Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/12/16

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

Subject: [Leica] 180 Summicron vs. Canon 200/1.8
From: "David W. Almy" <dalmy@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:39:19 -0500

"Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" wrote:
> 
> Of the lenses you did list, the Canon 200 F1.8 is perhaps the sharpest lens
> of all.
> So as an option, I could buy the 200mm F1.8 and an EOS-3 body and still save
> $1000 when you compare that combination to the $5395 price of the Leica
> 180/2 you noted.
> Plus I gain a modern AF camera body with a sharper lens.

Peter,

Not according to ColorFoto, which measured the Canon to be the LEAST
sharp of those tested. From Pascal's site, here are the ColorFoto test
results, published since 12/94:

Abbreviations:
Res. Resolution/Sharpness
Cont. Contrast
Cent. Centering
Dist. Distortion
Vign. Vignetting
Total Total sum of points

				Res. Cont. Cent. Dist. Vign. Total 
				30    30   20    10    10    100
Leica Apo-Summicron 2/180mm 	25.5  29.1 20    10    10    94.6 (Best
Lens ever)
Minolta AF 2.8 200mm APO 	22.1  27.3 18    10    10    87.4
Canon EF 2.0 135mm L USM 	23.0  26.9 16    10    8     83.9
Canon EF 3.5 180mm macro L 	22.3  26.6 15    10    10    83.9
Nikon Nikkor 2/200mm    	19.9  27.3 17    10    8     82.2
Canon EF 2.8/200mm L USM II 	21.2  26.0 15    10    10    82.2
Tokina AF 2.8 100mm AT-X m 	20.6  26.7 13    10    9     79.3
Canon EF 1.8/200mm L USM 	18.3  25.2 12    10    8     73.5

In fairness, Photodo's results seem to contradict Colorfoto's for the
Canon 200. Photodo has not posted test results on the 180 Summicron. The
"best lens ever" Colorfoto distinction for the 180 Summicron is for all
lenses. The same distinction applies to the Canon based upon the Photodo
test series/methodology.

David W. Almy
Annapolis


> "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" wrote:
> >
> > Those prices are ludicrous. I can buy a Contax 645 with zeiss lenses
> > for the price of those two and get a neg nearly 3 times as large.
> > Geeeezzz.  I hope Leica wakes up one day and realizes their prices are
> > insane.
> >
> > Peter K
> 
> Well, if you need a fast 180, buying a Contax 645 with Zeiss lenses just
> ain't gonna cut it, is it?  Besides, why would you buy *both* the 180/2.0
> and the 180/2.8?
> 
> And if $5395 is insane for a 180/2.0, B&H quotes the following:
> 
>    Canon   200/1.8   $4159
>    Contax  200/2.0   $7099
>    Nikon   200/2.0   $4625 (manual focus)
> 
> Reality check for Contax, anyone? ;)
> 
> M.
> 
> --
> Martin Howard                     |
> Visiting Scholar, CSEL, OSU       |    What boots up must come down.
> email: howard.390@osu.edu         |
> www: http://mvhoward.i.am/        +---------------------------------------