chris_chow

I might add 2 things:

 

1. Leica with the latest 35mm lenses (especially the 35mm f1.4 ASPH) has less vignetting.

 

2. Leica allows me to handhold more steadily. YMMV.

My copy of EF 35/2 does not give me very sharp corners, even down to f8. YMMV. Also, it suffers from CA.

I have both the 5D and the 35/2 and 35/1.4. The 5D is a great camera with very sharp files, which can be upsized comfortably. But if you want to print big, like 24x36, you will need the very best glasses.

 

The 35/F2 is a good but not a great lens. It may give you nice 8x10 prints but beyond that, you will need a lot of help from Photoshop.

 

The Canon 35/1.4 is noticeably sharper.

 

The alternative is to get the 5D and use non-Canon lenses via an appropriate adaptor. For 35mm, the Leica R 35/2 and 35/2.8, the Contax 35/2.8 and the Nikkor 35/2 AF are IMHO better than the Canon 35/2.

1. Pentax doesn't screw its customers as much.

 

2. Pentax has some really outstanding lenses.

 

3. The limited lenses.

 

4. more consistent QC.

 

I only wish they would revive the 645 digital project.

IMHO, the aperture difference is insignificant, unless (1) you manual focus a lot, in which case the F2.8 would give you brighter viewfinder, or (2) you shoot fast actions, where the F2.8 would freeze action slightly better.

 

Otherwise:-

 

If image quality is the priority, get the 24-70.

 

If you shoot FF, get the 24-70.

 

If you want convenience and lighter weight, get the 24-105.

This is an AF lens with the unique Pentax power zoom function. If there's oil on the lens elements, I think it's unsafe to have it handled by a non-specialist repair shop. If you have a Pentax repair nearby, give them a call if you can.

The zoom range for this lens is 28 to 70mm.

I have a very late version of the lens. Works fine on my 5D with generic adaptor.

"The question is which of these solutions comes closest to what a 28mm FF rangefinder lens could deliver (Summicron, Biogon, etc):"

 

None will measure up to the best 28mm rangefinder lens, but the closest would be IMHO the Leica Elmarit-R 28mm f2.8, current version.

 

The Contax 28mm Distagon, the Nikon AF 28mm f1.4 and the Nikon AF-S 17-38mm at 28mm are very good.

If you prefer handholding, I think best would be the DFA 100mm F2.8. It is a very light lens.

 

The FA* 200mm F4 is a legendary Pentax lens. Almost everyone who has one agrees that its great and it looks great. Maybe second only to its predecessor, the even more legendary A* 200mm F4. Original price was about US$1,200. Current second hand price is high and availability is very limited. Its focus ring has a somewhat short throw.

My experience is that, unless you use glass mounts, there will always be some popping. Its due to the temperature change when a slide is being projected.

 

The problem is quite severe with some models but somewhat better with the other models which are very often more expensive models as they have, among other things, better heat dissipation characteristics.

 

Leica has a projector lens which they claim can be used to project curved slides. Its called the CF lens. Try if you can find one on the B&H website. I have one but the results are not as good as they claimed. I ended up using the regular lens.

50 Summilux: The latest version (60mm filter) does not work on the 5D. The earlier version (which I have never used) reportedly is not a top performer. BTW, the latest version should be very expensive.

 

50 Summicron: Unfortunately, I sold this lens before I got the 5D, the reason being that the Summilux is much better than the Summicron. On film, the 50 Summicron is very good, but not necessarily the best in its class.

 

50/1.4 Planar: I have two copies but still don't like it. Centre resolution is somewhat disappointing. OTOH the 50 Planar f1.7 is unbeatable, and is a real bargain.

 

28/2.8 Distagon: Good sharpness, much better than the Canon 28/1.8 but not one of my favourites. Manual focus can be a problem.

 

35/1.4 Distagon: Average sharpness even at f4 and very visible CA.

 

So, perhaps the 50/1.7 Planar and the Distagon 28/2.8, although the Leica 28 Elmarit would be ideal.

 

Others: Nikon 45/2.8 AIS-P, Nikon 35/1.4 AIS, Olympus 50/1.8, Olympus 24/2.8 and Zeiss 25/2.8.

1. The LX has a much much better viewfinder and shutter. World class, second perhaps only to the Olympus top models.

 

2. The *ist is a very capable point and shoot. Very accurate AF and AE, even for slides. Also Compact and light. One of the best modern auto everything cameras.

 

3. Only A, F and FA lenses work with the *ist.

 

4. The viewfinder of the MZ-S is way inferior to the LX's. The PZ-1P's is close but not really there.

 

5. For AF accuracy, the *ist is the best of all Pentax film cameras.

I have mine for about 2 months now. I like it, work as advertised. The copying speed from card is much faster than the older version though I haven't clocked it. The screen is wonderful.

 

Downside? Slightly too big and heavy.

 

How rugged? I really don't know and would not want to find out.

NO, its not a wise buy. Tell me the name of the shop, in private, of course.

Strange question but easy. 5D for me.

I dont know anything about the older GN lens, but the new 45/2.8 P is a special lens. I suspect it is a re-design by Nikon, and I would not be surprised if it is significantly better than the GN.

 

Build quality is first class. This lens has been marketed as a pricey "retro" lens. If Nikon thinks that plastic is OK, I would not worry. Rumor has it that it is custom built by Cosina.

 

Sharpness is all you can ask for. Even on a full frame film camera (or a Canon 5D) sharpness is from corner to corner and also absence of any noticeable CA. Full aperture at f2.8 is fully usable. Contrasty and rich and clean color, with nice tonal gradation. All the hallmarks of a modern first class lens. Bokeh is extremely pleasant.

I had this lens for about a year before I sold it. Optical quality is below average if contrast and centre sharpness at f8 or wider is important to you. I shoot color only. Dont know its performance in B&W.

Actually, as far as binoculars are concerned, Leica has quite a few very strong competitors, such as Nikon, Swaroski an possibly Zeiss as well.

 

Anyway, if you think the Leica binoculars are good, you definitely won't be disappointed by their R glasses. While short on features, many of them are the best. Consistency in manufacturing/quality control is also a great virtue.

 

The zooms you have in mind are not their best offerings. You may also find them too dim for accurate manual focus. Try the latest 15/2.8, 19/2.8, 50/1.4, 90/2 ASPH/APO, 100/2.8 APO Macro and 180/2.8 and be amazed.

It all depends.

 

If you use modern slide films, have an excellent scanner, have a profiled monitor setup and the scanning skill and are good in photoshop, a print from a scan can be very, very good and extremely satisfying.

 

If you don't, you may be much better off with a D200. Add a good raw converter and moderate photoshop skills and you can produce good photos, very quickly. But less satisfaction.

 

Scanned images and digital camera files have different looks. I can't say which is better.

 

But I know for sure that the next generation of DSLRs will be better whereas film and scanner technology is dying to say the least.

The small viewfinder on the Drebel/300D may not be too good for manual focus. Try them out first. The 10/20/30 may be slightly better. The 5D is definitely better. The 1 series would be very good.

 

On the other hand, accurate manual focussing via viewfinder is not really needed for the 15, 18, 21 or even 25.

I would not be surprised if Panasonic comes up with a M-mount RF DC, using the Olympus DSLR design. Panasonic may even make the sensor. The camera will also be rebadged as a Leica and sell for 30% more. Price about $1,500 to $2,000 depending on sensor.

 

At the same time, Leica may build its own RF DC and sell it for $5,000 or more.

The good thing is your scans definitely have the velvia look.

 

The general consensus is that Velvia is very difficult to scan and if you want to do a good job:

 

1. Profile your monitor.

 

2. Get a good film scanner from Nikon or KM.

 

3. Profile your scanner.

 

4. Learn a few scanning tips.

 

5. Expose correctly.

 

6. Practise PS a lot. Levels, curves, saturation, sharpening, cloning.

 

While it would be easier to shoot digital, the Velvia look is difficult to replicate by computers.

Actually, the ZF lenses are designed for use on a MF or high end model Nikon body with full metering and auto diaphram. These Nikon cameras have the mechanical links to allow such features. EOS bodies does not have any mechanical links with the lens.

1. As James said, Canon users can always use Contax lenses via a cheaper adaptor. Nikon users cannot use Contax lenses.

 

2. Except for the 5D and above models, Canon SLR/DSLRs are less suited for manual focusing. OTOH, the D200 seems to be manual focus friendly.

 

3. Canon does not have an established MF user base.

 

4. Zeiss will come out with an EOS mount wide angle when enough people realise that AF is useless for wide angle lenses.