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

["Tom Schofield" <tdschofield@email.msn.com>]

Poor Quality Control?  Inconsistency?

Tom

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) <peterk@lucent.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 8:02 AM
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/
+---------------------------------------
>