Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/12/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]David, You make an excellent point. If I were to look at ColorFoto which is a German publication, they seem to love any german lens. Compare that with CAPA, the japanese publication, they tested Resolution/Contrast using JCII resolution chart and ISO 100 B&W film. The results showed Tokina being the #1 performer in several categories. They check out Chasseurs D'Images, they lean toward Sigma and Nikon often. BTW, they rate the 180mm/2.8 4-star and the Canon 200mm F1.8 4-star but the Contax 180mm F2.8 5-start. They hate Tamron, they rated the Tamron 20-40 as poor, yet Pop Photo and Photodo rate the lens as outstanding. Go figure! I guess we'll never really know. Peter K - -----Original Message----- From: Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) [mailto:peterk@lucent.com] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 8:02 AM To: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us' Subject: RE: [Leica] 180 Summicron vs. Canon 200/1.8 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/ +---------------------------------------