Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/08/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Chris Bitmead,
>>Are you saying you compared the the above lenses to the Canon 20 f2.8, 35 f2<<
>> 85 f1.2L, 180 f3.5L, 200 f1.8L, 200 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L, & the 300
f4L?<<
I owned and/or used the following Canon glass at one time; 20-35 f2.8L, 85
f1.2L,
180 f3.5L, 70-200 f2.8L, & the 300 f4L. Slides from the Leica 280 f4 & the
70-180 f2.8 zoom were far superior to the Canon 300 f4 & the 70-200 f2.8L. I
was never pleased with what I got from my Canon 20-35 f2.8L w/o regard;
however, it's unfair to compare a zoom to fixed focal lengths :~)! The Canon 85
1.2L was too darn heavy & slides from my Leica 90s ( f2 & f2.8 ) were far
superior on a consistent basis. The 180 f3.5L macro was quite good & produced
slides, that in my judgment, would compete with Leica glass!
The critical focal lengths, for me were the 70-180 f2.8 zoom & the 280 f4; i.e.,
threshold criteria for my trading out the Canon Eos 1n system. I've heard good
things about the Canon 200 f1.8(2.8) L & the 300 f2.8L glass; I just never had a
chance to test out them out!
In working with Leica's 35 f2, slides were as beautiful as results from my Leica
90s;
thus, for me, Leica slides were consistently sharp & beautiful. Granted, I did
not have full access to every Canon optic ( or conversely every Leica optic );
however, based upon my highly subjective & limited testing.......Leica was what
my eye appreciated ;~)!
Tom D.