A
antonyb
jealous jealous jealous...
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
imagexchange
Member
Good day folks from a new comer to this board.
Marc, I have a couple of questions, if you would be gracious enough to let me know.
I was wondering if you had looked at the Leica 28-90mm zoom yet, and if so was their a compatibility problem with the 1ds2?
I am wondering if you have compared the Zeiss 70-210mm to the Canon 70-200 F4? How is it for optical quality - I expect it is better, but how much so, and was it worth giving up autofocus?
Thanks
Andy
Marc, I have a couple of questions, if you would be gracious enough to let me know.
I was wondering if you had looked at the Leica 28-90mm zoom yet, and if so was their a compatibility problem with the 1ds2?
I am wondering if you have compared the Zeiss 70-210mm to the Canon 70-200 F4? How is it for optical quality - I expect it is better, but how much so, and was it worth giving up autofocus?
Thanks
Andy
No and No.
My Leica dealer can't get a 28-90 for me to try, and I can find anyone else who has tried the lens in that manner.
I don't have a Canon 70-200/4 to test. AF is important to me for certain applications ... like at dark wedding receptions... and for fast action. But a survey of my all my work over the past 3 years revealed a vast majority of my very best work had been done with manual focus systems ... even using the Contax 645 on manual. Canon's approach to color was never my favorite. I like more depth and tonal gradation like that provided with micro-contrast that Zeiss and Leica subscribe to. It may not be the sharpest or even the best on charts ... but I don't hang charts on walls, nor do I put them in albums ; -)
I call it the "emotional quotient" of any given lens ... the part that's so subjective and hard to measure.
My Leica dealer can't get a 28-90 for me to try, and I can find anyone else who has tried the lens in that manner.
I don't have a Canon 70-200/4 to test. AF is important to me for certain applications ... like at dark wedding receptions... and for fast action. But a survey of my all my work over the past 3 years revealed a vast majority of my very best work had been done with manual focus systems ... even using the Contax 645 on manual. Canon's approach to color was never my favorite. I like more depth and tonal gradation like that provided with micro-contrast that Zeiss and Leica subscribe to. It may not be the sharpest or even the best on charts ... but I don't hang charts on walls, nor do I put them in albums ; -)
I call it the "emotional quotient" of any given lens ... the part that's so subjective and hard to measure.
D
djg
Dead on, Marc!
Matt, I am betting the engineer was regarding the overall accomplishment of the 35-135. Getting that good a performance, a bit off the 35-70, out of a 35-135 is pulling the proverbial rabbit out of the hat indeed!
I may yet get (another) one.
Marc, quit bating me. I'm buying absolutely NO MF lenses
. Hell, I'm still waiting for my Leica-EOS adapter to get here so I can try my R 100 APO Macro.
Matt, I am betting the engineer was regarding the overall accomplishment of the 35-135. Getting that good a performance, a bit off the 35-70, out of a 35-135 is pulling the proverbial rabbit out of the hat indeed!
I may yet get (another) one.
Marc, quit bating me. I'm buying absolutely NO MF lenses
Well, I am reading various opinions on the zooms, and asking people who's opinion I trust, and so far all of them claim the 35-135 is the best zoom Zeiss ever made, and it may be the best one ever made by anyone. Hmmm.
Got a absolutely mint ST today. First time I ever even saw this camera. I like it. Smaller than the RX.
Okay everyone, I'm going after the 100 year anniv. 55/1.2 on ebay, so back off ; -)
Also decided to clean out the old gear closet to fund more Leica stuff. Maybe a R with the digital module and some key R glass ... that I'll also use on the Canon.
D.J. the 100 macro is going to spoil you.
Got a absolutely mint ST today. First time I ever even saw this camera. I like it. Smaller than the RX.
Okay everyone, I'm going after the 100 year anniv. 55/1.2 on ebay, so back off ; -)
Also decided to clean out the old gear closet to fund more Leica stuff. Maybe a R with the digital module and some key R glass ... that I'll also use on the Canon.
D.J. the 100 macro is going to spoil you.
albert4321
Well-Known Member
Marc, The very first post in this thread by Ken Ho stated that the P55 f/1.2 cannot be mounted to EOS body. Perhaps you need to shave the fin a little. It will be a dame good rare collection.
I also has an eye on the f/1.2. But I think I will rather save some $ to see how the Leica R digital back performs.
I also has an eye on the f/1.2. But I think I will rather save some $ to see how the Leica R digital back performs.
Actually, I read the same thing and backed off bidding on it.
Since I decided not to invest in a new MF digital back and wait until the dust settles next year, I'm seriously interested in the Leica also... especially if I can also use the lenses on the 1DsMKII.
Or maybe just shoot more film and deal with it all later ; -)
Since I decided not to invest in a new MF digital back and wait until the dust settles next year, I'm seriously interested in the Leica also... especially if I can also use the lenses on the 1DsMKII.
Or maybe just shoot more film and deal with it all later ; -)
albert4321
Well-Known Member
Film is good! I shot my last wedding with my 1D2, and C645 films. I plan to do this more often with film, rather than seeing a great camera and lenses collecting dust. My expense goes up, but we don't do it all for the money, right? 
Actually, film is much cheaper than those digital gears and exotic c/y glasses.
Actually, film is much cheaper than those digital gears and exotic c/y glasses.
A
antonyb
film is indeed great. i just wish i had the space/oportunity to process my own... its been a long time! just been to paris for the day and shot a roll... i'll post anything good that comes out of it. fingers crossed.
Actually, film is great. Digital makes you lazy and you forget. But if you go back to film and use a good scanner, it is quite surprising what you can get.
I am migrating back to film for weddings (at least for a portion) because it is actually easier to just get proofs for stuff like all the formal shots and portraits.... which I hate sitting in front of a computer processing until the cows come home. Plus there's all the Leica M B&W stuff. I'm using a Hasselblad and film now, and use an adapter to also put those lenses on the Canon 1DsMKII.
Lots of choices these days.
BTW, anyone got their hands on the new films from Fuji?
Here's a "getting ready" wedding shot I call "Five Women". It's a demonstration of film's dynamic range in very contrasty lighting conditions ... where digital would have had a terrible time of it.
Hasselblad 503CW, Zeiss 50/4 FLE
I am migrating back to film for weddings (at least for a portion) because it is actually easier to just get proofs for stuff like all the formal shots and portraits.... which I hate sitting in front of a computer processing until the cows come home. Plus there's all the Leica M B&W stuff. I'm using a Hasselblad and film now, and use an adapter to also put those lenses on the Canon 1DsMKII.
Lots of choices these days.
BTW, anyone got their hands on the new films from Fuji?
Here's a "getting ready" wedding shot I call "Five Women". It's a demonstration of film's dynamic range in very contrasty lighting conditions ... where digital would have had a terrible time of it.
Hasselblad 503CW, Zeiss 50/4 FLE