"It still blows away the EOS 17-40mm or 16-35mm" I AM SICKKK OF HEARING THIS S-------
Quick, someone pass me a Leica 21-35mm and a glass of water. I had no idea my (excuse me "our") shots with the 16-35 were that bad. That Leica BLOWS them away
Try making a 20"x30" landscape print shot with your 17-40mm at f8 on a 1DS. The edges are very soft. Unacceptably so by my standards. If you're happy with the results you get that's great. I don't understand why some people feel threatened because others are not happy and seek to find solutions.
I am just having a little fun here, kind of. "Threatened" I don't think so. I am sure the Leica glass is great stuff. We people who don't want to spend 5 zillion dollars on a lens just get a little, well, irked, from time to time when we are told our $1400 lens is just, uh inferior, damn it.
rprouty wrote:
John Power wrote:
I mean, how many times do we have to be told how lousy our Canon glass is compared to a Leica?
Apparently often
I know how you feel John. I don't mind hearing about other/3rd party gear but I don't like feeling inferior all the time.
I'm really tired of it...
I wouldn't mind some of the talk some of the time but's it's way too much for the small minority that it apllies to. Then again if some of these people with the exotic glass had web sites that would blow me away I would be interested. By god man if you can afford the glass why not a site?? And those guys who do have sites, well the pictures on them that look like they're from the 1980's. I know a web site isn't going to show me what exotic glass can do but please.
Pham Minh Son wrote:
Robert,
I shoot film and renting the MF digital back. This way I can use all of the great lens from Carl Zeiss and Leica 35mm lens to Carl Zeiss medium format autofocus lens with true 16 bit CCD digital sensor and no AA filter.
The best lens in the world with highest MTF and beautiful bokeh belong to Zeiss and Leica 35mm lens. Thus, you get the highest resolving signal per file size. This is applicable during a time when you sending out to get print and the file size has a limit.
[quibble] accordirding to Zeiss, MF lenses do not have less resolving power than 35mm lenses, even more sometimes, their best lens being the Superachromatic 5.6/250 for Hasselblad (280 line pairs/mm against 200 at best on 35mm lenses). For what I've seen, bokeh is at least as good on Hassy lenses as on my contax lenses. And the mtf of this 5.6/250 is ... well, see that :
[/quibble]
mamiya wrote:
I wouldn't mind some of the talk some of the time but's it's way too much for the small minority that it apllies to. Then again if some of these people with the exotic glass had web sites that would blow me away I would be interested. By god man if you can afford the glass why not a site?? And those guys who do have sites, well the pictures on them that look like they're from the 1980's. I know a web site isn't going to show me what exotic glass can do but please.
You do realize that you have a choice as to whether to read threads that interest you or not. You're apparently not that interested in exotic glass on Canon bodies, and that's OK. But it seems odd that despite that dislike, you continue to post in threads where that is so obviously the primary subject. And when you do post, you tend to attack those that do experiment with this glass, either directly, or by thinly veiled insult (pictures from the 80's??).
Is it possible that the tight tolerence between the sensor plane and lens mount is now accomplished with the sensor position adjustment rather than machine tolerance at the mount? This would easily explain the difference between two similar bodies. The mirror position relative to the mount would be affected due to a larger tolerence at the mount.
John Power wrote:
I would like to see that. As much as I respect these "exotic" glass users and thier input, at times it seems a bit out of place on the Canon forum. I mean, how many times do we have to be told how lousy our Canon glass is compared to a Leica? We got the point and we know that if we want "the best" we have to change our equipment. The fact of the matter is is that many of us don't really care about "the best" We are satisfied with what we have, thank you.
As I have said many times, the most beloved photos our families have and society in general has were not (and never will be) shot with "the best" equipment, because photography is way more about content and substance than equipment. Having good equipment is important, having "the best" is not....Show more →
John, I agree with all your points, although it's not a measure of how "lousy" Canon glass is compared to the Leica glass. Indeed, in most cases, I think it amounts to little more than hype (or hyperbole, or both)--there winds up being little difference in final image quality. Some of the differences reported are easily fixed for most images in PS. But there are exceptions, and I for one have had some major disappointments in image quality with certain lenses.
But these limitations are context sensitive. Some of the lenses I've had fault with in the Canon system are great, they just don't work well for my needs. For instance, the Canon 24/1.4 is a great lens for a photojournalist or documentist, but it doesn't work for me as a landscape photographer. The 24/2.8 might be OK, but I don't like the build quality and the manual focus--so I seek out an alternative at this focal length.
I think from 50 mm on up, the Canon glass competes very well with anything out there. And most times, it's going to be the photographer, not the equipment that makes the difference.
Thanks for the report I was considering getting the 28mm for my 5D. I also have the 1D mk2 which still produces great results but isnt nearly as demanding on glass, the 5D is pretty brutal on lenses only the best need apply to get the full benefits of the camera.
paul S wrote:
My Leitz Canada 2.8/19 works excellently with the 5D. just remove the rear plastic shroud: no major surgery required. results stunning.
Paul
I missed this post the first time around. Do you have a picture of the 5D with this lens, and some samples, including corner crops? I am looking for ways to ditch my 17-40L.
who do have sites, well the pictures on them that look like they're from the 1980's. I know a web site isn't going to show me what exotic glass can do but please.