Comparisons to Canon 85L II

[juju01]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Forgive me if this has been discussed in detail - I searched but couldn't find any definitive discussions on the issue.

 

Before moving to Leica, I used an old Canon 20D with an 85 mm lens ( not the 85L ). I loved its rendering for portraits. I had planned to upgrade to the 85L.

 

With the M240, I am not sure which Leica lens is comparable ( not in focal length but in the aesthetic rendering ) - I have seen discussions / comparisons to the Noctilux and even the discontinued 75 Summilux.

 

Wondering what your thoughts are on the range of comparable Leica lenses when the canon 85L II is the benchmark ?

[Advertisement]

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

[4X5B&W]

The most obvious lens of similar performance for the M240 would be the 80 Summilux-R with the R to M adapter.

 

The Canon 85L might almost be in the same league…….the 80 Lux is a fabulous lens who's performance Canon amongst others have tried to duplicate.

 

A great lens that now can be used with the excellent R to M adapter, with full coding through the M240 menu system.

[pgk]

First see: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-r-leica-flex/305278-summilux-r-80mm-1-4-vs.html

 

Secondly, the 20D has a crop factor so the field of view is restricted relative to current Leicas like the M240 and this brings a host of comparability problems which have been discussed ad infinitum (or naseum perhaps).

 

However FWIW and IMHO the Canon 85L (I or II are optically the same) is far crisper/shaprer/whatever wide open than the fast 80/1.4 R or 75/1.4 M lenses but read my comments in the link above. Its rendering is different from either the 80/1.4 R or 75/1.4 M lenses too which are both similar Mandler designs.

 

All that said, an M240 with 75mm f/2 Summicron will provide an equivalent set-up to the extent that it will deliver a very 'modern rendering' more akin, in some ways, to the Canon, but of course the field of view is different.

[Ecar]

First see: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-r-leica-flex/305278-summilux-r-80mm-1-4-vs.html

 

Secondly, the 20D has a crop factor so the field of view is restricted relative to current Leicas like the M240 and this brings a host of comparability problems which have been discussed ad infinitum (or naseum perhaps).

 

However FWIW and IMHO the Canon 85L (I or II are optically the same) is far crisper/shaprer/whatever wide open than the fast 80/1.4 R or 75/1.4 M lenses but read my comments in the link above. Its rendering is different from either the 80/1.4 R or 75/1.4 M lenses too which are both similar Mandler designs.

 

All that said, an M240 with 75mm f/2 Summicron will provide an equivalent set-up to the extent that it will deliver a very 'modern rendering' more akin, in some ways, to the Canon, but of course the field of view is different.

 

Yes, I use the Canon 85L II on my DSLR and it's definitely not a Mandler rendering...

I'd go for the Summicron 90/2 - or, if funds are tight, for the Summarit 90/2.5.

[Guest Marc G.]

I'd go for the 90 APO Summicron. Like Ecar said, if the APO is too expensive go for the awesome Summarit

[genefama]

The 85L II is my favorite Canon lens that I've used forever. Of my Leica lenses, the 75 APO has a similar focal length but the 50 Lux is closer in terms of the way it "renders." I don't have a 50 Noctilux but images I've seen from it look even more like the 85L II than do images from the 50 Lux.

 

The Canon lens is one of a kind and might not be replicable by Leica or even by other Canon lenses. The good news is that the Leica lenses are equally good—just in a different way.

[juju01]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

However FWIW and IMHO the Canon 85L (I or II are optically the same) is far crisper/shaprer/whatever wide open than the fast 80/1.4 R or 75/1.4 M lenses

 

Including the suggested APO 90 or 70 summicrons? What about the 50 1.4 Summilux? Again, I am only interested in the rendering aesthetic. I know the Leicas will have their own unique signatures but I guess I am asking if they are considered better, on par or less than what the 85L delivers.

[pgk]

Including the suggested APO 90 or 70 summicrons? What about the 50 1.4 Summilux? Again, I am only interested in the rendering aesthetic. I know the Leicas will have their own unique signatures but I guess I am asking if they are considered better, on par or less than what the 85L delivers.

The older f/1.4 Mandler designed Leica lenses are not as 'precise' wide open probably because they are not as well corrected at full aperture. At full aperture they do produce lovely images but absolute crispness/sharpness/clarity within the depth-of-field is not as well defined as it is in the Canon85/1.2, which is capable of delivering impeccable performance wide open, but this is IMHO difficult to utilise due to the considerations I commented on in the other thread that I linked to and I found mine unsatisfactory due to its design, ergonomics (lack of) and difficulty in use.

 

Any ideas of it performing better or worse aesthetically are, of course, entirely subjective. There are other characteristics of the Mandler lenses which make them versatile and very usable indeed - stopped down they produce beautiful images with extremely smooth tonality. So you are really asking a question which can be answered only by yourself and by actually trying or viewing appropriate images from each lens to see which you personally prefer.

 

My view is that I like both Mandler designs and modern aspheric designs and I am very fortunate in that I have a few of both lenses which I try to match to what I want to achieve. Your view may well be different and you may find that trying the lenses is your only real option - although it may prove to be quite a task.

[Paul J]

The Canon 85mm 1.2L is not a lens I would compare to any others and I would certainly not want to claim that any were better than it. Canon have some exceptional pieces of design and this lens is one of them. The only criticism I have of it is the autofocus, it's slow and inaccurate though as I understand it is much better with the newer bodies.

 

I've not used the 80mm Summilux-R but own the Summilux-M and while the Canon 85L is sharper wide open and has better colour, I do prefer the look of the 75mm Summilux. I would also contest that the 75mm is sharper stopped down and is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned at mid apertures.

[4X5B&W]

Any ideas of it performing better or worse aesthetically are, of course, entirely subjective. There are other characteristics of the Mandler lenses which make them versatile and very usable indeed - stopped down they produce beautiful images with extremely smooth tonality. So you are really asking a question which can be answered only by yourself and by actually trying or viewing appropriate images from each lens to see which you personally prefer.

 

My view is that I like both Mandler designs and modern aspheric designs and I am very fortunate in that I have a few of both lenses which I try to match to what I want to achieve.

 

Agree 100%.

I personally have a set of modern ASPH lenses, and a few classic Mandler designs………it is just a matter of having the right instrument for the task at hand.