Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/12/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Looks like a quality control issue....I can't believe the the COlorphoto test is representitive of the type. It does NOT speak well for the consistency of the Canon lens... Dan > >That's interesting but at Photodo where they use Hasselblad MTF equipment >to >test the lenses, the Canon 200mm F1.8 rated it as one of the highest tested >at 4.8 (out of 5). If it were as bad as ColorFoto pointed out, then why >does it receive such raves reviews elsewhere? >Oh well. > >Peter K > >-----Original Message----- >From: David W. Almy [mailto:dalmy@mindspring.com] >Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 6:39 AM >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >Subject: [Leica] 180 Summicron vs. Canon 200/1.8 > > >"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/ >+--------------------------------------- ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com