Vahonen: I have a very nice latest version Leica Elmarit R90/2.8 in very good condition which would make for a very nice portrait and landscape lens - regardless of budget! Other people here can testify as to the great qualities of this lens. I am selling it because I want to strip down to a smaller outfit and this lens will be redundant.
If you look at my lenses in my signature you will see what I use and I have to agree, pictures with Leica (and Zeiss lenses too) look better when you enlarge them, as compared to the Canon lenses I have tried. Microcontrast and overall contrast is much better on the Leica lenses.
My lens is in very good condition and has smooth barrel action and perfect glass.
Minä asun Tukholmassa, puhuu lite finska, mutta ei paljon.
Regards Henrik, Stockholm, Sweden
Doug Morgan wrote:
I've never actually used the 85L and the TS-E isn't really meant to be used wide open so a comparison at F2.8 is pretty meaningless though I'm sure any of the fast primes would be much sharper at F2.8.
Why to test at F2.8. I asked this since I had once an opportunity to borrow 85 f1.2 (mark I) for couple hours and the microcontrast / small detail was from different planet compared to 85 f/1.8 (both closed down). I would love to get 85L for landscapes (and for everything else as well within that focal length), but I find 85L too expensive. Specially since I'm quite happy with 85 f/1.8 on close-up/mid-distance photography, it has nice edge contrast but small details seem to be missing. Also Canon EF 100 f/2.8 USM macro has good image quality on close-ups and mid-distances, but seems to be optimized for those and I'm personally not satisfied to 100macro in landscape photography.
Doug Morgan wrote:
The lens certainly would not have trouble resolving leaves at 20m.
Yes Canon's can resolve the leaves (Canon's usually have good edge contrast) but I'm looking for lens which resolves the small details in the leaves like Contax/Leica lenses which I now have been able to test. This makes a difference in bigger prints, I today printed some of my test photos to 11"x17" (or whatever A3 is called in USA, anyhow about size of two letter size papers combined) and the small detail on leaves, rocks, etc. made the prints very nice looking even printed with office laser printer
dcmiller wrote:
Not sure what the issue is with focus. First, you're looking at some manual lenses, and second, landscapes aren't moving and autofocus is generally unimportant.
Sorry if I was a little unclear - I already had that lens and generally D30 and 20D were not focusing accurately with 70-200L4. However this has nothing to do with landscapes, but I use my lenses for other purposes as well and constant random missfocusing, specially at wide end, started to get my nervers and then I changed all my important lenses from zooms to fast primes. I just don't want to purchase the 70-200L4 again even it would be possible to focus accurately when my KatzEye prism split focus screen arrives.
And yes landscapes do not move - but even in "infinity" (200m isn't infinity...) accurate focus is important on large prints, the center of depth of field is always sharper than the border areas of DOF. With 70-200L4 lens focusing to infinity (or for example 50 meters) isn't that easy since infinity focus is achieved a little bit different focus setting on tele and wide ends (can't trust the focus window readings) and aufofocus can be way off and still 20D things that focus is within DOF and without split prism manual focusing is almost impossible.
So hopefully you now understand my comments regarding 70-200L4. Also if I remember correctly 70-200L4 had very nice bokeh, excellent contrast but when I made some tests against primes replacing it (85 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8 macro, 135L, 200L) it wasn't as sharp as these primes at any aperture.
I do understand your point that tilt/shift is good functionality in landscape lens. Also shift makes easy panoramas (very wide/tall format or square format) with high megapixel count possible. I finally received my PC-Nikkor 28 and 35 and even they must be much lesser quality than 90 TS-E (or 45 TS-E) and still I found out creation of high megapixel images very easy and the seam between two images was quite easy to hide even on boring test pictures of my hotel room's wall...
Also thanks for a good point that upgrading to full frame would give enourmous benefit but personally I don't want to do it now - I try to wait until new model and then purchase used 5d or the new model. Hopefully Canon could get rid off the antialiasing filter as well. My goal has been to get set of lenses which will work well in fullframe also. Based on MTF charts 85 f/1.8 has very poor corners on ff and is definetly first to go when I purchase fullframe camera. The small-dof close/mid-distance replacement is easier to find, for example Contax 85 f1.4 is quite often sold in eBay with quite decent price and will perform very well on that kind of photography.
Samuli; I actually have had the 70-200/4L myself and I think it is quite a good lens, but I wasn't happy with the way the AF works, in my hands. Absolute edge performance was below my Leica ApoTelyt 180/3.4 by a small margin.
I have also had quite a few lenses in the 85 to 100mm range, from Nikon via Zeiss to Leica.
The ones that come out on top for me are easily the 100/2 Zeiss Planar and the Leica R90/2.8 which I currently have.
Both are great performers, the Leica 90 being impeccable at all apertures. The one small complaint with Zeiss lenses is that they often develop some play in the barrel action over time. My Leica lenses just keep that smooth yet firm action.
I ended up trying first the Leica Elmarit-R 90mm f/2.8. If I don't find the microcontrast/small details/textures as good as I would like, then I may have to try Leica 90-APO or Leica 100 macro, which both are considerably more expensive. I can take some comparison shots with Canon EF85mm f/1.8 USM and Canon EF100mm f/2.8 USM macro later. However earliest on end of October, when I next time go to home Finland for a one day before I leave to India...
Samuli: yes, I have had that first version Elmarit R90/2.8. It was sold to me a few years ago in the belief it was the latest version - but it wasn't - the seller was misinformed. It was slightly different in build and design, it didn't have the built in hood and wasn't filter size E55.
It was not as good close up or at full aperture as the latest version I am sending you.
It has very good, natural contrast and holds up well enlarged. It is also (in my opinion) easier to focus than the Summicron 90/2 on a full frame camera, with better contrast and sharpness wide open. I will try and quick-post a shot with it wide open here...
Not a great shot and not perfectly optimized for webviewing but here is a shot taken just now with the Elmarit 90, wide open. Cats just behind me, on the floor - I dunno who's the laziest, them or me...
dcmiller: if I had a house and more time on me paws I'd get a dog to chase the cats around, but for now... ...the cats were part of the package deal when I moved in with my girlfriend. And I have grown to really like them, for the most part.
carstenw wrote:
Mark, there doesn't seem to be a link to the test on the front page.
Actually there is, but there was a refresh problem. "The Online Photographer" also recently discussed having a refresh problem on his page. I wonder if they are related...
Why to test at F2.8. I asked this since I had once an opportunity to borrow 85 f1.2 (mark I) for couple hours and the microcontrast / small detail was from different planet compared to 85 f/1.8 (both closed down). I would love to get 85L for landscapes (and for everything else as well within that focal length), but I find 85L too expensive. Specially since I'm quite happy with 85 f/1.8 on close-up/mid-distance photography, it has nice edge contrast but small details seem to be missing. Also Canon EF 100 f/2.8 USM macro has good image quality on close-ups and mid-distances, but seems to be optimized for those and I'm personally not satisfied to 100macro in landscape photography.
