Re: [Leica] 180 Summicron vs. Canon 200/1.8

["David W. Almy" <dalmy@mindspring.com>]

Peter,

I rely on no single source for lens testing information (except, of
course, Erwin! :-)). Over the years I have looked for a consensus of
lens test results to guide purchase decisions, combined with informed
anecdotal performance accounts. This combined approach is more difficult
to determine than a single number, but a truer overall performance
indicator.

David W. Almy
Annapolis

- ----------------------------

"Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" wrote:
> 
> 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/        +---------------------------------------