marco_hidalgo

<p>Hi Subhasis, I own the 400 f5.6 and have been perfectly happy with the performance, size and weight of this lens. I decided to get the prime lens vs the 100-400 zoom because I found that most of my images were going to be shot at 400. If I want to shoot around the 100mm focal length, then I grab a shorter and lighter lens, e.g. 85 f1.8, 100 f2.8 macro and a couple of other non Canon lenses that I use around that focal length. But that is just my personal shooting style, I like primes but I have to agree that IS does make a difference when shooting with the 70-200 f2.8 IS. This is a <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml">link</a> to a website that describes the virtues of the 400 f5.6 hope this helps. Cheers, Marco</p>

 

<p>Prime shooting is not for everyone, but I love it. I shoot with a 90/2, Canon closes would be:<br>

85/1.8 or 100/2</p>

 

<p>Just to be clear and to add more info. the 17-40 performs better closer to the 17mm. range, than the 40mm. range.<br>

I find that the weight difference between the two lenses is not that much, I don't feel the 17-40 as a burden compared to the 20mm. But the lens shade is. The petal shaped hood of the 17-40 is way too big and cumbersome. </p>

<p>I have both lenses, and I am a fan of fixed focal length lenses with wide apertures. Having said that, I can say that the 17-40 will outperform the 20mm. from f8 onwards. It has very sharp corners, making it suitable for landscape photography on a tripod. The downside of this zoom, is that the quality from f4 to f5.6 is quite disappointing. The 20mm. clearly outperforms the 17-40 in this range, but past f8, the corners aren't as sharp as the zoom. So for hand held indoors shooting I like to use the 20, specially travel (urban shooting). The built quality of both lenses is very good, so I have no preference towards any of them in this regard. I hope this helps. Cheers, Marco </p>

<p>Summicron Sam is right about this and there is nothing else to add.</p>

<p>Yes Nicky... you mention twice that the sensor is not big enough. Is a 1.33X sensor really that small as to call it TINY? Nikon just got FF after years and years of using their 1.5X sensors. Many Canon users are perfectly fine with the 1.3X sensor of the 1D series. And I am sure most prints will look great from a 10.3 MP sensor. 20+ Megapixels is an overkill for most applications. Of course lots of megapixels are useful when cropping for commercial work, but we don't really need that much for producing good images.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>With no mirror you could basically put a medium format sized sensor in the camera and it wouldn't be any larger or unwieldly than a current DSLR camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I think you are right about this, we just have to wait and see what happens in the next 5 years. The G1 is only the beginning of a new breed of cameras. If it is really successful, I can't imagine the changes that might happen with larger formats.<br>

Years ago I dreamed about in-camera colour correction filters. Now we have RAW files or we can select the colour temperature in camera. Now I dream about a camera that can select the depth of field. Let's say from narrow to very wide, regardless of the focal length. But first, we need the optics to undergo a design revolution before something like this might be possible.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When did 35mm cameras become the size of toaster ovens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As Stuart said, what happened? Why? The Canon and Nikon Bodies are just oversized to justify the increase of price they have managed to put on their products. Back in the 80's 35 mm. lenses were relatively cheap so to speak ( except for Leica ) if we compared them to the price of MF and LF lenses. Back then, the purchase of a Hasselbald lens, a Schneider for LF or a Rodenstock was serious business. But adding a lens to the 35mm rig was like going to the supermarket, just grabbing whatever was needed for the job. Then, the big brands started coming out with their marketing B.S. and putting up the prices of 35mm. lenses up to MF lens price tags! Then the cameras started getting bigger and fatter and going up in price, as if their mass was an equivalent for their price tag. The general public was happy to have in their hands a massive tank camera that made them look professional, made their hobby look important and for professionals, these cameras made them look as if they were worth the money they charged for their photos.<br>

The Leica M is a great size camera, 10 MP is plenty for 95% of the applications people will use this camera for and will certainly not intimidate people with it's size. On the contrary, the old style design is most of the time a plus when shooting on the streets. It's a shame the actual M has the cyan corner problem, I personally dislike the idea of correcting such a thing with a filter, but if I had the extra cash in my hand I would definitely get an M8 for digital travel and street work and dump the Canon.</p>

 

<p>I have done professional travel photography work in Europe with one lens only, a 35 f1.4</p>

<p>People are getting too used to zoom lenses, AF, AE, AWB, etc. and forgetting the real art of photography.</p>

<p>For some people cameras might be toys, for others like myself, they are the tools with which I pay the mortgage and put food on the table. I do not disregard the importance of these tools. I find myself far from fondling my cameras and lenses, instead I put them to work; each one of them serve a specific purpose as there is no camera that can do everything well. The right choice of camera and lens can make a big difference in the end result of a photography assignment, therefore diversity helps. Life is also much more interesting when we have a wider selection to choose from and I see nothing wrong with it.</p>

<p>But don't get me wrong, I do feel sort of the same way as you do. Back in the 80's and 90's there was a big difference between cameras and brands. Even between medium format cameras, a Hasselblad was a very different thing than a Mamiya RB67. A Leica M6 was so different from the first Canon AF cameras. Those were really interesting times for photography. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Any camera you buy today is ready to be retired or worthless and junked in a couple of years</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no need to throw them away or stop using them. Unless you let yourself being pushed by the hype of the megapixel wars.</p>

<p>How about the Hong Kong dealers? Any recommendations Nee Sung?<br>

I know "Francisco Photo" in Kowloon, they are descent. I have purchased quite a few things from them. And I remember another shop near the escalator called "International Photo" or something like that. I bought a Novoflex Leica to Eos body adapter from them. </p>

<p>How about the Hong Kong dealers? Any recommendations Nee Sung?<br>

I know "Francisco Photo" in Kowloon, they are descent. I have purchased quite a few things from them. And I remember another shop near the escalator called "International Photo" or something like that. I bought a Novoflex Leica to Eos body adapter from them. </p>

<p>I've been trying to buy a 35 f1.4 from B&H as well. I am not in a hurry though, but certainly I will not welcome a price increase.<br>

If the price increase is too steep, I might wait for it's release and buy the Zeiss 35 instead.</p>

<p>As you can tell, I used more than a shy f2.8 for this image. I can't remember which f stop, and there is no f stop recorded in the metadata with 3rd party lenses. But my clients never ask which f stop was used for an image.</p>

<p>I shoot food professionally with a 5D + Leica 60 macro. Sometimes, if I have enough space, I can use the 90mm. lens.</p>

<p>Use whatever f stop you like; whatever works best for you is fine. Forget whatever other people are doing or might be doing.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>That sounds to me like the Alex Majoli story. Shooting serious PJ in Congo and Irak with a bunch of Olympus P&S and still delivering the images his clients needed. Real food for thought here!</p>

<p>I use the whole viewfinder of my M6 0.85 with a 35 mm lens. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.reddotcameras.co.uk">www.reddotcameras.co.uk</a></p>

<p>Hi Richard,<br>

I have been a loud advocate of the Summicron R 90 f2 Apo Asph for quite a while now. I think it is one of the best lenses I have ever used and love it on my 5D. I use it for professional applications and the colours and sharpness are truly awesome. I can not give you any advice on the previous versions of this lens. Having said this, I must say that for street photography, you might find the Leica lens on a Canon body to be very, very, very awkward to shoot with. If you can live with the difficulties that come along by using a third party lens on a Canon body, then you might like some of the qualities Leica lenses can offer, such as the so called bokeh and a different colour rendition than what japanese lenses produce. But these are mostly subjective qualities that many people don't care about, can't see or don't need at all.<br>

In short, I think the Canon lenses might well give you a faster response for street shooting, with AF and accurate AE.</p>

<p>The 35 f2 is fine on a 5D. Sharpness is good when stopped down to f4, leaving the last two corner millimeters blurry ( at any f stop), but this is obviously a compromise the engineers made with the optical formula of this lens. It performs well on FF. Quality built is another issue, but for such a cheap lens, it offers good IQ.</p>

<p>Nick,<br>

I still think it is a very well done and interesting lens comparison. I don't think it is apples and oranges. There are always people asking about their 24-70 vs primes and so on. This kind of test show how the two types of lenses perform and is perfectly valid. But I reckon not many will contribute to this thread as owners of the 24-105 will not want to hear about Zeiss being better. <br>

I have had many Zeiss lenses, mostly for my Hasselblads and I also had a 50mm for a Contax. They are great optics and once used to higher quality primes, it is hard to lower the standards even for high quality zoom lenses. I still have to try the Nikon 12-24 f2.8 which seems to be outstanding, but not owning any Nikon body I doubt I will get my hands on one.<br>

I am glad to hear you are very happy with the Canon 35 f1.4, I am interested in upgrading my clunky, cheap, noisy Canon 35 f2, but haven't decided to buy it yet. Your comments are encouraging me to take the plunge. Again, thanks for posting your lens test.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do your own tests, as you have done, accept your results unless you discover a flaw in your methodology, then use what your tests lead you to use and ignore what everyone else says</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fair enough Desmond, and by the way, the "Internal Dissonance" phenomenon sounds very interesting to read about. Maybe we should rename the Leica forum as the Leica "ID" and rangefinder forum. And after the Leica forum the Nikon guys closely deserve to follow a forum rename.</p>

<p>M. Scott,</p>

<p>The 24-105 and the 17-40 will yield similar results, at let's say 35mm focal length. Try to get your hands on a 35 f2 and you will see the difference. I don't know about the TS-E, but when you do the tests, let us know how it goes.</p>