Jump to content

Leica R prime lenses vs Canon L prime lenses


alberto greco

Recommended Posts

The other thing that's really funny is the idea that heres a bunch of so-called professional photographers opting to sacrifice all the shots that slip away while there twisting aperture rings back and forth between wide open for focusing and stopped down to working aperture, counting detents or taking the camera away from their eyes, in preference for some miniscule glow or bokeh or whatever. I can see a pro if he seriously thinks he's so good only a Leica lens is worth him shooting thru, get an R8 or R9 and a DMR.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nothing is beating, nothing has ever beaten and nothing will ever beat Leica prime fixed focal length lenses. That's not a joke"

 

"If its not a joke why am I still laughing at this most ridiculous generalized statement."

 

Joel, trust me you're in good company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep Nels, if you're just shooting flower pics, the Canon 100/2.8 AF Macro is plenty good.

 

The reason the Leica needs the adapter is to maximize image correction, and is why it's

rated as one of the best macros out there ... often used for product photography by some

commercial shooters.

 

I don't need the Leica 100/2.8 Macro either, so the Canon 100/2.8 Macro is plenty for me

also. I have a macro/bellows for my R gear that even does more than 1 to 1 when I need it.

 

As to missing shots fiddling with focussing, apertures, etc. Yep, it can be a PITA, unless

you are shooting wide open or just a stop or two down. But I don't lug around a 85/1.2

Contax to shoot @ f/5.6 ... so aperture adjustment is mute point.

 

Focussing? Love AF !!!

 

Don't always need or want it. Lenses made for manual focus aren't like the sloppy AF

Canon lenses when set on manual, (they're loose so the AF can be fast, but they suck for

manual work). Leica R lenses are dedicated manual lenses that offer much more precise

control for those who prefer that kind of control over what's in focus and what isn't.

 

Lens qualities? It seems there are a lot of "homogenized eyes" here that are vehement

about there being no difference. All I can say is, good for you. Life's cheap when you love

Mc Donald's, econo-boxes, bic pens, and oatmeal. More power to ya : -)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Nels, except for the Contax 120/4 macro, and the Zeiss 120/4 V series Makro, and

the Leica Bellows lenses, and the Nikon counterpart to the Canon 180, and the ... well there

a million of them. Nice to have a choice, especially if you already own a specific camera.

 

Had the Canon 180, too big and to much CA at the edges. Sold it. Switched to the Zeiss

120/4 Macro on the 645. CA problem solved... but still too big for field work. Use it in the

studio and the Canon 100/2.8 for all the less critical stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canon macro has some tough competition. Along with the lenses that Marc listed the Pentax 200mm FA macro is a superb lens also. I used it for a while and was absolutely shocked at its image quality. Most systems have a ~200mm macro and most of them seem to be exceptional.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope the quality of your photographs reflects the money and the amount of BS that percolates in this typical Leica thread.

 

Leica lenses are excellent, so are Canon L's, so are Pentax Limiteds, etc, etc. These will not be the factor that prevent you from getting the shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True Paulo, but slinging troll banter, doesn't add to the discussion on the topic Alberto

requested. The title was pretty clear, so why not just skip the thread?

 

Image quality IS an issue given all other aspects being equal. Canon wide angle barrel

distortion IS an issue if you re shooting commercial work where it's not acceptable. CA IS

an issue if producing commercial product work for picky Art Directors ... (it's their ad you

are shooting so I don't blame them) ... and so on.

 

None of this absolves one from all the other aspects of image excellence (most of which

are more important than the lens quality). But certain lens qualities CAN BE helpful, even

instrumental, in achieving your vision ... providing of course that you have a vision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alberto,

 

I started in photography with Canon, then moved to Leica, and now I'm back to Canon due to digital photography, using both Canons and Leica lenses. I've made some tests comparing the resolution of my copy of the Leica 28/2.8 R (no ROM, but not an old version either) to my Canon 28/2.8 and they were basically the same, the Canon perhaps a hair better. I was relatively surprised, given how bad some people talk sometimes about Canon cheap wide angles, although I always thought that my Canon 28/2.8 was a very fine lens. I compared my Leica 50/2 R with the Canon 50/1.8 and the leica was much better (and the difference was larger at f4 and than at wider apertures, something which was also surprising to me). As for the famous Leica "glow", sometimes I see it, sometimes I don't, I think it depends on the mood.

 

If you plan to go digital with Canon and use your R-glass, make sure you buy a FF camera, or else it won't be easy to focus your leica lenses in low light. And if AF is a plus to you, go with the Canons (I can't track my 1-year old daughter with manual focus lenses, and I have often missed focus at f2 due to poor light and shallow dof, even on a 5D).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to change the subject....

 

Hi Brad have you had a look at the new Sony R1? lots of DX pixels Zeiss lens, real time view...and value for money big time. A cam which i think is you.Just a thought.

 

Hi Z long time no speak...hey, about a big hug missed you sweetie!

 

Marc, i think the Leica primes are the business and i can understand your use of them...DMR, i'm not too sure about have not been too impressed with the photos so far. Hey, may the force be with you!

 

L lenses, only tried one being a Nikon person,impressed.Love my 70- 300 Do lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Allen. The R1 seems like a really nice package. I've been thinking about it. But, sony

didn't include the excellent laser-assist autofocusing and IR capability that was in the

F828/717/707 cams. Otherwise, I'd give it a try.

www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

forget everything... leica r to canon eos bokeh blah blah .. is the image good thats all that

matters if you like to check lenses like formula 1 engines then shoot witha telescope!!

i have used all of the above and all have their attributes but i find sticking with a dedicated

system always works.... oh yes and autofocus is the new rangefinder. i have used an m6 and

an r8 for a long time but my new canon 5d with canon optics is amazing for now. forget

about the techinical yadadayada and take amazing images<div>00Fsl7-29204984.thumb.jpg.d38e51935afdd4f3147829f21318c564.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

<p>Believe it or not, I am one of those old dinosaurs who obtains better results with manual focus than with autofocus.<br>

This is just to say that autofocus is not the end of it all. There's still room for manual focusing.<br>

It's not just me and it's not just amateurs, there's still pros who use manual focus for their work. Ask rally photographers, if they use autofocus or prefocusing technique. The answers might surprise many autofocus believers.<br>

I have Contax, Leica and Nikkor manual focus lenses and I use them on my 5D, 50D, and 5DMkII with great satisfaction.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

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...