I have
(and use) 18 lenses or cameras that cover between 90 and 180 degrees, in
all formats.



- --------------262231CEBFC0BF317A48E8BE
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Hi there Henning,
<p>Perhaps I meant field curvature or something. Sounds like you know much
more about it than Moi. My experience has mostly been seeing what the two
lenses do to human bodies. Sure, the Leica has distortion to roughly the
same degree as the Canon when compared side by side at the same focal length,
but it seems to be more controlled in the Leica. That is,&nbsp; the figures
seem less stretched and tortured than with the Canon. I've used them both
extensively and I'm pretty sure it's not my imagination. But ask me to
prove it and I'll be at a loss. Whatever the difference is, I doubt the
images would have held their own shot with the zoom. But I'm biased, I
hate Canon.
<br>Though I didn't write it, I did mean to compare their hypothetical
performance at the same focal length.
<p>Henning wrote:
<p><i>It's great that you got those pictures into the paper and that it
all</i>
<br><i>worked out, and I'm sure the Canon would have produced optically
inferior</i>
<br><i>pictures. HOWEVER, distortion is not the issue, unless you had used
the</i>
<br><i>Canon at 17mm focal length and had the people in the part of the
frame that</i>
<br><i>the 19 didn't cover. If you had used the Canon at 19mm, the difference
in</i>
<br><i>the distortion levels between the lenses would not be discernible
in</i>
<br><i>pictures of people. Rectilinear wideangles (which both the 19R lens
and the</i>
<br><i>17-35 Canon are), do not have enough difference in their distortion
levels</i>
<br><i>to be noticeable in pictures of people. Astigmatism, coma, lateral
color</i>
<br><i>and even possibly field curvature are noticeable differences between
the</i>
<br><i>lenses when taking such pictures. Not distortion. Categorically.</i><i></i>
<p><i>Distortion levels in wideangles are a big thing with me. At present
I have</i>
<br><i>(and use) 18 lenses or cameras that cover between 90 and 180 degrees,
in</i>
<br><i>all formats.</i>
<br><i></i>&nbsp;
<br><i></i>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------262231CEBFC0BF317A48E8BE--