robsteve wrote:
I tried finding the link but had no luck.
Why are we arguing about the DMR? The point to my original post was if the 21-35mm was not any good on the 5D, don't use it, but don't put the blame on the lens for corner performance.
Robert
And my original point was that the lens is the most likely cause of any corner performance issues (should they actually exist), not the 5D given that other similar designs (with regards to telecentricity and focal length) do not exhibit similar performance problems on the 5D to what weekh claims the 21-25 does.
Over the last five years I have watched posts about this lens closely. There was quite a bit of initial interest in it. After the mirror issues and performance on FF surfaced, I decided it wasn't worth the cost. Since persuing other choices, I don't much reason to choose this lens over many others available in similar focal lengths.
weekh wrote:
At around 21mm, in the corners, the Leica is no different from a lensbaby. Period.
Tested on several copies of the lens. Tried several branded / high-end adapters. Used different ff bodies.
Don't waste time with the Leica.
For those who rave about this lens, please don't do it with words. Show the pics taken at the wide end, wide aperture, full res image.
I like to highlight that the lensES and adapterS combinationS were tested on several full frame bodies. That includes 1Ds, 5D and 1Ds MK II.
Test results were consistant: Very blur and soft corners! Like take a coke bottle lens.
Do waste time, resources with the Leica. You'll only get yourself frustrated when u realise that the native 17-40L offer better results.
From 28mm onwards, the lens is ok. But <28mm is just lousy corners on a full frame.
My post should be still around, just that the search doesn't give me the result. The blind test was done several years back when the 5D was newly launched.
Sorry but I've to come in very strongly against this Leica 21-35mm lens. I've gone through shit to establish the fact that this lens has really poor corner sharpnes at the wide end. I don't want anybody to follow my footsteps and go through the same hassle.
I had spent a fortune and wasted precious time in shipping, returning and exchanging lenses, selling and buying, acquiring different branded adatpers and borrowing different bodies. All done by myself and expenses just to verify that this lens is shit. And during all those while, nobody from those who raves about this lens, bothered to post a full res pic taken with this lens on a full frame body. The corner image remained elusive while the raves continued. I posted a blind test and almost everyone liked the 17-40L.
I like the idea of a wide zoom lens that is optically excellent on a Canon body. I have used Canons f2.8 17-35, but its images just don't have the "wow" that Leica 19mm (v1) has. I have a friend who was kind enough to loan me his 19mm, and I really liked what I saw through it.
I wonder how beneficial would be improved saturation and contrast vs. full frame sharpness in todays world since all my pictures go through extensive color and contrast adjustments in photoshop? I usually can increase saturation, boost contrast, but I can not increase the fine amount of detail the lens captures?
So I am still trying to decide between Leica 21-35 or Nikon 14-24. Size wise Leica is a clear winner, but how would the image quality would compare? I shoot usually at f5.6 - f11, you can see my work at http://www.agniusdigital.com
I'd be inclined to trust weekh. For the 2k+ the 21-35 would set you back you could buy a 19mm v1, a 28mm (not the latest one) and a 35mm summicron... if one stayed within the Leica brand.
