I bet your 15 problems are from the fotodiox adapter, Guy. Although I have to admit to not having done brick wall tests with mine, my problems with the 15/3.5 got much better when switching adapters (to the thick one you sold me )
Before I sent the camera back to Guy, I tried the camera with a variety of Leica lenses I own. I have two Fotodiox adapters that caused me to have the same issues with the 15/2.8 in the corners. I, too, believe that this has to be an adapter issue.
The lens that suprised me the most with its performance on the 5D was the 21-35 zoom. Even at 21, it was very strong performer. This looks like it would be a very good solution on the 5D for those looking at modifying their camera to utilize a Leica/Zeiss wide.
Guy, thanks for the report.
I'm thinking to buy the 15/3.5 Super-Elmar for my 1Ds.
If I recall well you previously own one before your 15/2.8 Elmarit.
Do you find much of a difference when you stop both lenses to f/8 on FF ?
Also, is the 15/3.5 bigger/heavier than the 15/2.8 ?
I am interested in your opinion of the 5D output vis a vis the 1DSMKII output. Is the resolution differential noticeable, or at least noticeable enough to justify the additional expense? I am not talking about all the other "pro" features you get with the 1DS, I am talking only about the appearance of the photos themselves.
Guy did you ever a write a condensed version of your canon vs leica lenses vs bodies test up and post it somewhere? Thanks for the info on the 5D. If you want to I can mike up the adapters and get quotes getting them machined here in New England with some decent quality control? If interested send me a PM.
Thanks for the comments Guy. It is easy for amateurs with a little (or a lot) of disposable income to spend more than is really necessary in search of obtaining "the best" results. We all know that there is way more than just equipment in that equation but equipment is something we can convince ourselves is necessary to obtain that Holy Grail.
I think that the 5D is enough camera to convince many of us that we would be better to direct our remaining funds to other areas.
I already have the Distagon 21 (indeed I was one of the first mad souls to mount it on a Canon, over two years ago) but day after day I'm using the 24-105L IS more because I found that at 24mm slightly stopped down it is not far from the CZ 21, strange as it seems.
Maybe I have a very good copy, but it is in a completely different league than all the copies of the 16-35L and 17-40L I previously owned, also better than the 24-70L I had a while ago.
I'm using less the CZ because there's little difference between 24 and 21mm, at least not so much to justify putting the lens in my backpack, I'd better bring a wider prime.
I was asked to trade the CZ with a Leica 15/3.5 which I think could serve me better in my landscape/architecture photography.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
This is also a great 50mm 1.4 lens the summilux new version . I believe this was at f2
Don't like the bokeh on that one, looks a bit marginal to me... Interesting stuff though. I'd love to see a macro of the bottom edge of the mirror, it looks scary...
)
