Canon 70-200IS vs Leica 70-180 2.8 APO

[erik_wang]

I currently have the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS, while this lens is great

and is among my favorites, I have lately wanted to try the Leica 70-

180 f2.8 APO.

 

I used to have the Canon 100mm Macro USM, even though the lens is

sharp, it just can not compare to the Leica 100mm 2.8 Macro APO,

thus I sold the Canon.

 

I love the build quality and feel of Leica, and I do not mind manual

focus, as this will be used for still portraits.

 

Has anyone had personal experiences with both Canon and Leica zooms

that can give me some insights before I committ to getting the Leica

70-180 zoom.

 

 

Also, anyone have a Leica 85 1.4 APO that can give me your reivew

compared to the 85L.

 

Thank you all in advanced.

[ben z]

Erik, while I do not own the Canon 70-200/2.8-IS I did borrow one to use along with a 1.4x and a 20D to shoot my son's college graduation which was in an indoor stadium with a spotlit stage. I had the lens wide open at an effective f/4 (with the telextender), the ISO set at 1600, and due to security reasons I could not bring a tripod or monopod so I had to hand-hold it. I was getting shutter speeds of 1/45 at an effective 448mm (telextender plus 20D crop), and while a few shots had people's arms and legs showing motion blur, their faces were tack-sharp and showed no evidence of camera shake. I can't compare optics to the Leica 70-180 but even if it had better MTF, I know I could not have gotten those shots with it under those circumstances. The specs show the Leica zoom is quite a bit heavier than the Canon, how that correlates to your ability to hand-hold it, I can't say for you. But if your intent is to shoot these lenses handheld, from my experience the Image Stabilizer might is the deal maker. KEH has a couple of them right now, a 3-cam and a ROM, you don't stand to lose more than a few bucks in shipping to try one out for a week or two and compare them yourself.

[eliot_rosen1]

There is no Leica 85/1.4 APO. There is an 80/1.4 Summilux-R, but it does not have APO correction.

[stuart_richardson]

Though this may be a bit along the lines of apples and oranges, I have the canon FD

85mm f/1.2L and the 75mm f/1.4 summilux M. They are both astonishing lenses and the

formulae are almost identical (if not identical) to the two lenses you are interested in. In

this case, assuming the EF version of the 85mm f/1.2L is as good as the FD version, I don't

think you would gain anything by switching to the 80mm summilux R. You would lose half

a stop, 5mm extra reach, and the coupling between the lens and the body. I have not used

the EF version of the 85mm f/1.2L, so I cannot comment on the ergonomics as compared

to the 80mm summilux R

[john_jovic]

I've tested and owned the FD 85/1.2, EF 85/1.2 and R 80/1.4. Either 85 is slightly better then the R wide open, but this is the only real optical advantage they have other than smaller depth of field at f1.2 compared to f1.4. The 85's get sharper till about f4 and then they don't really get spectacular whilst the R 80 does. Aperture for aperture the Leica R 80/1.4 kills the 85's when stopped down to f2 or smaller and is best at f8. It also has noticeably better tonal gradation than either Canon lens. The canons are sharp as they are slightly contrastier than the Leica but the difference is evident in the resolution of the R compared to the Canons. If you intend shooting mainly at f1.2 or 1.4 then buy the Canon. if you intend using the lens for a range of general purpose, and low light work, then buy the Leica.

 

I use a 70-200 IS on a daily basis and am not completely satisfied with it but I think I might have a slight dud. Prior to buying this lens I hired a 70-200 IS which I believe performed better than the one which I ultimately bought. Sample variation seems to be a problem with Canon and much less so with any Leica. I compared the "hire" 70-200 IS to the R 70-180 about 2 years ago and was surprised to find that the Canon performed slightly better than the Leica. My tests were not exhaustive but the 2 lenses were shot at the same subject at the same time of day, using the same tripod and technique. I used the R lens for about 3 months and the "hire" 70-200 IS for only a couple of days. Neither lens performed badly in any way but as I've already said I was surprised to find that the Canon beat the Leica in the direct comparison shooting the same subject. Didn't notice any tonal gradation or colour differences but I wasn't really looking for any either. The Canon was sharper wide open at 180mm. They seemed about the same at the 70mm end but the Canon was still slightly sharper. Either way both lenses are fine and I wouldn't pay the huge bucks for the Leica over the Canon, it's simply not noticebly better.

 

JJ

[po_ting_huang]

I had both the 70-200/2.8L and 70-180 APO. At 200mm wide open, the canon looks a bit sharper on the edge of the subject, but the 70-180 is more contrasy than Canon, especially the micro contrast. The image from Leica looks 3D and that's the advantage over Canon. However, Canon has AF and is much cheaper. I got mine for less than 600 with few tiny scratch on the front element. They won't affect the IQ though. I think from 70-135mm, Leica is better in terms of IQ. Stopped down, Canon is no match for Leica. It's hard to believe the 70-180 has only 13 elements with APO design while the Canon has 19! (23 for IS version)