Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Mon, 19 March 2001, "Victor Wek" wrote: > > I compared ‘artistic’ > impressions between Canon new lenses 20-35/2.8mm and 70-200/2.8 (owned by my > friend) and my new 35/2 and 90/2. > Photos made by Canon lenses look dirty, flat. The focus is there, each > picture looks sharp but it is not sharp (it is difficult to explain), the > sharpness is washed up. Color transfer by Leica lenses is richer, different > then Canon. We both made photos on Velvia, on tripod, the same time, > aperture, the same landscape… If we follow MDF the lenses have similar > resolution, but each photo looks differently. > This is probably because the Leica lenses control internal reflections better than the Canon zooms. IMHO the popularity of high-saturation films like Velvia is related to the prevalance of non-Leica lenses, particularly zooms, in the hands of most 35mm photographers. As with your Leica/Canon comparison, the difference I see between Leica (in my case, R) images and photos made with the Nikkors I used to use is the color rendition. In my case I'm comparing primes to primes, and the results are the same: I like the color rendition of the Leica lenses much better, and I have far less trouble with flare. Under ordinary circumstances some of the difference can be compensated for by using high-saturation films like Velvia or E100VS but under difficult lighting conditions the lack of flare in the R lenses has allowed me to make photos that would not have worked had I been using the Nikkors. Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com ___________________________________________________ The ALL NEW CS2000 from CompuServe Better! Faster! More Powerful! 250 FREE hours! Sign-on Now! http://www.compuserve.com/trycsrv/cs2000/webmail/