Leica 35mm summicron vs Canon 16-35 @35mm

[dhali777]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Everyone,

 

I am very new to leica, just got an M8 with 35mm summicron. I also have a canon 1DmarkIV. Thought i'd compare the 2. I know one is a zoom lens and the other is a prime. I took a picture of a matal chair, both at 35mm, f11 standing at the same spot and focus point being the same as well.

 

The I cropped a similar segment (showing the same area) from both photos. The images have not been processed or sharpened in anyway. Both cameras at the largest JPEG setting.

 

WOW what a difference. Leica appears sharp shows the pattern on the chair back while the canon appears dull.

 

I am not professional photographer and this test may have many variables that i did not control but i am sold on the Leica.

 

it was also simpler with leica and it felt that i was taking the photo and not my camera..

 

Amar

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lanetomlane]

Welcome to the forum.

 

Yes, Leica glass is exceptional and that's why they charge the big bucks.

__________________________

Regards, Tom

 

 

 

 

Photography by Tom Lane

[lct]

One of the very best 35mm primes vs a Canon zoom. Apples and oranges. Also what you compare here is more the cameras than the lenses as aside from digital Leicas, Sigmas (?) and some MF backs, all modern cams have an AA filter to protect them from moiré so sharpening in PP is mandatory for them.

[kanzlr]

that comparison is not really valid.

 

first, f11 is already beyond diffraction limits and the M9 lacks the anti aliasing filter the Canon has to soften the image and remove moire.

 

M8 and M9 are always sharper on a per pixel level, but that doesn't really matter in everyday shooting.

 

try it again at open aperture and at f8. Would be more interesting.

also, screw 100% crops. They tell you nothing when you compare two different sensored cameras.

A 100% crop from the 4,5MP Sigma SD14 is sharper than a 100% crop from a 21mp Canon, but you can not enlarge it as well, etc.

 

the quality at the desired output size and viewing distance is what matters. 100% crops don't.

[jaapv]

The contrast is more to blame than anything else. Not surprising with a big zoom, there is always a contrast loss (Ahem- not with the Leica R apo-zooms )

[bocaburger]

this test may have many variables that i did not control

Amar

 

Yes, many variables. I have an M8 and a Canon 5D (12mp) so I can give you a few hints. Try it again with a Canon EF 35mm f/2. I have that lens and a couple of 35 Summicrons, and I guarantee you'll see the results get much closer than the 16-35. Put both cameras on a tripod and use mirror lockup in the Canon. Shoot raw and process files from both cameras using workflow mated to that specific camera, then print them. You may still see differences, but much subtler ones. That isn't to say we as individuals don't have a legitimate right to our personal opinions that the subtlest of differences are significant. My personal bias is that I find the ergonomic differences between the Leica and Canon far more compelling than the IQ differences, as was the case when I shot film Leicas and Canons.

[beewee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Was this using the 16-35 v1 or v2? The v1 was known to be soft, even when stopped down. The v2 fairs a bit better but I still find that, with a 5D2, the center is usually quite sharp when stopped down to f/8 and f/11, even f/16 is ok and diffraction isn't a huge problem on the 5D2. But as you move out to around 10+mm away from the center of the sensor, there is definitely a noticeable loss of micro contrast.

 

I haven't had the pleasure of shooting leica glass on the M9 but I definitely notice that, at least on the M8, the sensor/lenses tend to hold its sharpness all the way to the edge even when shooting wide open. By contrast on the 16-35, you don't have a chance of getting remotley sharp corners unless you're stopping down to f/8-f/11.

 

I also notice that with the leica glass, it's rather refreshing to see the lack of image distortion that is quite noticable on the 16-35. I remember the first time I shot the M8 with the Elmarit 28 ASPH, I was blown away with the clean look of the image due to the lack of lens distortion.