bob_peters Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Can someone who owns both let me know what they think? How does the Canon L glass compare to the Leica Summilux at f1.4 and above? (Wondering about getting a Summilux for my EOS bodies but don't know if the loss of autofocus is worth it for any increase in quality). Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mariuccio Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I can't compare the two lens, but I known the Canon 35mm L is one of best, in this focal, oll over the world..! I am a Leica owner and for me, the differences in this systems are in other characteristics, like color rendiction, DOF, etc, not only in MTF tests. Sorry for my English, Best regards, Puccini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imran_ahmed Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Canon 35/1.4 is equivalent or superior to summilux after from 2.8. The summilux is better till 2.8. I have both ad hence can put in my '2 cents' worth opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 IMO, the R lens has nicer Bokeh than the Canon, and produces nicer color ... but neither are superior enough to lose AF and auto aperture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_jovic Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I can't really answer your question fully however I would like to say that the 35 lux is not very sharp wide open. I only use mine from about f2.0, where it is already very sharp, but it is quite soft wide open! On the other hand, the lux is extremely sharp when stopped down to around f8 or so. It is an amazing lens in terms of resolution and tonal gradation. I find it to be very similar to the Leica R 80 lux in every respect. Not to disparage the Canon lens, but, I would find it very difficult to believe that the Canon is better in this aperture range, ie above 5.6 or so. However I would find it very easy to believe that the Canon is sharper wide open. JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I have to agree with Marc. The Summilux would have to be streets ahead of the Canon to put up with the inconvenience of having a manual aperture and loss of AF. The R lens-on-an-EOS scenario is a fair trade off I think with a telephoto when full aperture shooting is more the norm, but for a standard or wide angle it seems to me more trouble than it is worth. The 35mm L is also reckoned to be one of the best L lenses. It might be worth it if you already had the 'lux lens, but don't make life difficult for yourself is my advice. Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_plomley1 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Hi John: Your comment has me a bit concerned. Are you talking about the Asph version of the Summilux? I am planning on moving to the Leica system, and the 35/1.5 Lux Asph was tops on my lens. I have attached some images shot with the Canon 35/1.4 L wide open on a Canon 1Ds full frame sensor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_plomley1 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 And here is a 100% crop..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I can't speak to the ASPH lens, but the Canon is miles ahead of the older 35mm Lux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_w. Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 John must be referring to the pre-asph. I've had both concurrently and the asph is very sharp wide open. However, I sold the asph and kept the other because of its imaging "characteristics". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_plomley1 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Here is the reason I cannot live without f-1.4....shot at ISO 1250; 1/12th at f-1.4. I would hope that at least I could get this performance out of a lens costing 3x as much.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_plomley1 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Robin: You are correct about the AF performance. I will just have to learn to live with without it when I switch, and hope all the other advantages of shooting Leica more than compensates... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_plomley1 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I should add that there is no additional sharpening applied to these images other than that in the Phase One RAW processor to correct for the anti-alias filter. The Canon 35/1.4 at f/2.0 is also impressive and the majority of vignetting has disappeared and no exposure compensation is required. Here is an example at f/2.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_plomley1 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 And a 100% crop..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_plomley1 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Is there anyone on this forum that has the Canon 35/1.4 L and either the Lux or Cron Asph in order to perform back to back comparisons? I would be very interested in such results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Jeff, my old 35mm Luxes are definitely soft wide open. It is tolerable with color, but not good enough for B&W. There are many threads about this on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart_richardson Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I think people were comparing the 35mm f/1.4L to the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux R for the Leica SLR's. These lenses are more comparable, especially since you can use an adapter to use the Leica lens on the Canon. I have both the 35/1.4 Summilux R and the 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH for the M cameras, and the 35/1.4 ASPH is definitley the sharper, better lens. The Summilux R has a lovely character, but for sharpness, resolution, contrast and performance wide open, the 35/1.4 ASPH has no comparison (except perhaps for the 35/2 ASPH). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_jovic Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Jeff/Stuart Yes, I'm talking about the R 35/1.4, not the M. JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_jovic Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 By the way, using auto focus, auto apature lenses isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially in very low light situations where you are working wide open or close to it. I often use fast leica R glass on my Canon body and do so because manual focusing is often the best choice as AF simply is always reliable inlow light conditions. I have fast R lenses but not their Canon equivalents. I suppose if I had an 85L or the 200L then I would never consider the R lenses but that aint the case. Last night I shot some night drag racing with a R 180/2.0 (wide open) on a 1dsMk2. The results were great and certainly better than if I'd used my 70/200 IS Canon auto everything lens. I usually use an R 80/1.4 (at F2.0) at night time drag racing events and find the images to be far supperior than any using the Canon 24-70/2.8 which has too much trouble focusing accurately in these conditions. F2.8 is also a bit too slow. If the Canon 35/1.4 is as good wide open (and by all accounts it is very good in this respect) then then stick with it and you can always turn of the AF if you need to! JJ<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_plomley1 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Oh boy...John, now you have me thinking I should stick with my Canon DSLR and put some R glass on the front...problem is the EOS is just such a beast for street photography. I still believe the M is much better suited to this application. The problem is trying to find an M8 anywhere to demo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthuryeo Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 John,The 180/2 R has a pretty lens signature that is closely matched also by the Nikkor 200/2VR wide open.You've got yourself a winner in your winning hands! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Remove foot from mouth. Please excuse my inappropiate response -- I must be getting even more senile than I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_persky Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 John!! That is a truly amazing shot. The colors are very nice. It reminds me of the shot I took with the 180mm f/2. The colors where just amazing. Almost surreal. Lets see if I can find it somewhere on this computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_persky Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Here is another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leojan Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 <p>I own a canon 35 mm F1.4L. Very nice lens. Is sharp wide open, but suffers from purple fringing. That disappears at F1.8. I think that the price for the best Canon lens goed to the Canon 85 mm F1.2L. Leica lenses are way to expensive for my taste and I love AF.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now