EF 70-200L IS 2.8 vs Leica APO Telyt-R 3.4 (100% crops)

Just wanted to share my last test.
I have compared on a 5D mark II:

- Leica APO Telyt-R 180 f/3.4
- Canon EF 70-200L IS f/2.8

The Leica lens was mounted via a Leica-R to EF adapter.
The Canon shots are at 173 mm while the Leica is 180 of course.
The shots have been manually focused with both lenses.
PP: Default Lightroom sharpening, manual vignetting correction (a must for the Leica wide open) and white balance.

Any comment is appreciated. Here are the 100% crops.

CENTER OF FRAME (and FOCUS)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Would have better to show us unsharpened crops. The Leica is a nice lens but not very good up close.

CENTER -> BOTTOM BORDER

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

3/4 RIGHT -> 3/4 BOTTOM

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

RIGHT -> BOTTOM CORNER

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

And your point is? You are comparing a zoom to a prime. Even worse, you are comparing a f/2.8 zoom to a f/3.4 prime. You may as well be comparing the Leica to a Lensbaby.

gasrocks wrote in post #8534273
Would have better to show us unsharpened crops. The Leica is a nice lens but not very good up close.

I think default sharpening is fair enough.. and after all that's what I use for 99% of my shots.

And I may have a very bad copy of the 70-200L... or a very good copy of the Leica... I really did not expect such a big difference at the corners... even with the Canon @ f/8.

What do you think ?

wickerprints wrote in post #8534327
And your point is? You are comparing a zoom to a prime. Even worse, you are comparing a f/2.8 zoom to a f/3.4 prime. You may as well be comparing the Leica to a Lensbaby.

Just sharing with you.
I did the test for my own use, and I thought you may be interested.
I love both lenses and they serve *very* different purposes.

CheshireCat wrote in post #8534335
I think default sharpening is fair enough.. and after all that's what I use for 99% of my shots.

And I may have a very bad copy of the 70-200L... or a very good copy of the Leica... I really did not expect such a big difference at the corners... even with the Canon @ f/8.

What do you think ?

I've already told you what I think, but if you are trying to determine if your copy of the 70-200/2.8L IS is performing to spec, then why are you comparing it with a Leica prime? That's like trying to see if your Honda has an engine problem by racing it against a BMW. You shoot test charts and you compare with other copies of the same lens.

CheshireCat wrote in post #8534344
Just sharing with you.
I did the test for my own use, and I thought you may be interested.
I love both lenses and they serve *very* different purposes.

My point is that any comparison is totally meaningless because they are totally different designs. You may as well be comparing a 16/3.5 lens against a 600/5.6 lens. That's what I mean when I say the test is invalid and the lenses are not comparable.

Thanks for the information and the effort to post it, good to see the tradeoffs we make between zoom and prime.

Just curious, are you picking the images that showed the greatest and most discernible difference, or is this a representative sample of all the images you took?

wickerprints wrote in post #8534382
My point is that any comparison is totally meaningless because they are totally different designs. You may as well be comparing a 16/3.5 lens against a 600/5.6 lens. That's what I mean when I say the test is invalid and the lenses are not comparable.

How is it totally meaningless? For one it shows that a prime by design is better than a zoom lens. Some people might like seeing this with examples instead of just reading this fact and taking it as gospel. Your example of 16/3.5 vs 600/5.6 does not apply to the OP's test subjects as it's a different focal length and aperture all together.

Also, lay off the rage. The OP took the time to do a test. It might not be a scientific test that will prove anything spectacular but it's a test between two different lenses at a similar focal length. He never mentioned which is better or why you shouldn't buy either. If you don't think this is a worthwhile test to read then don't look at it and move on. Bolding words doesn't make your argument any stronger.


OP:

It's quite interesting to see an expensive zoom being compared to a prime can have such a big difference in IQ even when stopping down the zoom. It's only natural though as zooms are always a tradeoff between IQ and versatility. Thanks for taking the time to do this test as it proves what I've read regarding primes vs zooms. Now if Canon can somehow come up with a fast zoom with quality glass like a prime..

k.lee wrote in post #8534873
How is it totally meaningless? For one it shows that a prime by design is better than a zoom lens. Some people might like seeing this with examples instead of just reading this fact and taking it as gospel. Your example of 16/3.5 vs 600/5.6 does not apply to the OP's test subjects as it's a different focal length and aperture all together.

It is meaningless because it is obvious. It doesn't give any insight other than what one already knows. Furthermore, it is not merely the zoom vs. prime comparison--it is as much about the fact that one lens is designed with f/3.4, and the other is f/2.8. That is a critical piece of information.

Now if you want to compare, say, a f/4 zoom with an f/1.4 prime stopped down to f/4, maybe we might find something interesting. But as it is, the smaller max aperture and fixed focal length makes such a comparison pointless.

I didn't bold my statement to express anger or to make my argument stronger, because the statement is absolutely true and needs no further support. I put the statement in bold because the point was not being understood.

And because the OP then asked if his 70-200/2.8 was up to spec based on the results he is observing, I replied that basing that hypothesis on this particular comparison is also meaningless because the lenses are of entirely different design. Do you have a problem with that? Because if so, last time I checked this forum wasn't just for people who agree with each other and only want to say encouraging things even if they're not true. I said what was factually correct. The OP needs to do a test chart if he wants that question answered.

Thanks to the OP for posting. It's always good to see how much difference there is between lenses of similar focal length, but different designs.

Also, note the different color renditions that each company has. Canon is slightly warmer than the Leica.

The Canon might be out of adjustment. Not too hard to believe since there are many more elements associated with the zoom lens.

Definitely NOT a "worthless" test.

THANKS for posting!

RWatkins wrote in post #8534543
Thanks for the information and the effort to post it, good to see the tradeoffs we make between zoom and prime.

Just curious, are you picking the images that showed the greatest and most discernible difference, or is this a representative sample of all the images you took?

The latter (I hope).
This is one of the first shots with the Leica; I've got it a few days ago because I wanted a longer lens for environmental/nature shots.
I usually carry with me wide/normal lenses for this purpose and sometimes I really miss that focal lenght.
I love the 70-200 for portraits but I'm always reluctant to carry it with me on many trips because of the extra weight and size (and color).

So I thought a light and sharp (and black) prime would be ideal to put in the bag and first thing I did is compare it with the 70-200, just because it is the only other lens containing that focal length I own.

To All:
Comparing something new with the most similar thing you already know is a natural thing.
And no, not all primes are better than the best zooms. The Leica is a 30 years old lens and as far as I knew, it could have been worse than the zoom.
But instead, the Leica is going in the bag