Sometimes I saw post compare the Leica lens to the Nikon Lens, but I have never seen any post talk about their Canon lens against the Leica counterpart, dispute some of the Canon L lens are more expensive or on par with Leica Lens, I have used the 28-70mm L lens on a EOS3 body, the pictures came out great, atleast as good as these from Leica or Nikon. I regret I sold it. Anyone have the same thought?

-- Mitchell Li (mitchli@pacbell.net), January 10, 2002

Answers

"I regret I sold it."

One area in which Canon, Leica and Nikon lenses are OFTEN equal. 8^)

The last Canon lenses I used at all extensively were the breech-mount FD lenses (c. 1971-1979). At the time they had more contrast and apparent sharpness than the contemporary Nikons, and had a slightly less magenta color rendition - very similar to the (also contemporary) Leica M lenses that I now use. I quit Canon after they went to the pseudo-bayonet plastic mounts. Then they eventually abandoned manual focus altogether.

I have no idea whether the EOS lenses bear any family resemblance - imagewise - to the MF optics.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 10, 2002.

The last Canon lenses I used at all extensively were the breech-mount FD lenses (c. 1971-1979). At the time they had more contrast and apparent sharpness than the contemporary Nikons, and had a slightly less magenta color rendition

Same for me; except that I found them to have less contrast and apparent sharpness than the contemporary Nikons and a yellowish color rendition.

Do you see where this is going to take you. ;o))

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), January 10, 2002.

My gut, completely unresearched, feeling is that Canon are the leaders in 35mm optics in terms of innovation ahead of Nikon in this regard, but they definitely do have the philosophy that "more is always better" and this sets them apart from Leica whose philosophy, for better or worse, is rather the opposite.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 10, 2002.

As a (former) Canon EOS user, I would agree that Canon is the leader in camera/lens innovation, but not necessarily in optical quality. They have some really terrific professional L lenses (eg., 85/1.2 L, 300/4.0-L), but most of their lenses do not stand out as superior when compared with Nikon, Minolta etc. I think Leicas best M lenses are still better than Canon's best EOS L lenses, although not by much.

Where Canon really does stand out is in the non-optical features they offer. Their image stabilizer lenses (eg., 300/4.0 IS-L and newer IS lenses) add a new dimension to available light photography, making hand held low light photography feasible in the longer telephoto category. If I still used Canon, I would buy IS lenses, since this is the way to go. Not that anyone remembers, but Canon was the first to put torque-matched AF motors into their AF lenses and the first to bring out nearly silent USM (ultrasonic micro-motor) technology. This all well before Nikon's silent wave lens motor and Sigma's HSM.

In addition to their eye-controlled focus (which many do not care for) and 45-point AF sensor c-Mos technology which no one has surpassed, Canon now has on the immediate horizon a new "diffractive optical layer" technology suitable for greatly collapsing the light path (and hence size/length) of fast long focus lenses (eg., 400 mm). Thus, apparently using these new materials, they can make a fast but small and light 400 mm lens of excellent optical quality without resorting to a mirror lens.

When it comes to photographic innovation, Canon really is the giant.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 10, 2002.

Eliot

Re IS. I hear a lot about this, but I would be intrigued to know how really good it is - can you direct us to any good sites or nitty-gritty tests? What I wonder is whether the IS system when operating will really allow the very finest resolution to be captured or whether it works more at the macro-detail level. For example does an IS zoom 70-200mm at a shutter speed (handheld) at 1/60th sec (say) at 200mm with IS on really give the same performance as the lens on a tripod (IS off) right up to the finest detail? I am skeptical I have to say...

It may be an improvement, but for me the devil is in the details...

I also read somewhere (don't you hate it when people say this kind of thing?) that the diffraction optic that they tested (300mm was it) was inferior to the regular 300mm L lens, but was indeed a good deal lighter. There is often a catch with optical as opposed to mechanical innovation I find...

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 10, 2002.

When I was living in Japan in years past, I was receiving an unbelievable cost of living allowance in addition to my normal salary. I was able to buy and use most every camera being produce at that time, and did some side by side comparisons with the top offerings from both Nikon and Canon.

I believe that while Canon was indeed the innovator as far as technology, (Canon had a command wheel on their camera backs a decade before Nikon brought out the F-100), to me it went back to what I was comfortable with. I liked dials and rings over buttons, some of which had more than one function.

I also compliment Canon on its honesty regarding its annotation for its "L" series lenses. They had a distinct line of normal gear and professional level gear, and let you know up front. I was using Nikons from the 1960's, and it was assumed that any Nikkor was a "pro- capable" lens, and indeed there were only a couple of "dogs" in the line up. When Nikon decided to court the consumer market, they went the opposite way of Canon, and built the lenses down to a price, annotating then series "E" for economy. The rest of the line was still assumed to be as good as you could get from a Japanese manufacturer.

In the end, I stayed with Nikon because to get from Canon what I could get from Nikon required more money and the need to carry a larger lens. Today other than my Leicas, I use great 1980's vintage Nikkors like the 35mm f/1.4 and 105mm f/2.5. The current Canon 35mm f/1.4 is huge and expensive, although I am sure excellent optically. My nice little Nikkor has the same 52mm filter size as the rest of my prime lenses and cost 600 Dollars. Even with the SLRs, I just don't want to carry a big 28-70 f/2.8, so that tiny 35mm lens is a big deal to me. The decision was totally personal due to ergonomics, not performance.

Here is a site from a person that has just as many Canon shots those from a as Leica M. He seems to find they work well together. He has many shots from the Canon 50mm f/1.0L, but none from the Leica Noctilux. It would be hard to say he is not getting the most from his gear.click

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 10, 2002.

Robin. Erwin has a nice discussion of the IS technology and there are several articles in Pop Photo over the last few years. Maybe on our "sister" Canon website there is a discussion of IS.

My understanding is that this technology requires a separate set of lens elements (the "IS group elements") that do NOT contribute to the correction of optical errors, merely to the image stabilization function. Thus, the design considerations are different for IS lenses.

This technology is not meant for applications requiring critically high resolution. for that, a tripod is best. Rather, it allows you to get "acceptably sharp" photos at very low shutter speeds hand held Example: a reasonably sharp handheld picture using the 300/4.0 IS-L lens for shutter speed as long as 1/10 sec. Thus, it's benefit is to increase the number of useable photographs obtainable with shutter speeds well into the conventional camera shake technology.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 10, 2002.

I think contemporary Canon (and Nikon) glass has a lot of contrast -- more so than Leica. Trouble is, that while increased contrast gives the impression of a sharper image, it in fact usually means there is generally lower resolution present. Hence, contemporary Leica (and Zeiss) glass will have better resolution than their Nikon or Canon counter-parts.

As to innovation, hands-down Canon is the winner. They have provided a lot of neat features for their cameras, and forced other manufactures to also up the ante -- great features, that is, if you need them...

Robin: As for I.S., I use Nikon's only counterpart, the 80-400 VR, and it DEFINATELY makes a big difference! I would say it adds about 3- stops to my hand-holdability with it on. I don't know if Canon's I.S. has it, but Nikon also has a "pan" mode that works incredibly well. It only stabilizes the image in the vertical direction, freeing horizontal motion for incredible pan shots with perfectly blurred backgrounds. I just wish this lens also had the "S" motor...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 10, 2002.

Mitchell,

I was in error regarding the web-site I linked in my response above. I originally stated that the person used the Canon 50mm f/1.0 lens, but not the Noctilux. I was wrong, as there are indeed Noct' shots deep within many of the site's internal links. This adds even more fuel to your original post... are Canon lenses at a level that they can compete with Leica? At least that one photographer that has both thinks so.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 10, 2002.

I shot with a lot of Nikkor manual focus lenses for 30 years alongside a few Leica lenses. Between 1999 and 2000 I sold off all the Nikon gear and bought more Leica gear. Last year, I bought a Canon EOS IX body along with 50/1.4 and 100/2 lenses so that I'd have something wacky and newish to play with.

After shooting a lot of film with the Canon and Leica gear, I find that these two Canon lenses are superb ... even if they don't have the Leica imaging signature, they have great contrast, produce excellent saturated color and very good focus. Comparing them against my Nikkor manual focus negatives, there is little difference to be found in general, although specific lenses and aperture settings will often prove one or the other superior.

The Leica lenses remain at a higher spec, with nicer signature and greater corner to corner sharpness, although sometimes I will admit the differences are quite subtle. More clear is the fact that the Leica negatives have more separation of tonalities in the low/middle grayscale zone.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), January 10, 2002.

Every time I'm tempted to compare one 35mm brand to another I pull out some Hasselblad images and the urge dissipates. I owned the 80- 400VR Nikon for a short time. Truth is, any lens that big I'm going to use it on a tripod, and how much sharper is IS/VR going to make it? I mean, let's be logical: if the rig is immobile, there's nothing to stabilize. Like the Buck Rodgers meter in the F5: you practically can't see exposure differences less than 1/3 stop on slide film, so what's the point of a meter that can differentiate exposures at smaller increments?

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 10, 2002.

I don't regret selling any Canon/Nikon gear and I would dispute your conclusion that they are as good. IMHO under more ideal, balanced lighting conditions whether studio or existing light all the major brands come out pretty much neck to neck. However under challenging situations such as strong back lighting, high contrast situations, low light, etc., Leica really shine and more so if you do your comparison all at max aperture. Flare resistance is a very important factor for me and this prompted me to unload my EOS 20-35mmL (no I did not use a filter). Retaining shadow detail is also important to me so I ended up unloadeding most of my Nikkors due to Nikon's take no prisoners high contrast approach. Wide open performance is also very important to me so I am left with Leica. I still have the EOS 3 and the 28-135IS for situations when I need it and it is a great lens. And I do have a few Nikon bodies and lenses and the ones I chose to keep are really good but there are limitations and I use them when these limitations don't factor into the photo. With Leica the only limitation is that ever growing credit card bill :^{

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), January 10, 2002.

Jay:

I wouldn't say the 80-400 VR on an F5 is immobile -- unless you are comparing it to the M ;-) Not only that, but the lens fits (albeit barely) inside a normal compartment in my Domke F1 or F2 bag. I will also say VR does make a huge difference when I am shooting wakeboarders from the back of a bouncing boat -- Enough of a difference that I am able get very sharp full-frame images at around 200mm.

:) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 10, 2002.

Lauren [face w/hands], January, 2002

Coincidentally, I was showing a friend some recent photos today, all taken with Summicron-R lenses, except two, which were taken with Canon EF lenses (an 85mm f/1.8 and a 28-80 f/2.8-4 L). The difference in character between the pix taken with the Leica and those taken with the Canon were so striking that my friend was convinced on the spot to buy a Leica and a 90mm Summicron-R. There was a lifelike, absolutely magical quality about the Summicron images that was completely missing in the Canon images. I might say, for lack of better words, that it was a kind of "three dimensional" quality. I noticed the same type of difference when I went from a Pantax 645 to a Hassy

In short, Japanese lenses are sharp and test well--which makes them fine for commercial work, which is the type of work I do with my Canon--but for my personal work, it's German lenses exclusively.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), January 10, 2002.

I once had a Canon A1 and was my second "serious" camera, (first was a Ricoh), I had, and still have two Canon lenses, a 50/1.4 and a 20/2.8, both I find very good, the 20 is really a good lens, I always wanted a F-1 body to grow a system, A1 seemed to plastic and moisture senscitive, but I never got it, instead I bougth a used M3 and I stay with this. One thing I discovered was that the A1 is a really good body, afer many years is still working and has stand moisture and hard knocks as well. Although the 50/1.4 is a worst lens for copy work, but excelent on the field.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), January 10, 2002.

Peter

That is a wonderful shot! Interesting opinion. I too feel this when comparing Leica with Canon FD which is my experience, but I have no personal experience of the L line.

Whenever I think about off-loading my Leica R and getting a much larger Nikon or Canon kit, I always feel that I will regret it. If one is really happy with what one has already -- why change it?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 11, 2002.

I compared the Leica 21 pre asph with my Canon L 17-35 2.8 zoom a while back. The Leica lens as you would expect had slightly more fine detail and higher micro contrast but the Canon lens used on Elan 7 had 17mm 21mm 24mm 28mm... It is just a fantastic lens and something Leica should take a good look at. Priced at just over $1000 these L lenses are exceptional. I believe their L 28-70 2.8 is just as good or better. The price you pay for this quality and versatility is bigger glass and more bulk. I keep using the Leica M because of the quality and size advantage but Canon offers a great deal to think about. Using the Canon gear makes me take a hard look at whether I need my R stuff. Good luck.

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), January 11, 2002.

I haven't used the leica equivalents, but here's my two cents-

The EF 50/1.8 II seemed much better than the AF 50/1.8 Nikkor- in resolution, yes, but had "signature" I favored over the Nikkor. The 85/1.8's (Canon and Nikon, AF) were on par with each other.

I feel that Canon does have excellent primes to work with the EOS bodies, But (used) Nikon offers the same level of performance optically, at a much more enticing price. EOS primes are hard to find compared to the nikkor glass. Expensive when you do find them. This forum, however, is probably not concerned with $ when considering photo equipment.

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), January 11, 2002.