a little disappointed

[MTC Photography]

Centre D' Essais Chasseur d'Image tested a lot of Canon FD and EF

lenses. They collected them into Dossier Canon.

 

In this Canon lens test portfolio, there are only 2 awarded five

star *****, the rest are

<ul><li> 4 star 20 lenses <li> 3 star 23 lenses <li> 2 * 14 lenses

</ul><p>

The percentage of top 5 star lenses in Canon line up is only a

dismal 3.4%

about half of that of Nikon. <p> Among Nkon 80 lenses tested only 2

lenses are 2 star lenses

<p> The percentage of lousy 2 * Canon lenses is 14 ! a woopping 23 %

<p> The total number of 5 star and 4 star canon lenses amount to 22,

less then 38%, while there are about 50% Nikon lenses are 5 and 4

stars.

<p>

[gail_hammer1]

Rob you are so right. Of course it is the person behind the camera. I have a Leica R4 with 3 great

lenses and a Minolta Maxuum 7000 (which is supposed to be a lousy camera but somebody gave it to me so who

am I to look a gift horse in the mouth...) with a Sigma zoom lens - two cameras seemingly two worlds apart

but I have taken great photographs that I loved with the Minolta as well as with the Leica. I appreciate

the dependability of a manual camera and I really like that I can shoot infra red film with the Leica but

I am so fed up with having to feel insecure about my gear (the Minolta for instance) when really it's all

about a photographer's vision and creativity. If you have to use a 20x loupe to see a difference then

let's face it - there is no difference!

 

<p>

 

Gail

[wayne_rainey]

This is more an answer to Simon Coates:

yes the Canon f2.8 / 28mm -70mm zoom is one of the best lenses from

Canon and sure it is expensive.... though not as much expensive

as the leica glass. If you accept that it can do such a nice job as

the leica combination 35mm f2/ 50mm f2/ 60mm f2.8 at the same cost as

a single one of these prime lenses...... then, since yours is only a

question of price, you should jump over the canon charriot.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

Wayne

[peter_hughes1]

Leica is a cult more than a camera. While it might be worth joining

that cult for an M rangefinder and its absolutely superb feel,

ergonomics and cachet (I own an M3), the SLR's are another matter

entirely, being many years behind the pack technologically. IMO Canon

EOS rules the 35mm SLR world these days, with Nikon a struggling

second.

 

<p>

 

I might get flamed for saying this--there are quite a few Leica

fanatics out there who feel the need to vigorously defend their

exorbitant purchases--but I believe that, as one poster said, high-

end glass these days is going to be pretty much the same, regardless

of the manufacturer. (It's the "Japan-ization" of the photo world.)

If you want a retro look, get some older M (or SM) lenses. That's

when a Leica was a Leica, and being so meant something.

 

<p>

 

http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm

[peter_hughes1]

I should also add that if your images are so weak that people are

concentrating on the sharpness or lack thereof, instead of on the

picture itself, then it simply doesn't matter which camera or lenses

you shoot with. To put it another way, if you're poring over your

negatives/sides with a 20x loupe trying to discern differences in

sharpness between Leica, Canon and Nikon lenses, then you need to get

out and shoot more.

[tapas_maiti4]

Peter

 

<p>

 

Well said!!!

 

<p>

 

Cheers

 

<p>

 

Tapas

[david_carlos1]

to me it isn't the contrast and sharpness that makes the overall

impression, but more the content and composition. however, i do

photograph using the m-series because its quiet.

[tim_robinson]

Your a brave boy Robert ,saying those sort of things but good on

you.Forget the 20 x lupes i think you should be able to see a

better clarity in about a 10x8 print.Year after year.That is where i

find a big advantage over Cannon or Nikon ZOOMS. In my

experience with the Nikon 80-200,Cannon 70-200 and the

cannon 28-70 they were very sharp when new but go soft when

the tolerences loosen up.

[raymond_tai]

Superior optics is a consideration but I like the Leica rangefinder

because of the craftmanship, ergonomics, etc. as others have

mentioned. But these days Leica AG seems to think "improvement" =

"bigger" which is the antithesis of why I like the M. Anyway there

is no reason why your Leicas can't coexist with your Nikon/Canon.