Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/12/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]"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/ +---------------------------------------