[LRflex] Re: Leica insolvency temporarily cured.

David Young said:
> Moreso, because when I purchased my 20D, I also purchased their 17~80mm=
> EF-S, IS zoom, because it filled some 'holes', particularly at the wide=
> end.
>
> However, I am appalled at the quality (or lack thereof) of this lens. 
> It's=
> sharp enough, but at the extreme w/a, barrel distortion is, well, 
> extreme.=<<<

Hi David,
Too bad you didn't get the Canon 10-22 lens (16-35) as it's a cracker jack. 
I know Henning is very pleased with his and I like wise, mine.

But then you said you had to fill a hole of lens coverage so that may have 
negated getting it. But as far as I'm concerned the 10-22 is a smashing good 
lens and sharp to the extent the beaches I shot in Cabo san Lucas, Mexico 
the sand is as crisp as all get out with sparkling water bubbles as the 
waves broke along the shoreline.  And when printed at 13X19 it's beautiful 
for detail of individual grains of sand standing out! Amazing, so this is an 
excellent lens without question.

ted









>  Moreover, it has a terrible tendency to flare, even with the lens hood=
> on. I know that I've been spoiled by using Leica gear all these years...=
> but for $CAD $1000 this lens is very poor value!
>
> I supect that you're right... Canon has good reason to fear Leica lenses 
> in=
> EOS mounts.
>
> Cheers!
>
> David.
>
> ---------
>
> On 26/08/2005 at 8:48 AM Douglas Herr wrote:
>
>>David Young <telyt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> ... I tend to agree with the Luminous Landscape... If Leica were to
>>>  build their lenses in Nikon/Canon mounts, only a very tiny percentage=
> of
>>>  those owners would ever buy one.  But it would probably double Leica's
>>>  lens sales! And lenses (not cameras) are where the money is!
>>
>>This topic has been discussed a number of times on several forums.  In a
>>nutshell:
>>
>>If you want auto-diaphragm and  full-aperture metering, there are two
>>paths to this: cooperation and reverse-engineering.
>>
>>Cooperation won't happen, period.  Canon doesn't want the competition.
>>The interest in using Leica-R lenses isn't minescule.  Go to the Fred
>>Miranda forum and see how much discussion there is on the subject.
>>
>>Reverse-engineering is risky, because Canon can (and has) made minor
>>firmware tweaks that "break" the compatability of third-party lenses.  As
>>a lens purchaser you might be willing to take that risk if the lens offers
>>you a significant discount but are you willing to bet the price of a Leica
>>lens that it won't be turned into a doorstop?  I don't see a market here.
>>
>>Foregoing the auto-diaphragm and full-aperture metering would be using the
>>Leica lens in full manual mode, exactly like using an R-mount lens with an
>>R-to-EOS adapter.  A manual-only lens in an EOS mount would lose the
>>flexibility of using it on a Leica-R body.  I don't see a market there
>>either.
>>
>>Ditto for Nikon mount, with the possible exception of an AIS mount, except
>>that many current Nikon bodies treat AIS lenses as though they're
>>manual-only.  Can't even use the camera's meter.
>>
>>
>>Doug Herr
>
>
> David Young,
> Logan Lake, BC
> CANADA.
>
> Personal Web-site at: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt
> Leica Reflex Forum web-page: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
>
> ------
> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>    http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
> Archives are at:
>    www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
> 


------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
    http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
    www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/

Other related posts: