As you know, I have been one of the stalwarts adhering to the "optical superiority of Leica glass" mantra. And based on all of my experience, this adherence has been justified. Until recently.

In Greg's post, I indicated that while I could press the 135 into service on the M as a sports optic, I felt that an AF/AE SLR with a 70-200 zoom would be a better alternative for most action or sports type shots. The problem for me was which one to choose? If I was going to go back to an SLR it needed to be more "compatible" with the M. Most of you know I used Nikons for over 20 years, but even after a few months with the Leica, the Nikon's "backwards" focus, aperture and especially lens-mount, I found myself wanting an SLR that worked in the same direction as the Leica. You may recall I even made a post on this subject. At any rate, I settled on Canon as my SLR companion to the M. (While not pertinent to this post, the main reasons for this choice were Canon's excellent AF capabilities, good AE metering system, quality of their higher-end optics, selection of IS lenses; plus the fact that I feel they will be the leaders in interchangeable lens SLR digital cameras and I wanted to have lens compatibility if and when I make a move toward digital.)

So, I picked up a used EOS 1V and a few lenses. Thinking about shooting transparencies while traveling, I decided to perform a little side-by-side comparison test to see how inferior Canon's glass was going to be to the Leica's. I wanted this to be a "real-life" shooting comparison, so for all of these tests I used the same film in both cameras -- E100S. Additionally, the cameras were hand-held and I used the Matrix reading from the Canon, and my calculated exposures for the Leica, which surprisingly were always within 1/2 to 1/3 of a stop of the Canon's(!), but usually slightly "under" relative to the Canon. The lenses I compared were the 21asph to the 17-35 L zoom at the indicated 20mm setting (I know this was not fair to Canon, but it is all I had in that focal); the 35asph 'Lux next to the 35 position on the 17-35 L zoom (same disclaimer as for the 20); 50 'Lux to the EF 50 f1.4; 90APO to the Tamron 90 Macro (just because I have heard this lens performs nearly as well as the 90APO). The shots were outdoors, mixed sun and shade. Due to the light value and the fact that the M is limited to 1/1000th maximum shutter speeds, the widest aperture I could compare directly was f2.8. Here is what I found, and the results surprised me a little...

21's) The 21asph was clearly sharper in the center, but the lenses were very close at the edges. While the differences were noticeable, I would say the Canon zoom performed almost as well as my pre-asph 21 did; the difference was not huge, and in most situations probably not significant. The real surprise was in the color cast and contrast which were identical. I could not tell any difference.

35's) Here I got the biggie -- the shots from the 35 asph and the zoom at 35 were indistinguishable. In fact I had to keep looking at the film leader for the imprint the 1V embeds to tell which was which. Again, no difference in color or contrast. Amazing.

50's) Ditto as for the 35's. No differences. Nada. I even shot the EF at f1.4, and while perhaps a little softer than what I remember the 'Lux doing, the EF was still quite good and useable at this wide aperture.

90's) At f2.8 the Tamron was notably softer. However at f4 and up, both lenses offered nearly identical performance in terms of resolution. The Tamron was slightly warmer, and showed a bit less contrast, but for a $450 lens I was very impressed. Just for fun, I shot both the 90's hand-held down to 1/15th second. I was very surprised here too as I expected the M to deliver crisper images at the slower speeds. Result? Again identical. The 1V's mirror must be very well dampened, or the weight plays a huge advantage, or both. Both images at 1/30th were acceptably sharp with no obvious signs of movement; at 1/15th both showed the same small degree of movement blur.

Conclusion: For normal shooting situations with normal lenses and color slide film the EOS and the M will deliver the same result. And I wonder how the fixed-focal Canon 20 would compare to the 21asph -- perhaps it would fair better than the zoom. I expect more significant differences may have also existed if I had done a tripod comparison, but I wanted a more real-life comparison and I rarely mount my M on a tripod for any shot other than lens tests. Now all that remains is for me to do a B&W comparison... Will I get rid of the M? No, I still love it for its portability and inconspicuous nature, as well as the quality of the glass. It's just that the glass thing is not quite as big of deal for me as it used to be.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 21, 2002

Answers

Jack, since you find this does this mean that Canon is better than Nikon? Perish the thought! I do think often these lens differences are subtle - have you had it all really long enough to tell? How did you look at the film?

I always maintain that people make too much of the M "slow speed advantage."

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 21, 2002.

I've said it before and I will say it again.

Format has far more effect on final print appearance than lens manufacturer, for recent lenses from first parties.

Also, since most people don't print for themselves or bother to get really good printing, things are further equalized.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 21, 2002.

thanks for sharing, Jack. I recently shot a few rolls of Supra 100 and Reala w/ my new Canon USM 100/2.8 Macro with impressive results. As you say, one doesn't exclude the other. I still prefer the rangefinder for portability (the combo of glass and performance is next to none) but then again, a modern SLR like the Canon EOS allows me to capture pics I never would have taken w/ the rangefinder (dUH!)

Now I wonder what a medium format would allow me to do... ;-)

cheers,

pat

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), May 21, 2002.

I am also a recent convert to Canon EOS and agree 90% that the Leica M's greatest (and perhaps only) appeal at present is its compact dimensions. I say 90% because an EOS Rebel 2000 with a 28-135 Image Stabilizer lens takes up less space and weighs less than an M with Tri-Elmar and 90 and 135 lenses, has more accurate framing, a built- in motor, multiple metering modes and AE, and can be handheld (by me) at slower speeds. What keeps me with the M are totally emotional responses: it feels like a fine instrument (even though the Rebel is probably more reliable), and I have a very sentimental attachment to it after more than 30 years with the marque. OTOH, look for me to be selling off my R system soon.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 21, 2002.

PS: I should say that I used the Rebel just as an example for size and weight. I actually own 1V and 1N bodies.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 21, 2002.

Personally, I think the killer lens for that camera is the 80- 200/f2.8 L IS.

-- Glenn Travis (leciaddict@hotmail.com), May 21, 2002.

Hey Jack,

I agree with you; Canon is really good. I have a 1N, a 17-35 f/2.8, an 85 f/1.8, and a cheap but great 50 f/1.8 mark I (metal mount), and I'm happy with them. I also have a M6 TTL with a 50 'lux.

The only problem with Canon is if you want small bodies, you get plastic (Rebel). And they are a bit loud, especially the 1N, 1V, and 3. The new Elan is pretty quiet, but still bulky.

From what I've read, the new 16-35 f/2.8 is sharper when used wide open...

Cheers,

-- David Carson (dave@davidcarson.com), May 21, 2002.

Jack. What you describe is not my experience at all. I have significant experience with the EOS system (zooms and primes), and I have found the Leica M lenses are noticeably better (especially shadow detail, depth of coloration, etc.). That's why I use Ms now.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 21, 2002.

"A Confession...."!

Geez, Jack! I thought you were going to own up to being Phill's alter- ego or some such!

About the only counter-argument I can give is that my M4x with a 21 SA would fit INSIDE an EOS1 + 17-35 zoom - sort of like Eddie Murphy inside the Fat Professor costume.

Also, I'm not sure I get why using the zoom was "unfair to Canon". I would expect a good modern zoom to equal an f/1.4 fixed lens - they are both very difficult designs to create. Leica's magic is doing it in a barrel 1.5" in diameter instead of 3". Might try the Leica against the Canon 35 f/1.4 - at f/1.4 - and see what happens then.

But I didn't get into Leica for the lens quality. If it's there it's just a plus. I wanted the compactness, low sound, low impact, low-tech, etc.

So test away!..

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 21, 2002.

Thanks for the info Mr. Flesher. I owned a Canon 1N with a 28-70L and a 50 1.4. I compared the 2 lenses from 2.8 on using a tripod, MLU, etc. What I found was that the zoom rivalled the 50mm at the 50 setting. I posted a brief experience on this on photo.net and most people dismissed the results.

Indeed, that 28-70L is pretty awesome. But, given that the camera with zoom, not to mention the 540EZ flash was humongous, I switched to Leica for the small size, no mirror shake, and mech./manual nature. I am happy, even if the difference in images isn't startling.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), May 21, 2002.

Photography is about making and displaying images. Cameras, lenses, film, and processing are just tools used in this process. Wonderful images are made with all formats and all brands of cameras. I am 54 years old. During my lifetime, most of the famous pictures were taken with Speed Graphics and Nikons. Canon EOS cameras are quickly gaining ground. Commercial photographers have worked mostly with Hasselblad and other medium format cameras. View cameras still take the very best pictures of things that don't move.

Leica M rangefinder cameras are photographic tools with unique qualities that make them attractive--they are quiet, reliable, and easy to focus in low light; and, generally speaking, they are hand-holdable at slow(er) shutter speeds than SLRs, and shutter “lag” is shorter.

When the above Leica M qualities are of paramount importance, there is nothing like a Leica. When your newspaper or magazine needs to go to press 30 minutes after the Super Bowl ends (3,000 miles away) a D1 may be your best bet. Want a 8ft x 10ft mural of Half Dome grab your Deardorff and some film holders. Astronauts traditionally carry Hasselblads. Hand-holding a long lens at the Indy 500, Canon EOS image- stabilization lenses will be a big help.

-- Jim Lennon (jim@jmlennon.com), May 21, 2002.

I've been a Canon EOS user for about ten years. When aging eyes dictated a change to autofocus, I bought into the Nikon system and used it for about a year. Those Nikons would hunt for focus like a pack of hound dogs. Then I tried a Canon. It immediately locked on focus like a pit bull, no matter where I pointed it. I sold my Nikon stuff, bought Canon, and have never looked back.

Last December I had an assignment from the Public Education Foundation to photograph children in school in classic fly-on-the-wall photojournalistic style. The work had to be in color, under mixed lighting -- fluorescents, tungsten, and daylight -- and without flash. With Fuji 800 Press in my M3 with 50mm Summicron and 40mm M-Rokkor, and my Canon EOS A2 (surely one of the most underated cameras of all time) with an 80-200 f2.8L lens, I spent two half-days on the project. The client loved the photos and bought a batch of 11x14s to hang in their offices.

They ultimately selected two shots for murals, and the negatives were sent to Color Genesis in Atlanta for scanning and printing. As it happened, both photographs were made with the 80-200L, at f2.8 and probably 1/125th second, hand-held. The 40x60-inch Lightjet prints absolutely blew me away, and delighted the client. They are unbelievably sharp at the point of focus, and the grain and texture of the film could pass for 120. In fact, the lab man who helped me unroll the prints for inspection when I picked them up (he had not worked on the order himself) asked me if they were from 120 negatives.

I love my Leicas, especially with normal & wide lenses. But for a longer lens, that 80-200L is hard to beat.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 21, 2002.

Great responses all! A few comments to some specific questions:

Robin: Jack, since you find this does this mean that Canon is better than Nikon? Perish the thought!
Hey, I am not going to be the one to open that can of worms! All I will say is that to me, they are different. Nikon has crisp, contrasty color, and Canon apparently opted for a smoother subtler look. Similar to Leica. Very similar.

I do think often these lens differences are subtle - have you had it all really long enough to tell?
I’ve been looking at transparencies for over 30 years; over 20 of which were those out of a Nikon. I know what I see, and I know how it relates to what I’ve seen. But, I do reiterate that these are just my observations – and my preferences – and I am not attempting to push them on anyone else.

How did you look at the film?
Via my PEAK 16x scientific loupe. I have found this to be roughly the same as looking at a 16x24 enlargement from a few inches away.

I always maintain that people make too much of the M "slow speed advantage."
Perhaps you were always right!

Glenn: Just got one -- AWESOME lens!!!

Elliot: I don't know what to tell you... I specifically paid attention to the tonal range and the shadows; EVERYTHING that was in the shadow in the Leica shot showed up equally well in the Canon shot, down to a slot in a screw on a doorframe in a shadow! And, as for tonality, I did indeed have to look at the leader for the imprint from the 1V to discern which mages came from it versus those from the Leica.

Dinner awaits!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 21, 2002.

You folks HAVE got to be kidding me???? The Canon 17-35 is a notoriously poor performer in the excellent L line up. It's barrel distortion alone condemns it. The replacement 16-35/2.8 is a vast improvement, yet pales in comparison to the fixed 35/1.4 L. And in side by side shooting conditions my Leica 35 ASPH Lux kicks that lens' behind every time. The L is just about as sharp, but the tonality of the prints and overall feel of the Leica wins my heart 9 times out of 10. By the way, IMHO ( and subjectively as can be) I almost NEVER shoot color with the Canon. Hate the pastelish look compared to Nikon and especially the Leicas. I only shoot B&W with the Canon glass anymore. Conversely, I rarely, if ever, shoot B&W with NIKON glass.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 21, 2002.

there was a shockingly frank article in "leica photography" about a year ago on the history of the great german lensmakers (i.e. zeiss, zeiss, zeiss, and leica). the basic point was that these companies, until the 1980s were pretty far ahead of even nikon and canon in the design of esoteric glass types, and that this superiority gave them an edge over the japanes firms. however, the article went on to say that the technology involved in both glass formulation and lens construction became ultrasophisticated in the late 80s and 90s, with heavy investments in computer modeling, CNC, prototype testing, etc. required to stay in front. apparently, there was really quite a revolution, a distinct break from past techniques. the article suggested that as a result of this shift, the much wealthier japanese companies began to leave zeiss and leica behind, especially tiny, chronicly underfunded leica. indeed, i think that the article stated that leica now leaves glass formulation to outside firms. in view of all this, and in view of the incredible sophistication of the most recent japanese lenses -- multiple aspheric surfaces, IS, etc. -- jack's results cannot be that surprising to anyone. let's face it, is it conceivable that leica could make a better lens than nikon if nikon actually decided to make the best optic possible. and don't you think nikon occasionally puts maximal effort into at least a few of its products. and does max performance possible really matter in the context of a handheld, available lite camera?? and for applications where highest technical quality matters, would anyone choose 35mm, when something like the mamiya 7 exists?? as jeff said, increasing format size a notch totally swamps small diferences in lens quality among different mfrs.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 21, 2002.

Jack, you left out the most important thing: how did the lneses compare on bokeh? ;-) (The devil made me do it!)

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), May 21, 2002.

Jack did it with the Canon. I recently did similarly unscientific quick 'n dirty comparisons with Minolta Dynax. And found similar results to those "revealed" by Jack with el cheapo 50mm f1.7 (compared to mythical 'cron) and 85mm f1.4 (compared to mythical M 75 'lux). Also compared old 90mm Tamron f2.5 (adaptall mount 2nd version) to my super-mythical 100 macro-elmarit. The latter produced similarly high quality from f4 down, but the two first produced results that were stickingly similar at all apertures. So what?

Others have played those games for years with Nikkors, Olympus or Pentax, with identical "epiphanies".

Those comparisons in so-called "real life" circumstances evidently do not test the lenses to their limit. The shooting protocol (handheld, precipitated sessions, unchallenging light, etc) and the lack of benchmark measurement of key optical differentiators (distortion, vignetting, flare resistance, etc) are equalisers that drag the Leicas down to the level of the very capable tools produced elsewhere.

The differentiator, for me, is the intimate knowledge, produced by personal experience and by reference to credible optical testing benchmarks, that, whatever the circumstances, any picture failure with a Leica will be unrelated to optical defects. If your (recent) Leica glass flares on you, distorts on you or simply produces images that lack in ooomph, you know that you would not have fared better with anyone else. This unchallenged confidence, especially at the wider apertures, is what you pay for when you buy Leica glass.

But, for me, the reason to buy Leica goes even beyond that, and relates to the unique binding experience provided by Leica, that connects me as a user to the photographic process. None of the other contemporary lines of 35mm hardware provide me with a similar user experience. This relates to ergonomy, construction, choice of materials, tactile feedback, and other non measurable items.

On that playing field, Canon, Minolta and the others, even when they do produce high end sturdy bodies and nicely finished pro lenses, simply do not compete. For me.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), May 22, 2002.

jack:

thanks for the update. I too think too much is made of lens quality and sharpness. if I want the ultimate in sharpness I take out my fuji gw 690 and use a tripod. If I want portability I use my M. If I am shooting birds, I pull out my doug herr special (SL with with the 400mm f6.8) and most importantly, if I want to photograph my wife with out her breaking my camera over my head, I use my minolta maxxum 9 and a 15 year old 35-105 zoom that can probably be located on ebay for $35.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), May 22, 2002.

Jack, Initially, I was irritated by your post as it flew directly in the face of my own comparisons, but, in fairness, if you're looking at Kodak e100s through a peak loupe I don't suppose the results are surprising at all. Try looking at more neutral (read 'subtle") film through a Leica loupe and then see if you can still see no difference. For myself, nothing would please me more if Eos lenses matched Leica ones for tonality, but that simply is not the case: the differences are, regrettably, very obvious - even when printed in e.g. a magazine - check out National Geo where the lecia images stand out very clearly from the eos and nikkor images. I wish what you said was my experience, I really do, it would make my life so much easier. BTW, does "50's) Ditto as for the 35's. No differences. Nada. I even shot the EF at f1.4, and while perhaps a little softer than what I remember the 'Lux doing, the EF was still quite good and useable at this wide aperture." mean that you were comparing from memory?!

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), May 22, 2002.

Roger

May well be right - who knows?

"and for applications where highest technical quality matters, would anyone choose 35mm, when something like the mamiya 7 exists?"

I never really get this argument - in this case we would all use 4x5s or 8 x 10s. The point is to get the best quality you can from 35mm. Carrying an MF or LF camera is a whole new ballgame. I think this is a view that a professional might take, but for most people who shoot exclusively 35mm then it is irrelevant. The whole point about 35mm is its great portability, lens selection, speed in use, quality/size ratio and so on. None of these things are the same in larger formats.

I do agree with all of you though who say that printing and processing is a great equalizer.

I left Canon for Leica in the mid 1980s. Leica lenses of 1960s plus generation gave me more satisfying imagery than the Canons of that era. Perhaps it has all changed. I feel no need to change, but I would certainly be OK with going back to the Canon system if the R Leicas tank.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 22, 2002.

Marc: Setting my findings (and apparently those from several others in the group as well) I decided to look at the Photodo results. I do not claim to know how to properly interpret an MTF graph, but if I look at the scores on the individual f-stops -- not the overall weighted scores -- here is what I see:

Canon EF 35 f1.4: f1.4) 61; f4) 82; f8) 81
Leica 35asph lux: f1.4) 54; f4) 75; f8) 83
Zoom 17-35 f2.8) 67; f4) 75; f8) 76

I'm no rocket scientist, but it looks like the Canon 35 f1.4 is actually a slightly better lens than the Leica, and the zoom is not too far behind (and equal at f4!). And if you look, you'll see the numbers on the 50's show them to very, very close too.

Steve:

Well, I just looked at them again through my Schneider and my Rodenstock loupes (though from experience, my Peak scientific is no slouch, and cost more than either my Schneider or Rodenstock). Still no differences IMO... Sorry.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 22, 2002.

Steve:

Forgot to add that in reference to my "memory" the only aperture I was referring to was f1.4 on the 'Lux. My point was that the Canon lens was performing admirably wide open.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 22, 2002.

Jack

What's the price of the Canon L lenses as a matter of interest?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 22, 2002.

YAWN..

-- Lux (leica@sumicron.com), May 22, 2002.

Robin:

I bought the 17-35 used and mint for $900. The "new and improved" 16- 35 looks to be selling for about $1250 new. (I was, and am, suspicious about this lens as it appears it's reason for existence was the digital market.) The 50 f1.4 cost me $275; not an "L" lens, but performs comparably to the Summilux IMO. The metal-mount 50 f1.8 referred to earlier is an outstanding lens by reputation (I've never used one), and can be had used for around $125. I missed out on a used 70-200 IS at $1600, and had to pay $1800 for a new one. But I am in no way complaining, as this lens is a stunning performer! The 35 f1.4 appears to sell new for around $1150 and the 85 f1.2 for about $1400. So, while not cheap, the L lenses are somewhat of a bargain when compared to comparable Leica glass.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 22, 2002.

is this the reason you are selling your Leica?

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), May 22, 2002.

Dexter:

I'll repeat the last three sentences of my post:

Will I get rid of the M? No, I still love it for its portability and inconspicuous nature, as well as the quality of the glass. It's just that the glass thing is not quite as big of deal for me as it used to be.

As for my selling some M gear, I am simply paring my M system down to what I regularly use.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 22, 2002.

Jack, Whatever your equipment is... just keep taking and posting new photos of Kathy. Pleeeeeeeeease. Igor

-- Igor Osatuke (Visionstudios@yahoo.com), May 23, 2002.

Jack, numbers to make a point about images? My experiences with these lenses is first hand having owned and used them for quite a while. Some Canon zooms are AWFUL image makers. The 17-35/2.8 L has been panned by every tester I've read. A fact proven out in my own comparisons in studio controlled conditions where enormous "real world" blow-ups of exactly the same subject matter reveled just how big the gap was. The 28-35 IS lens is a flimsy duffers' lens. Mine had the IS mech. fall apart inside the barrel, leaving me with no lens in NY once when I was trying to travel light. Canon fixed it, and it fell apart again. I.ve held on to the Canon stuff in anticipation of the EOS 1 D which I recently got...only to find that the D30 produced just as good images, and both were far inferior to the D1x. Fortunately, the 1 D's Multi Control wheel failed the next day, which let me get my money back. I'm a Canon owner/shooter with an EOS 1v, and their best L lenses. The analog system is lightening fast, most lenses are quite good and their electronic innovations are ahead of the pack. It is also an enormous, heavy, cumbersome,obvious, plastic dependant, human memory testing, overly complex, whiz banger, "HEY LOOK AT ME!" system that is everything a Leica is not... My Leicas have now taken the place of the Canons for B&W wedding photography as there was nothing candid about the Canon stuff. My work almost instantly improved...including the image quality as scanned into being as real world prints. Sorry, just my opinion based on experience.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.com), May 24, 2002.

Oops! Forgot to correct my e-mail address again. It's .net, not .com. While I'm here...Jack, what M stuff are you off loading? I have all kinds of Canon gear that I'm about ot sell. Maybe a trade?

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 24, 2002.

Hi Marc: I wanted to respond directly and let you know I do not disagree with you. I believe that under controlled studio conditions the Leica will surpass the Canon in image quality. However my test was a real- life hand-held comparison. Frankly the number of responses agreeing with me surprised me. Secondly, and most important, I feel the Leica allows you to get in closer and not be noticed -- unobtrusiveness -- that the 1V with anything on it will simply not let you do. People simply do not pay much attention to the little Leica. And if we start to talk of build-quality, let's face it: after Leica, everything else feels somewhat junky -- even the 1V! As for the gear I'm selling, I was simply offloading gear that was not getting used. I am not getting out of Leica, to then contrary I am looking to get into the M7. But let me know what Canon gear you are going to be offing, as I may be interested. Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 24, 2002.

And I should have added that for some reason, I cannot seem to make as good of B&W images via an SLR's VF. I am referring to composition, not technical proficiency. This I find somewhat curious, but I also admit I have not been working seriously with B&W for that long...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 24, 2002.

Jack,

Here's that article about the 16-35.

Regards,

-- David Carson (dave@davidcarson.com), May 24, 2002.