Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/24

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] P&S cameras and Canon L glass compared to Leica
From: "Felix Lopez de Maturana" <fmaturana@euskalnet.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:45:45 +0100

> Sam:
>
> Of the R glass, the Nikon glass cannot touch any of the R lenses designed
> in the 1990's or later.  This includes lenses like the 70-180APO and the
> big APO-Tely glass.  Even the moderately priced 35-70 f4 would perform
> better than the Nikon equivalent.
>
> If you compare the Minolta designed 24mm or even the 80mm Summilux to the
> Nikon equivalents, you will find similar performance.  The Leica lenses
> will tend to have a better colour rendition and better flare control.
>
> I had the Canon Eos 400mm 2.8.  It was the version prior to the IS lens.
I
> also have the Leica 400mm f2.8.  I found the Leica produced images with
> more snap to them and better shadow detail.  I noticed when shooting
soccer
> and football , the Leica would have detail in the shadows and black shorts
> or Jerseys, while the Canon lens didn't hold the detail.  The leica lens
> also gave a nice 3d look to the muscles in the arms and legs.  The Canon
> lens might have looked more contrasty and thus sharper, but the images
> lacked the snap of the leica and looked 2d.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert


Robert

This must be true as you have used both equipments and therefore I accept
it, unless up to the moment I can do the test myself. But then what is your
opinion about the fact that I never see in soccer any Leica lenses but
Nikon/Canon ones?

Kind regards

Felix

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html