50 Sumilux Sharpness and Canon 17-40

P

Peter55

Leica M5 & Summilux User
Local time
7:20 AM
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
100
View My Gallery
Hello all,

I have a few questions.

Yesterday I used M5 and Summilux 50mm f/1.4 at f/8 and f/11 and usig Kodak Professional CN ISO 400 B&W film for landscapes. I scanned the neg's at a modest resolution 300dpi for 8" x 10". The same day I was also using my Canon DSLR 1Ds Mark II at full resolution (16.4 mp) in jpg. and mostly Raw. The lens I was using was the Canon 17-40 f/4 L. I had this lens stopped down to f/8 and f/11 and the camera on ISO 400.

What I'm seeing with the Leica set up the images look sharper and overall much nicer. I got the Canon gear (2 other back up bodies 20D & 350XT) to do Weddings and I got all the L lenses from 24, 35, 85 & 135 and 5 L zooms. I have both 50's also. This with the flashes etc. is a good Wedding set up. I got the Leica specifically to offer my clients the possibility of unobtrusive photography for their special moments during the cerimony.

It just bothers me to see my Leica M5 and 50mm Summilux out performing all this new and expensive Canon gear.

Well actually I'm not bothered, as I love my Leica and it is so nice to use. I am however very unhappy with Canon.

I'm not trying to start a Leica vs. Canon war here. What I would like to ask is if I should continue to invest in more Leica gear and I'm wondering how much of a Wedding I could do with only Leica equipment. I have no experience using flash with the Leica and I'm sure learning would be difficult.

I am thinking I would need another M5 body, 2 flashes, chords, and a few more lenses. The lenses I would get would be 35 f/2, 90 f/2.8 it's smaller than the 90 f/2 and I would be using a flash with it. Lastly the 135mm f/4.
I would be getting all used equipment. I'm very concerned that mastering the flash could be a major difficulty.I wouldshoot some in natural light using my 50 Summiux.

Thanks for any help.

P.S. I find using my Leica as my personal every day camera a very good experience. It's much smaller and less complicated than the autofoucus dslr's. The image quality is also what I want and I do get it with my Leica and film.
 
If you want to make the best (faster and more accurate) use of flash with Leica bodies look into the M6-TTL or M7. Both offer TTL flash metering and will synchronize with Metz flash units. The M7 offers higher speed synch with the Metz 3502 SCA adapter. Not that you can't use manual or auto settings with other flashes on the M5 but TTL is really nice for quickly changing light situations. You can still use the M5 for natural light situations or more controlled flash setups.[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
 
Hi Peter,

I use both Leica and Canons and I needn't tell you for which one my heart beats. I also had the chance to do an informal testing and my perception was that Leica outdid the Canon primes. But the difference was nowhere near dramatic and it was certainly exacerbated by my preference for the rangefinders.

I think you need to ask if the difference you are seeing is relevant to your customers. Most people want mementos of that happy day, not a masterpiece of detail and accuracy. In fact I am pretty sure that most of the time they will not be able to tell photos apart. As for flash, I am also preparing to use some with my Leicas but the way I see it, if you need flash, you cannot afford to lose the TTL and high shutter speed synch of your Canon.

In my opinion you should invest in both systems: one dedicated for high quality flash photography and the other for (un)available lght. Both systems can obviously perform in both areas but they clearly have an advantage over each other in just one of them.

Best,
 
Hi Greg,
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you.
My M5 is TTL. I just have no experience with it (and no flash yet). I may not bother with the flash afterall.
 
Hi szekit,

I used to think primes were sharper. With having only 1 focal length it should be. But when you consider it the 50 Summilux starts at f/1.4 and the 17-40 starts at f/4 and a lot of primes are fast primes then I have learned a zoom can be sharper.
 
Hi mfunnell,

1Ds Mark II sharpness +1, contrast +1. 17-40 @ 5.6
Leica 50 Lux at @5.6.

Sharpness to me is actually enough with each setup. I just thought the Canon could be better.
 
For what it's worth - I also use the 17-40 on my 5D and it is an OK lens, but certainly one of the weaker L lenses from Canon. When I compare the 17-40 with my 24-105 there is a pretty big difference in sharpness and contrast. The 24-105 shines and the 17-40 is OK. I am not all too surpirsed that you saw a difference between the Leica and the Canon lens. I am not sure the same would necessarily be true when compared to either the Canon 50mm prime or the 24-105 or the 24-70.
 
Hi telenous,

The M5 has TTL and flash synch speed is 1/50. I think I could go higher than the synch speed.
 
Hello Magus,
How are you. Well learning flash is difficult with an all manual camera. I would need a lot of practice. But I have been practicing and learning with my equipment for years so that would be nothing new.
I agree the thought of flash sounds horrible, but the flash illuminates your subject and brings out colors that low light light would not show. So in an instance, like, say where the B&G are in a shadow area, or if there is not any direct light or not enough then my flashes can brighten up all the colors including skin tones.

I do all of my regular photography without flash.
 
Hi RF-Addict,

I have not compared my Canon zooms. I have the lenses you mentioned the 24-105 f/4 which I like and the 24 -70 f/2.8 which I'm just beginning to use.
The Leica Canon was an accidental comparison, well not entirely as I did make the comparison to see how well my they compared as I used both cameras in th same landcape scene but on two different day's. I just expected the 17-40 to be sharper. Now after a few weeks have gone by I don't care anymore. I like them both and for different reasons.

Thank you all for helping.
 
Peter55 said:
Hi RF-Addict,

I have not compared my Canon zooms. I have the lenses you mentioned the 24-105 f/4 which I like and the 24 -70 f/2.8 which I'm just beginning to use.
The Leica Canon was an accidental comparison, well not entirely as I did make the comparison to see how well my they compared as I used both cameras in th same landcape scene but on two different day's. I just expected the 17-40 to be sharper. Now after a few weeks have gone by I don't care anymore. I like them both and for different reasons.

Thank you all for helping.
Click to expand...
I think this is the best way to look at things here. Each system shines in its own way. I too use Canon EOS and Leicas and like them both for different resons. Each has their strong and weak points. Just use one that gets the job done. Thats why most of us have Leicas, Nikons Canons, Hassys, etc etc.
 
Peter:

I use canon 1DsII's for my commercial work and Leica M's for my documentary.

Remember!!! If you were looking at the 1DsII file at 100% the image your're seeing on the screen is equal to aprint around 70 inches. How many times will you enlarge to 70 inches? The scan from the M5 at 8x10 300 dpi would be much smaller at 100%. I don't have the exact size at the moment but it is much smaller. Look at a scaled down print from the MkII at exactly the same size as the scan and compare. Scan your neg to 11x17 and compare to the 11x17 image from the Leica scan at the actual print size not 100%. You probably won't see any difference. I have a complete set of L primes to 400mm and the 24-70 L, 16-35 L and 70-200 L and have the latest Leica glass and Zeiss glass. Without question some of the Canon L glass exceeds the leica glass. Sorry and know it's tough for some to accept but it's true. The 24 1.4L is exceptional and the 35 1.4 L is spectaular is very close to Leicas best. The Canon 85 1.2, 135 2, 200 1.8, 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 are the finest at any price. The L zoos that I have are eceptional with the 16-35 being the least of the three. Remember the 17-40 and 16-35 are ultrawide zooms not primes.

Also if you're comparing jpg files to the tif scan you're throwing much of the information away and resolution will be less.
 
Last edited:
I hate to correct you, but the M5 does not have TTL flash control.

The M5 does have TTL light metering, but does not even have AE. It will not shut your flash off by any TTL link.

TTL flash did not exist on the Leica M's until the M6 TTL, and AE did not exist until the M7.

Best,

Ray
 
x-ray said:
Peter:

I use canon 1DsII's for my commercial work and Leica M's for my documentary.

Remember!!! If you were looking at the 1DsII file at 100% the image your're seeing on the screen is equal to aprint around 70 inches. How many times will you enlarge to 70 inches? The scan from the M5 at 8x10 300 dpi would be much smaller at 100%. I don't have the exact size at the moment but it is much smaller. Look at a scaled down print from the MkII at exactly the same size as the scan and compare. Scan your neg to 11x17 and compare to the 11x17 image from the Leica scan at the actual print size not 100%. You probably won't see any difference. I have a complete set of L primes to 400mm and the 24-70 L, 16-35 L and 70-200 L and have the latest Leica glass and Zeiss glass. Without question some of the Canon L glass exceeds the leica glass. Sorry and know it's tough for some to accept but it's true. The 24 1.4L is exceptional and the 35 1.4 L is spectaular is very close to Leicas best. The Canon 85 1.2, 135 2, 200 1.8, 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 are the finest at any price. The L zoos that I have are eceptional with the 16-35 being the least of the three. Remember the 17-40 and 16-35 are ultrawide zooms not primes.

Also if you're comparing jpg files to the tif scan you're throwing much of the information away and resolution will be less.
Click to expand...

Agreed!

I can only comment on the 135f2L which I agree is not bettered by any of my Zeiss or Leica glass. I have not used any 24 or 35 1.4s, but even my 70-200 f4L is really incredible. We must be careful not compare primes and zooms as already states, esp a fast prime std with an ultrawide zoom (at a fraction of the price. It is not nice to hear but even my Sigma 24-60 EX is super sharp a couple of stops down (say f5.6) when it manages to focus correctly that is (need to change for a Canon 24-70L). My Zeiss and Leica primes do whip it however.
 
Last edited:
gregg said:
If you want to make the best (faster and more accurate) use of flash with Leica bodies look into the M6-TTL or M7. Both offer TTL flash metering and will synchronize with Metz flash units. The M7 offers higher speed synch with the Metz 3502 SCA adapter. Not that you can't use manual or auto settings with other flashes on the M5 but TTL is really nice for quickly changing light situations. You can still use the M5 for natural light situations or more controlled flash setups.[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
I'd be grateful if you could expand on this. I have just ordered a M7, and have an M8 which shares the TTL flash/meter so I assume what will apply to one applies to both. I have been shooting nikon DSRLs and have 3 SB-800 units. I was planning on getting these flashes involved, even considering having a remote master unit that would allow for the "creative light system" of infrared communication and adjustments of the units. You comment has me wondering if the Metz with adapter, is more suited. If it achieves a much higher synch rate than the SB-800 allows, this would be a deciding factor. If you or others can shed more "light" on this....;>) best....Peter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Godfrey
A few photos with the M6TTL using a Pentax 43mm f/1.9 Special lens...
Replies
0
Views
467
Godfrey
Godfrey
R
Wide angle lens on M3?
Replies
19
Views
1K
ellisson
ellisson
C
Leica LTM & M Mount - Voigtlander 21mm f/4 Color-Skopar: First Experience
Replies
8
Views
2K
aw614
A
C
Amedeo Contax to M Adaptor Issue - Frame line question.
Replies
1
Views
137
splitimageview
splitimageview
J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
1K
aoresteen
aoresteen
Back
Top Bottom