Just once I'd like to see somebody take equivalent lenses (say the 50/1.0 and 50 Noctilux) and mount them on the same camera body (say a 1Ds-II), and then take the EXACT SAME IMAGE.
It has to be a still subject, with the same CONTROLLED lighting, focusing/composing EXACTLY the same shot (allowing for slight differences in actual focal length of the two lenses, of course).
Then, process the shots EXACTLY the same.
Then, see if anybody can actually tell the difference (a double-blind experiment would be best).
I have been using the Leica 180/2, only at f/2, for pix of my kittens outside. One day I tried my EF 135/2 with AF on just for comparison. Did not keep any of those pix.
I hear you about testing lenses side by side. Once, when I wanted to compare 14 different 135mm lenses I owned I put them on the camera one at a time and walked outside and took shots at different apertures, etc. Came back inside made notes and then went out with the next lens. Took hours to do. In that time the sun moved, clouds appeared, light changed. To the point where there was no way to compare any of the results. Later a better testing method came to me. I own 2 cameras of the same body. One on each shoulder, go outside shoot at different apertures and quick, before the light changes, do the same from the same spot with the other camera. Very easy to compare lenses that way. But, only 2 at a time.
gasrocks wrote:
I have been using the Leica 180/2, only at f/2, for pix of my kittens outside. One day I tried my EF 135/2 with AF on just for comparison. Did not keep any of those pix.
Try to be more cryptic. Seriously, it's confusing. Which pics didn't you keep?
lidesun wrote:
I thought you were talking about using the 180/2 manually focusing for the BIF shots
That's what I thought too. Especially at 180mm or 200mm FL, it is difficult enough to get fast action shots with a good camera AF system and a fast AF lens, let alone trying to MF. Even if we assume that Leica 180mm f/2 has a "pure" IQ similar to 200 f/1.8 or 200 f/2.0 IS, those Canon lenses ought to have a decisive advantage in photography types where one needs (or benefits from) auto operation and IS.
I did not keep any of the images shot with the EF 135/2. They just did not appeal to me after looking at all the shots taken, of the same subjects, with the 180. I thought semi-wild kittens outdoors was tough enough to do with manual exposure and manual focus, handheld. 180 to me is not long enough for birds, at least not where I live.
For sports, wildlife and such, I feel it is just neither feasible nor fair to compare modern auto lenses, especially if provisioned with USM and IS, to any manual lenses in similar FL and aperture.
In fact, we don't even have to go to Canon's top of the line lenses like 200 f/1.8 and 200 f/2.0 IS. Even much cheaper lenses like 200 f/2.8 prime (1) and 135L(2) perform very nicely for what I like to photograph. In the end, fast action is fast action, therefore I try to suggest these two lenses as great value alternatives to the 200 f/2 IS (and 200 f/1.8).
For many folks, getting 80% performance for 15% cost may be a good way to go.
PetKal wrote:
Especially at 180mm or 200mm FL, it is difficult enough to get fast action shots with a good camera AF system and a fast AF lens, let alone trying to MF.
Actually, it's very simple. Just wait until they get to the point where "infinity focus" gives acceptable sharpness.
Oh, you wanted them to occupy a meaningful portion of the frame?
DavidP wrote:
You must have very tame ducks where you live.
Spoonbills at what I consider relatively short range require 400mm+ shots, IMO.
This is the 500/4 IS + 1.4x-II TC on the 1D-2.
That bird is done in the best taste.......framing, background and colours.
I use around 200mm a lot because I have a good access to targets appropriate for such FL. Consequently, have the luxury of trying all kinds of 200mm (or shorter) lenses always on the same targets/action......mostly 200 /1.8, 200 f/2.0, 200 f/2.8 and 135L. Although I'd say the 200 f/2 performs best in that kinda photographic environment, the other lenses are not that far behind either. Especially 135L is lightning quick and plenty good IQ, albeit a bit short.
Seriously, it's confusing. Which pics didn't you keep?