Best Leica R Lens for Canon 1Ds MarkII ?, Your Opinion and Advise?

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by kikamulitzlivno, Mar 4, 2007.

  1. Looking to buy "two or three" in total best lenses for Lifestyle, Beauty and
    Fashion. I would like to buy "only new" Originally I was thinking Medium Format
    Contax, Rollei, Hasselblad? but I was advised on Leica R lenses as the very best.

    So, I would like to find out from you guys what is your opinion and advise?

    Thank you
     
  2. 180mm f/2.8 APO Elmarit, 100mm f/2.8 APO Macro-Elmarit, and a wide lens like the 28mm
    f/2.8 Elmarit. The new zooms are also excellent -- the 21-35 and the 28-90 are fantastic,
    and all the current telephoto zooms are great.
     
  3. And what exactly is wrong with Canon L lenses, as used by the vast majority of the world's professional photographers?

    Do yourself a favour and save yourself a lot of hassle - buy Canon.
     
  4. c'mon, this is the leica forum. canon has to be crap. unless it's 40+ yo, and screws onto a leica ,-)
     
  5. Maybe the ROM E60 50mm Summilux. But, my experience with the 35 and 50mm
    Summicrons, and the 80mm Summilux did not lead me to believe they are superior to the
    Canon lenses i have. Get the Canon 35L, the 85L and then consider the 50L versus the
    50/1.4. Even if the Leica Summilux is better than the Canon 50s, you'll get more consistent
    results (sharpness) with the Canon's AF, and won't have to deal with stop-down
    workarounds. Shooting fashion, you don't want to have to limit yourself to shooting at only
    apertures of f4 and wider.

    If you really want to use Leica-R lenses, get a used R8.
     
  6. The only lenses I've ever heard a sizeable number of Canon-toting pros claim that Canon is significantly enough lacking in performance so as to make them look to adapted lenses, are the extreme wide angles. The Zeiss Contax 21mm and Leica's current 19mm are popular.
     
  7. Leica 15 2.8,19 2.8, 28 2.8 35 lux and cron, 50 lux and cron, 60 macro, 80 lux, 90 cron, 100
    macro, 180 f2, 180 2.8 , 280 f4, 28-90, 35-70 2.8. These are the best around and used
    everyone on the DMR, 1dsMKII,1dMKll and 5d. The best Canon lenses there fisheye, 35 1.4,
    50 macro, 85 1.2 ,135 f2, 200 1.8, 400 2.8, 90 TSE owned them also. The rest of the Canons
    i would consider general purpose, good but the ones listed are there best.

    Pick your poision
     
  8. Look up the alternative digital systems and lenses forum on fred miranda's site. There is a whole community of people looking to adapt best lenses from other manufacturers on Canon cameras. There is also a 16-9 lens test site, where you will find a compilation of best lenses on the market at each focal length. That being said, I feel that in the normal to telephoto range, there are lots of excellent lenses from many manufacturers, including Canon, and this focal range will be your bread and butter choice, so maybe it is only justifiable to use other manufacturer's lenses for lanscape/architecture, wide angle slow type of work.

    As a teaser, I would say - forget Canon and get yourself a D3 with the Zeiss ZF primes in the shorter range and the 70-200VR Nikkor zoom for the rest.
     
  9. Ditto what Vinay wrote. Canon's 35L and longer are neck to neck with R lenses. The 24L
    has a bit of distortion but if you are shooting people then you will not notice it. For straight
    lines you can use the 24L TS. If you need any wider than that then maybe you can consider
    the Zeiss 21mm. Been there and done that and can say firsthand it is not worth the hassle.
     
  10. After endlessly repeating the much more practical advise of sticking to Canon image stabilized L glass, especially at the longer focal lengths, and only ever considering alternatives in the wide angles department when your needs are served by mounting the camera on the tripod and fulfilling the pixel peeping art/commercial director's strange desires, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that we should proactively start recommending any and all exotic glass from Leica, Zeiss, et al, to anyone who wants to put up with the hassle of using them with Canon. This would effectively keep the smart working pro focused on getting the results the way they know how to get, and keep the rest of the "professionals" busy with what they like being busy with - convincing themselves and anyone who'd listen that Leica and Zeiss glass is categorically superior.
     
  11. Nels i'm sorry but as a Pro and previous owner of Canon and also one of the grand fathers
    that started this revolution of using alternative glass on the 1ds going forward I have to
    disagree. I have actually owned many of the alternatives but more importantly tested them
    and bottom line leica and Zeiss are better than ANY wide canon has to offer. Like I said it
    starts at 35mm for canon and after that going up they have some great glass but trust me
    the Leica 180 F2 is a class above the 200 1.8 which i owned 3 of them. So as much as
    canon owners love to fight me on this i will always stick to my testing of these lense which
    i owned many of them and to my many years as pro and my experience. You can debate it
    all you want, could care less but i know better and folks that trust my opinion usally agree
    on what i think is the better lens. Don't get me wrong just because i shoot Leica lenses
    and bodies that i don't like Canon which is far from the truth but I go by owning and doing
    direct tests against each other not by internet rumor. This test are all gone now and have
    no desire to rehash old news but i am intrigued that canon has finally gotten the message
    and are bringing a new 16-35 to market which they needed to do , i went through 3 of
    them. But secretly i think canon has started to improve there glass which is awesome and
    for canon shooters that is really what they need. They have state of the art bodies but
    where lacking in the lenses and frankly that is why i switched. So i hope that Canon has
    finally figured it out but using alternative lenses is a royal PITA but if you want sharp
    corners on your wides than leica and Zeiss where the only way to go and hopefully that is
    changing. I have been here and done this so you believe what you want but i will not
    debate it , I see no point nor need too. I'm not trying to be a bully here and say I know
    better than anyone else BUT i put my money where my opinions are and spent a fortune
    on canon and leica glass so please go out and do the testing yourselfs if you want but i
    have done this and i have no interest or care either way what folks spend there money on.
    I
    deliever images to clents and at the end of the day that is all i care about.
     
  12. "trust me the Leica 180 F2 is a class above the 200 1.8 which i owned 3 of them"

    Why did you own three of them? Couldn't you get by with two?

    "i...spent a fortune on canon and leica glass so please go out and do the testing yourselfs"

    Or, alternatively, give the brick walls a break and just take some photographs of life.
    There's no great mystique to any of this, some Leica lenses (and all M series lenses) are a
    bit sharper than their Canon (or Nikon) equivalents. They also cost a great deal more and
    aren't at all convenient to use when mounted on a Canon. For most purposes pretty much
    all lenses have been sharp enough for decades. Does anybody really look at a Marc Riboud
    print from the 50s, or a Don McCullin print from the 60s, and think: "Nice picture, but a
    shame it wasn't taken with an aspherical lens"? Maybe Guy does, but most of us are just
    pleased to look at great images. The current Nachtwey show, "The Sacrifice", at Mark
    Seliger's gallery in NY has some sizeable prints of photographs made with the much
    maligned Canon 16-35, but when I was there there weren't a lot of people complaining
    that the corners are soft. Outside of purely technical photography it really doesn't much
    matter what you use. Photographs aren't made or broken by lines per mm or a bit of
    distortion. If it floats Guy's "Pro"-boat to buy and sell more stock than Adorama then that's
    cool, but lets not kid ourselves his conclusions have any significance to real world
    photography.
     
  13. Guy, or "one of the grand fathers that started this revolution of using alternative glass on the 1ds",

    Can you site a single example of a picture of yours that was rejected by an art director or whoever paid your bills on the basis of your use of a Canon L glass that made you switch to using the Leica R glass with an adaptor?
     
  14. Yes i can several of them shooting cockpits for clients for one, soft corners would have me
    looking for other work( which is a major client). It's not always about what the client will
    accept but about what you
    want to deliver to your client. Honestly if you feel a image may not be your best do you
    really want to give that to your client and than ask thousands for it. I honestly don't. I'm
    out to get clients excited about what i deliver not make excuses for it. Not that i can't
    deliver a canon image but if there is a better lens than that is what I want.

    The canon 200 1.8 I kept upgrading it for a newer and cleaner one because it was
    discontinued and parts for it are disapearing quickly that I wanted as new as i could get to
    last longer. Frankly this is there best lens they ever made

    i don't shoot brick walls either and I don't do gallery work.
     
  15. Boris there is more to photography than gallery work. Advertising, brochures , marketing
    material for companies is something many people just think comes out of thin air. There are
    many commercial shooters that do advertising and maybe never shot a gallery artistic image
    in there life. I never hear anyone talk about guys that do this type of work and it's always
    about Ansel or Henri or some other type of work that is more journalist style. There are
    thousands of commercial shooter that just shoot cars to make a living , no one talks about
    them or even thinks they exist. I know this forum is more geared at the journalist but there
    are many differnt types of photography out there.
     
  16. "It's not always about what the client will accept but about what you want to deliver to your client."

    I have to say that having never found before, I never expected to find anything insightful buried in one of Guy's vein-popping rampages but that is one. It's certainly true in medicine, where the patient has at best a cursory ability to understand the issues, that quite often one does what one feels is one's best even though we know it won't be noticed, appreciated or bring additional compensation. Whether it's my doctor or my photographer I'd certainly not criticize him for going a little overboard in the direction of perfectionism. Certainly preferable to an attitude of "the client/patient won't know or care about the difference so why should I bother?".
     
  17. There is never anything vein popping about my posts , it is just the way i write but you just
    may read them wrong and that is fine but I truly am a very calm person . So please lets
    move on to the subject at hand . We don't need to go here. But i do agree i would rather
    over compensate than under compensate for defects or other factors in lenses but that is
    me and it is not always needed either but certain work needs to be the best you can ouput.

    Vinay we don't like each other at all but let's leave that aside, I have no interest in petty
    wars with you or anyone. if you can't see your way past that than ignore whatever i say and
    just move on. Otherwise i rather take the high road than stoop to level i rather not go.
    Thanks Guy
     
  18. "It's not always about what the client will accept but about what you want to deliver to your client."
    It's not often I read anything insightful on photo.net but this truly is, thanks Guy - and thanks Vinay for the analogy that broadens the application of this concept.
     
  19. Thanks Doug maybe a new signature line. LOL

    I appreciate your comments and as always your talents
     
  20. Adapt Leica glass for wide angle and if you can put up with the lack of auto focus and exposure. You will be trading automation for corner sharpness.

    Canon has a new wide zoom which I would check first. It is like 20 to 40 or close to it. It is replacing the older similar design.

    Also you may need larger format anyway. It just depends on the final use size and quality required.
     
  21. Guy, it's a fair and noble objective to want to deliver more than what the client expects. No arguments there from me. Also, I'm glad that Canon is releasing an updated 16-35L partly in response to the fair complaints from photographers who shoot interiors and such, and partly in anticipation of their upcoming 1DsIII where any weaknesses in optics are only likely to be exaggerated beyond how they currently appear.

    But if you primarily shoot using a tripod, and ultimate image quality is what you're after, why deal with 35mm when you could get far superior results with medium format digital?
     
  22. Nels excellent point and i do agree and i want to move into that direction for sure and i
    have been for awhile. My main problem is what is out there in the market and if you look
    at the MF digital side it is all over the place as too who owns who and what software works
    on what platform plus there are really only maybe 6 differnt company backs out there .
    Now hassy had a open system than closed that with the H3. So i have been waiting and
    maybe too long for a good solution. I'm going to PMA and see what these guys have and
    start making some decisions. But the other issue is dropping 40k and than that back
    becomes a part of another company with no support too. It honestly has been a mess and
    there are a lot of guys now stuck to upgrade or be left in the dirt. leica gear although
    expensive it is at least something you can sell easy if they don't work out, MF is a tough
    nut to sell used. i really would like to get to two M8's and MF and leave the DSLR out of it. i
    honestly love the M8's and yes it has some issues but the files are really good if you are
    willing to work around the IR issue which I have. But for some of the PR work that i have to
    do they are great at that stuff and i even did a lot of commercial work with them, the M
    glass is really good and i did not know how good until I got the M8 . I never owned a M
    camera until now. Stupid really on my part that i watched them for 30 years and never
    bought one. i could kick myself now for it.

    But Mf is a big expense and i just want to be sure i am at least buying 5 years worth of
    camera.

    I also agree with you if canon puts out a 1dsMKIII without improving there wides they will
    just bury themseleves , so i am glad about the 16-35 it is a very positive sign from them.
     
  23. "Vinay we don't like each other at all but let's leave that aside, I have no interest in petty wars with you or anyone. if you can't see your way past that than ignore whatever i say and just move on. Otherwise i rather take the high road than stoop to level i rather not go."

    ...and lucidity fades as he sinks back into paranoid ranting. I don't dislike you Guy, you're the only one with any disliking here...for anybody who disagrees with you. If anything I feel sorry for you that someone with good intentions and ideas flies into a furious rage like Donald Duck at the mere suggestion there's an valid alternative to your opinions.
     
  24. "Boris there is more to photography than gallery work...There are many commercial
    shooters that do advertising and maybe never shot a gallery artistic image in there life. I
    never hear anyone talk about guys that do this type of work"

    People don't talk about these photographers because, just like, say, medical
    photographers, their work has no resonance to the outside world (at least aesthetically).
    The obsessive, and never satisfied, chase after corner to corner sharpness has no
    relevance at all to the majority of photographers or their images.

    "The canon 200 1.8 I kept upgrading it for a newer and cleaner one because it was
    discontinued and parts for it are disapearing quickly that I wanted as new as i could get to
    last longer. Frankly this is there best lens they ever made"

    On paper this might be the sharpest lens that Canon made, but it doesn't follow that it's
    the "best". In practise, you wouldn't see any sharpness difference between this lens and a
    300f2.8. This is about the desire for the biggest and baddest rather than most useable.
    Pretty much all the strongest images ever made in 35mm format could have been taken
    with a simple 28, 35, or 50. It's interesting that in the world of commercial and advertising
    some of the biggest, most lucrative, and high profile contracts are awarded to editorial
    photographers
    using equipment less exotic than that owned by the average Leica toting dentist. Vision is
    all.
     
  25. Vinay i expected a answer such as that , you simply donot give up throwing punches . Not
    interested.

    Boris if you need a 1.8 a 2.8 will no get it done. My needs were for a 1.8 lens for certain jobs
    that i do. The 300 2.8 is a nice lens but I never owned it so if you owned them both and
    tested against each other than i will take your word for it. The 300 was too long for me.
    Could have been is a little different than were don't you think. But if that is your thoughts
    than that is fine.
     
  26. "if you need a 1.8 a 2.8 will no get it done"

    Guy, you're the Nigel Tufnel of photography. All your lenses go up to 11.
     
  27. >>>> This is about the desire for the biggest and baddest rather than most useable.

    So hey, what's wrong with that? Aligns with the finest of photonet traditions. Gonna get me
    a f1.0 for my 20D and name my cam Ivan. Or maybe Genghis...
     
  28. Careful Brad, you'll start an arms race. If your lens goes up to 11 he'll buy one that goes
    up to 12. Think of the children man if not yourself.
     
  29. Guy, hope you've sent an advance notice to Canon reps and all the MF reps at PMA letting them know of your arrival. They can't afford not to know that "one of the grand fathers that started this revolution of using alternative glass on the 1ds" is going to be stopping by, shaking their hands, and ultimately be responsible for their future. Let them know in no uncertain terms that you like your lenses to go up to 12 and a half.
     
  30. Nels , Canon is not too fond of me that you can be sure of. i did my share of telling them
    about there wide angles. There glad i'm gone but the new 1dMKIII is kind of intereting for
    alternative lens shooters that live view maybe very useful for focusing. Actually the first
    guy that comes to mind is Jan Britenson on modifying the Leica 19mm for the 1ds, I went
    with the Zeiss 21mm but this is back when the RG forum was alive and kicking pretty
    good, now who knows what it is like but the grandfather comment was a figure of speech
    but this did start back when the 1ds was brought out. Which still in my mind was ther best
    image maker. It's interesting to see how many folks did ultimately go with alternative
    lenses on the Canon which with it's big mount can handle many brands . For me i got tired
    of the hassle and just bought the DMR it really is a PITA to work in stop down mode
     
  31. "Canon is not too fond of me that you can be sure of"

    They might be more fond of you than Leica are right now...
     
  32. "i did my share of telling them about there wide angles"
    So then if the new 16-35L II turns out to be a big success, we'll know who we have to thank.
    If I were you, when I go to the PMA show, I wouldn't book my hotel room anywhere near a Canon rep's room, or even eat at the same restaurant where they eat. However, if you're going to be drinking at the same bar where they drink, please let me know. It might be worth a plane ticket.
     
  33. No don't thank me, you can thank 100's of others that say the same thing day in and day out
    but i don't follow canon anymore since i don't own them for well over a year. I see no point in
    keeping up on there forums , something many should also do too. Can't see posting on a
    forum where i don't own the gear. But I will visit them at PMA, like to see there new camera

    Boris if you only knew how wrong that is.LOL
     
  34. Nels fishing in the lake is alot more fun than trying to bait me, it won't work. Have a pleasant
    evening
     
  35. "Boris if you only knew how wrong that is.LOL"

    I'm big enough to admit it when I get things wrong. I'm happy to confirm that Leica are
    delighted at having Guy Mancuso as their top cheerleader in the market place. They
    considered the merits of Salgado and Pellegrin for a while, but, in the end, plumped for
    the big guy with the gels from Arizona. Similarly, I know for a fact that Canon are still
    smarting at having to use the VII crew to promote their shabby goods. They wanted the
    noisey guy in the cowboy boots, but he just couldn't be bought - not even with the
    promise of a redesigned 16-35 with it's own range of dial in gels.
     
  36. What boris doesn't "get" is that Guy uses what works best for his job and the label on the tool
    means little to him.
     
  37. What Boris doesn't "get" is the desire to talk always in absurdly macho kickass absolutes.
    This lens is the sharpest. That lens has the best bokeh. Film blows away digital. Digital
    blows away film...
     
  38. boris how about you re-read the orginal poster's question. Guy is answering the question. If
    you have issues with the question take it up with the original poster.
     
  39. Threads evolve. This one is far past the point of addressing the original question, which, in
    any case, was too vague to give a meaningful answer to.

    I've no issue at all with people having definite preferences as to their choice of cameras
    and lenses, I just think it would be a shame if the more bombastic and aggressive
    flagbearers weren't challenged as to the relevance of their opinions. The first time I
    disagreed with Guy on a thread he raged that I wouldn't dare do so to his face - as if
    having a differing view on the relative merits of two cameras was a hugely provocative act
    liable to lead to violence. I'm not alone in having been the target of his rage. We're talking
    about cameras, not issues of life or death - I've had more relaxed exchanges with the
    husbands of some of the women I've slept with.

    Nota bene: To the best of my knowledge I have not slept with Guy's wife.
     
  40. wow, talk about a tempest in a teapot! Get a life, boris.
     
  41. Interesting he even says the 200 1.8 on paper is the better lens but does not agree with that ,
    I say it is because i shot it for a long time. Do any of these people actually use gear and make
    test . or is it jealousy that or distaste for people that actually do. This thread is not about me
    and what i use . That is my choice but i simple came and answered the orginal posts , if he
    takes that opinion and uses it for his beneifit than great. If not than that is great also. But
    Boris i never seen your name in my life so i can only assume that either you changed your
    name or once again on this forum you joined the troll parade but i never even of heard of you
    and i am not here very much at all. But it is obvious you have some agenda. For me I'm off to
    work. have a nice day. Hopefully the OP got some answers that may help him in his decisions
     
  42. Yes, that must be it. <br>
    Jealousy or distaste. <br>
    Either/or. <br>
    Binary. <br>
    No possible alternatives. <br>
    With an obvious agenda. <br>
    Of course. <br>
     
  43. Well when you insult my wife than he crossed the line and i won't be accountable for anything
    I say or do now. Sorry that is uncalled for and he is just another troll and deserves no respect
    and that is all i will say.

    Jacob what would you call his comments pleasant , wanting opinion or what same old stuff
    that goes on each day is to insult others . Sorry i don't go for that so, he it is obviously
    something. I don't need the BS. I see he and others have really answered the OP questions.

    I am without further comment at this point. Enjoy this place
     
  44. "The first time I disagreed with Guy on a thread he raged that I wouldn't dare do so to his face - as if having a differing view on the relative merits of two cameras was a hugely provocative act liable to lead to violence. I'm not alone in having been the target of his rage."

    Guy doesn't hear himself, he calls himself a "calm" person, he's clearly in denial. It's too bad really, because he is a well-intentioned person with a great deal of passion for his work. Few people are able to sustain that kind of passion throughout a long career. He's lucky, he'll never burn out. He might stroke out though, if he doesn't learn to reel in his paranoia that every disagreement with his Leica obsession is a personal attack. Certainly more people other than just the rabidly Leica-obsessed would appreciate his contributions if they were less infused with rage.
     
  45. Vinay i may have my moments but you are a little over the top on this and you know it . Let's
    move on. But you also need to read your comments they come across as very insulting to
    some people. No one is perfect but once again your off topic and that is not helping the OP.
    This is not about me at all but some of you want that to be and I am not biting so goodbye, i
    don't have time to play tit for tat and frankly it is very childish and not something i am
    remotely interested in. Please think what you will but I won't play in this field. This forum
    seems to like to insult one another and sorry guys leave me out, I am simply not interested in
    that behavior
     
  46. "Originally I was thinking Medium Format Contax, Rollei, Hasselblad? but I was advised on
    Leica R lenses as the very best."

    Hmmm, how 'bout investigating the Schneider range of lenses for the Rollei 6000 system?
    Look at the 50mm f2.8, the Makro 90mm f4, and the Tele Xenar 150mm f4. The combination
    of high quality glass and bigger image (film or digi) would comfortably surpass Leica's
    offerings.
     
  47. "This is not about me at all but some of you want that to be and I am not biting so goodbye, i don't have time to play tit for tat and frankly it is very childish and not something i am remotely interested in. Please think what you will but I won't play in this field. This forum seems to like to insult one another and sorry guys leave me out, I am simply not interested in that behavior"

    You made it about you by going off hysterically the moment someone posed an objection to something you said. Now you try to act all innocent and hurt and pick up your toys and go home. Like I said, your personality gets in the way of your good intentions and inhibits anyone from entering into a constructive discussion with you.
     
  48. There is nothing constructive in the last few posts and until there is i have no interest. I will
    not tolerate insults , period. There is no need for me too. I am still waiting for you guys to
    give a opinion to the OP which neither one of you have done except for 1 post out of about
    15 in total. Sorry but that is not a constructive opinion on lenses for a canon body. Your right
    i won't play . Sorry go find someone else to bait , i see it everyday here.
     
  49. ...this reminds me of going to a show and the star bows and waves goodbye and walks into the wings but nobody gets up to go home because everyone knows he's going to come back for a few encores ;-)
     
  50. I remember going to a Pink Floyd concert at the Pasadena Rose Bowl, and they did double encores. The first was predictable but the second was a true surprize.

    Only the truly great artists such as Pink Floyd and Guy can pull it off. Give him some credit, Vinay.
     
  51. I forgot to mention, the Floyd played "Comfortably Numb" during the second encore. It was an extended version, and felt....good.
     
  52. "I am still waiting for you guys to give a opinion to the OP which neither one of you have
    done"

    It's less that we haven't given opinions and more that you don't like the opinions offered.
    This is from my initial post: "There's no great mystique to any of this, some Leica lenses
    (and all M series lenses) are a bit sharper than their Canon (or Nikon) equivalents. They
    also cost a great deal more and aren't at all convenient to use when mounted on a Canon.
    For most purposes pretty much all lenses have been sharp enough for decades". On
    reflection it seems a perfectly valid and reasonable response to the original post.

    "I am not biting so goodbye"

    This is number 634 in a series of theatrical goodbyes. Number 635 can't be far away. Your
    attitude to dialogue is identical to your attitude to equipment: it's all or nothing,
    everything is an absolute.
     
  53. >I forgot to mention, the Floyd played "Comfortably Numb" during the second encore. It was
    an extended version, and felt....good.

    This is more like a Springsteen concert of old where the encore would go on for another
    hour with guest musicians jumping on stage to display their showmanship....
     
  54. Yes, Boris answered the question quite well.<p>
    Raymond, the guitar solo was long and sweet...but the words seem so appropriate to this thread...<p>
    <i>
    "Hello.<br>
    Is there anybody in there? <br>
    Just nod if you can hear me.<br>
    Is there anyone home? <br>
    ...<br>
    ...<br>
    Your lips move but I can't hear what youre sayin.<br>
    ...<br>
    ...<br>
    Now I got that feeling once again.<br>
    I can't explain, you would not understand.<br>
    ..."<br>
     
  55. Umm, Just gonna throw my two cents in here. I'm a semi-pro but I had some fairly major credits quick out the gate, and I did some of it with a Bronica MF and a Minolta X700 with a Tamron 70-210 and a Sigma 28mm. Then I kind of switched careers for a good period, came back, and my gf's brother said - you gotta update to AF, so I went out and bought a Canon EOS 7E and a 24mm 2.8 and an 85mm 1.8. I also bought a new 50mm for my Bronica (for $275). Oh yeah, the Bronica's batteries dont burn out either. Guess why I'm still looking, the 24mm was actually worse as a wide than a 15-yr old Sigma, and I manually focusesed the thing, too, because it, or the stupid EOS, was hunting all the time. AF, yeah right.

    I've gotten decent to good results from the 85mm, esepcially in color rendering, but it is not an especially sharp lens, and it was a mistake because it turns out I dont like fixed 85mm all that much. I dont see any better bokeh than my Tamron had, and these results have soured me on Canon in general. The camera is decent I suppose, though its focussing is lousy. I've used an olympus C750, which has been a great Stealth shooter at concerts, but also terribly slow and soft, so I'm probably getting into a D40 because spending 3-7k on an upper end digital seems idiotic unless you have a full-time position in the field. Then of course there's the ole debate about digital vs film, but I think the gap will soon be closed for good. Scanning MF is a major hassle, becuse you cant find anyplace to directly print transparencies yourself anymore, and I'm already invested in a good slide scanner, so I want the sharpest 35mm out there. I can buy two 'old' solid Leica R lenses for the cost of Canon's supposed premier lenses. When you read reviews that tell you to check to make sure you got a sharp one of a certain model, it makes you wonder if Canon is a seriously watered-down brand.

    I suppose putting it on a Mark II makes sense if you get the great final digifile you want, but I've seen lines of resolution analyses that put some Nikon AIS lenses above everything, including the brand new Zeiss lenses. There's a lot of hype everywhere, and trial and error is prob tha only way anyone can know anything.

    I do agree, however, that ultimately, access and creativity matter the most, but then again, if you take pictures with crappy glass, then you'll
    be doing nothing but screaming when you get home, as I did after using that piece of junk Canon 24mm in Alaska. I know, I should have spent 1k on the best Canon wide out there. I thought that the junk glass was saved for kit lenses.
     

Share This Page