Jump to content

Leica R prime lenses vs Canon L prime lenses


alberto greco

Recommended Posts

Hi everybody,

 

I have a complete Leica set of prime lenses (28, 50, 90 mm) which I

currently use on a R4S. 20 year old equipment, but still very good.

Iメm used to print my pics by myself in my b&w darkroom.

Iメm thinking about buying a Canon system (for autofocus reason and

compatibility with digital).

The quality of the pics is very important for me and therefore I am

considering to buy Canon L prime lenses (which, I think, are the

only Canon lenses which wonメt be completely blown out of the water

by Leica quality).

My question is: prime Canon L lenses are at least as good as Leica

20 year old primes? What about other Canon prime lenses (not L

series)?

Are there some resolution test for comparing such lenses? In your

opinion, which size the pictures should have for noticing some

differences between the lenses?

Will I be disappointed by prints taken out of L canon lenses

(considering that in my entire モphotographyヤ life, I just have used

Leica lenses)?

 

Thanks for your comments

 

PS I'm thinking about posting the same message on Canon Eos forum,

just to know what Canon people think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canon 35L, 85L, and 135L are absolutely world class lenses. Also, the Canon 100mm Macro is superb.

 

I'm no lens tester and will not post pics to prove anything here, though others might. Your best bet would be to try them yourselves by renting them first and seeing with your own eyes whether they meet your expectations. As to whether your expectations are to do good photography or shoot resolution charts, I have no interest in knowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get an adapter to mount your Leica glass to a Canon body. Nothing is beating, nothing has ever beaten and nothing will ever beat Leica prime fixed focal length lenses. That's not a joke. Find a reason for not wanting autofocus and continue to use the Leica glass. It is far superior if you're doing enlargements beyond 20x30 cm. I used two prime Canon lenses before. All I can say is that my Leica glass blows them away. Especially wide open, which is what I use most and where I find the added value of the Leica.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have both the Canon 1.4/50 and pre-ASPH Lux-M (similar to the R-version). They are

very similar in performance, but the Lux is more flare proof and has better bokeh. The new

Lux-R is supposed to be a killer lens, better than the Summicron-R/M, which means it is

vastly better than the Canon.

 

I haven't had a chance to shoot the 35 Lux-R, but have used the Canon 35L. The Canon 35

is very nice, but has a noticeable amount of distortion and the corners are a little soft wide

open. I don't think it's as good as the 1.4/35 Summilux-M ASPH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to ask the same question Nels did:<P>

 

<I>If autofocus is the reason you're looking at Canon, why bother comparing the two

systems?</i><P>

 

There are circumstances where AF is hugely important and making unsupportable

pontifications about Leica lens quality (into the future, no less) is not helpful or

informative. To answer Alberto's question a little more precisely, it would help to know

which lenses he's considering. He currently uses 28, 50, and 90 mm, but perhaps he has

other focal lengths in mind as well. Canon makes some lenses that are world-beaters (I'm

thinking of the big-glass telephotos and 70-200 zooms here). OTOH, some of their

wideangles apparently leave something to be desired. I don't have any 20 year old leica

glass, but FWIW my 500/4 IS absolutely buries the ~34 year old Leitz 560/5.6 I used for

many years -- not only in optical quality, but in the robustness of construction and in ease

of handling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the Canon range compare very favourably with Leica lenses (or Zeiss for that matter). Apart from the super telephoto lenses, where Canon quality is beyond dispute, the tilt and shift range, the 15 2.8 L, 35 1.4 L, 50 1.4, 85 1.2 L, and 135 2.0 L are all outstanding peformers. And some of the lower priced optics are no slouches either, take a look here to see what the economical 85mm f1.8 is capable of.

 

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos5d/eos5d_sample-e.html

 

 

The achilles heel of the Canon lens range are the fixed focal length wide-angles in the 20-28mm range. They're not bad exactly, just nothing to get excited about. Which is why there's a brisk trade in Zeiss and Leica to Canon converters rings to allow Canon camera owners access to the 21mm Distagon and 19mm Leica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A huge number of working professional photographers around the world seem to think Canon glass is good enough for them, but if you don't think it's good enough for your photography then you should stick with Leica. But like others have said, if you need autofocus then you have no choice but to look elsewhere than Leica.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will likely see little difference in Canon L glass and your older R primes. There is also some overlap bewteen strengths of systems. IMHO, the longer Canon primes (300mm and 400mm especially) are better than the "normal" focal lengths, and especially the wide angle lenses. Similarly, of the older R primes I believe Leica's longer focal lengths (90mm, 135mm, 180mm in particular) are better than the normal and wide angle focal lengths. The newer normal and wide angle Leica R lenses are better than the older ones, but are very pricey. Because Canon's wide angle primes are just average, the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 Distagon (sold for $1600 new, now out of production) routinely sells today for $3000 and up---used. It is the most desired "off brand" glass favored by Canon digital users. Having said that, the new version Leica R 19mm is also a very fine lens. The best value among older primes are the Contax/Zeiss lenses, especially the 21mm Distagon (albeit very pricey), but more moderately priced are the (mintish used prices, all out of production) 28mm f2 Distagon ($700-$800), 28mm f2.8 Distagon ($225), 35mm f2.8 Distagon ($200), and the 50mm f1.4 ($150) and f1.7 Planar ($100-$125). All equal to or superior to any Leica R (or Canon L) for far less money (except the aforementioned 21mm Distagon, a lens in a class by itself).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As other's have said, the widangle primes are not Canon's best lenses. The $400 20/2.8 USM isn't bad for a $400 lens, but isn't as good as the Zeiss/Leica equivalents which sell for $3000+.

 

Please don't crosspost this on the EOS forum. Posting the same question on multiple forums isn't allowed here. You'll just get the same answers anyway.

 

At longer focal lengths, the Canon "L" primes are world class. For example the 85/1.2L and 135/2.0L would be very hard to beat at any price by any other manufacturer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently bought a 5D, and compared the Canon 50/1.4 and 35/2 with the Leica-R 50/2 and 35/2.

 

The Canon 50 was sharper at center and edge, beginning at f2. At 1.4, though, the Canon lens does not perform well. I would imagine the new Leica-R 50 Summilux ROM would be better wide open, but since my Summicron R (ROM version) doesn't go to 1.4, i'm content with the Canon.

 

The Canon 35/2 was 'a match' for the Summicron 35 (newish 3-Cam). A hair better in the center, and a hair worse on the edges. I will probably trade up to the L35/1.4, which is supposed to be sharper, but does suffer from distortion. Of course, if distortion is a critical factor with wide angle lenses, using rangefinders would be preferable.

 

I did not compare the 80-R Summilux with the 85/1.2L, as i sold the Leica 80 before i acquired the Canon 85. But, i was never thrilled with the Leica wide open, using film, and i am thrilled with the Canon wide open (even at 1.2) using digital. The Canon's bokeh is amazing, and may make me forget the Contax-N 85mm 1.4 Planar i used to favor.

 

I did not compare criteria such as color. With digital, color is easily manipulated, and is dependent on white balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a EF 50/1.4, but sold it after acquiring a Leica 50/2 R. Leica is noticeably sharper,and has better clarity. It's a different feeling looking at pics taken with Leica. I am now using Leica with Canon D30 with a split screen and manual focus for portraits. My brother owns a 10D and a 70-200/4 L glass. He likes his L glass, but I am never impressed by his pics. Just my two cents. Keep in mind, manual focus can be annoying some time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

to Leon Chang:

 

You seem to be serious about photography othwerwise you would not invest large amounts of money into Leica glass.

 

What I just cannot understand however, is your comment about the fact that you use your Leica lenses "wide open, which is what I use most".

 

Please explain; why would you (or anyone) use their lenses "wide-open" most of the time? I don't get it. Is it because you're an 'iso-freak' that doesn't want to use anything over 100 iso. Is it because you always want to shoot at least 1/500 sec. shutter speed? Why do you do this? Isn't it so that these fast lenses are mainly designed so you can still shoot the occasional low-light shot? Why on earth would you want to shoot at f/2 "most of the time"???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to dissapoint you but the canon lenses are not that great. See

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/267995

 

Guy Manusco tested a whole bunch of glass and found it to be lacking this is mainly from 50mm on down. The link above is FM forum in alternative digital section (ie not canon or nikon). It's a HUGE post and will take several hours to read. BTW my canon 50F1.4 doesn't hold a candle to my 50F2.0 cron on my Hexar RF/M4-P.

 

I strongly recommend you get an adapter from www.cameraquest.com stuff the AF good luck.

 

Gerry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yes, there could be something to this. Only the other day, I picked up a copy of James Nachtwey's <cite>Inferno</cite> at a nearby bookstore, flicked through it, was appalled by the low resolution and lack of Leica glow, put it back on the shelf, and instead bought a photo book of frolicking kittens.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>The Canon 50 was sharper at center and edge, beginning at f2 (than 2/50-R). At 1.4,

>though, the Canon >lens does not perform well. I would imagine the new Leica-R 50

>Summilux ROM would be >better wide open, but since my Summicron R (ROM version) >

>doesn't go to 1.4, i'm content >with the Canon.

 

Hmmm, that's not what I saw with my 5D and Canon 1.4/50, 2/50-R setup.

The Canon is a good lens, but it's no Summicron.

 

feli

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Yes, there could be something to this. Only the other day, I picked up a copy of James

>Nachtwey's Inferno at a nearby bookstore, flicked through it, was appalled by the low

>resolution and lack of Leica glow, put it back on the shelf, and instead bought a photo book

>of frolicking kittens.

 

James Nachtwey could shoot with a cardboard box, if he had to. The man is brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James Nachtwey is brilliant, and probably reasonably intelligent enough to select his gear

for the job at hand ... secure in the knowledge that the optics he uses are more than

enough for that job. Speed, sealed gear, durability, digital transmission, etc. are also

attributes that probably weigh in his decisions. So, IMO, the analogy is mute point if

indeed one desires the very best 20X30 of those frolicking kittens ; -)

 

Alberto, for the Canon, keep the R glass you have, and just get 1 of the type of R to EOS

adapter that you leave on the lens (which is inexpensive), add some nice Canon L AF glass

(or better yet, rent a lens you are considering) ... then decide. You can always sell the R

gear if satisfied with the Canon optics for your applications.

 

Many lenses have certain optical characteristics that you may or may not like. To say one

system has them all is silly. The fantastic thing about the EOS mount is that it will accept

so many different lenses ... so the world is wide open.

 

For example, I have yet to find a 28mm lens I like more than the Zeiss Distagon 28/2. I

use it on a Canon 1DsMKII as well as a Contax RX. While I have a Canon 85/1.2 and love

it, I also use a Zeiss 85/1.2 on the 1DsMKII for its (very obvious to me) different

characteristics ... when I don't face a situation requiring AF and fully automatic aperture

control. I have the Canon 100/2.8 Macro. Nice lens. Can't hold a candle to the Leica

100/2.8 Macro ... and who needs AF for macro work? IMO, a cheap 50/2R 2 cam blows

away any 50mm Canon makes ... and will still be around when the Canon is in the dust

bin.

 

This not to suggest you run out and bankrupt yourself securing every iteration of a focal

length ever made, just that you may actually still like that 20 year old R glass ( I know

saying that here on the anti-Leica forum is blasphemy, but it could be true : -)

 

Best of luck, and good shooting whatever you decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi ! I have had opportunity to own and use nearly all high end lenses of Nikon, Canon , Contax and Leica R. IMHO this is how I would rate them in order of preference. The Leica R lens are all of current specs.

 

Focal Length :

 

19/20 mm Leica , Nikon , Canon , Contax

 

28mm Contax , Canon/Nikon, Leica (all f 2.8)

 

35 Canon (35/1.4L) , Leica 35/.4 , Nikon (35/2) , Contax

 

50 Leica (new 50/1.4) , Contax 50/1.4 , Nikon 50/1.4, Canon

 

85 Minolta 80/1.4G , canon 85/1.2, nikon 80/1.4 , Contax 80/1.4

 

90 Leica 90/2.8

 

135 Canon 135/2L, Contax, Nikon , Leica

 

180mm Leica (180 apo), Nikon , Contax ,

 

all the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...