Re: [Leica] RE: Wide zooms

[Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com>]

Felix Lopez de Maturana wrote:
> 
> >Nikon's wide zoom is the 17-35mm f/2.8 D ED-IF AF-S lens and is said to
> >blow Canon's right out of the water.
> 
> Hi Mark
> 
> It's not my experience. I do prefer the Leica Vario Elmar R 21-35 but
> owning, too, the two wide zooms you mentioned I've found that the Nikon
> has slightly better correction of the distortion at 17-20mm while Canon
> 16-35 is worse on this distortion but has more sharpness and contrast.
> Neither is a lens up to the level of the Leica, not for sharpness, but
> for the truly big distortion at 16-20. Perhaps 21 is the limit for a
> almost perfect wide zoom though I never used the extraordinary Contax
> 17-35 f1:2.8. In the future this lens could be a strong reason for
> getting, again, as I rejected mine after first tests, a Contax N. But
> perhaps 21mm (Leica) is the rational limit for producing an excellent
> wide zoom
> 
> With the exception of distortion is my opinion that sharpness on these
> wide zooms is almost up the level of good primes.
> 
> So if you are thinking in using them on architectural pictures forget it
> and use a PC wide on a tripod. Same for landscapes with straight horizon
> on the sea where, besides, you get some strong vignetting unless you
> close two or three stops. I haven't used a PC Leica, made by Schneider I
> think, but both Nikon 28 PC or, better, Canon 24 TS are excellent
> lenses, I can ensure you.
> 
> I hope this may help.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Felix
> 


Thanks Felix! I heard the Nikons show distortion under the 24mm setting
but that's when fixed lenses show distortion anyway if they are
retrofocus which they are. A Hasselblad superwide Biogon 38 or any
number of true non retro-focus wides for view cameras is what the doctor ordered.
To be honest i cant recall exactly what the problems the canon were said
to have I'll certainly take your world for it.
The idea of zooming to compose a shot from 17 to 35 overwhelms me as
I've played with the lens. The 35mm focal length feels like a telephoto
or normal. I guess 35 is normal for many people. 50 has always been
"normal" to me.
I'd love it if they could ever get Contax N's to work despite the poor
finish on most of their Zeiss made in japan lenses which look like
Tokitas made in the 70's.
Yes I'd not use a zoom for architectural I'd use primes but what the
hell am i doing shooting architectural with a 35mm camera? A slide show?
Quickly Real estate ads? A fella i know who's doing some stuff close to
that with a PC correction lens. ·He tried shooting some homeless fellas
but the lens wouldn't work the LED came up saying "CLICHE!".
No it was the Nikon 28 the Canons are widely known to be better as they
adjust more and in more directions
If Leica had their digital back out 6 months ago I'd be buying Leica R
lenses now. 

Instead I'm into the big ED-IF, ICI, AF-S, Zoom-Nikkor REBATE & BONUS
pie in the skie! For my digital and slr needs for the time being that is!
To be clear: low dispersion glass (tastier than fluorite) in a thin
candy internal focusing shell. Close and near correction, Auto focus of
the Silent Wave persuasions I have not used a Zoom Lens in 18 years it
means they zoom. Rebate and bonus is so the dealer can charge more money
and you can try to get the difference back through the mail.


Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon USA
http://www.rabinergroup.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html