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

10megapixel wrote in post #8605365
Nice post, thank you. Just remember, If you post a review of a 3rd party lens that (based on your observations) seems to have better IQ than Canon L glass your gonna get some blow back here on this site...it's inevitable.

Even Leica? Nikon, I'd expect, but not much is going to be able to touch Leica.

All the major companies make some pretty good stuff. You'll get dogs in every camp as well as some high end ones.

Leica makes some good glass. When it comes to astro optical stuff, Leica isn't even on the board of the top dogs. Not even close. Neither is Canon. In that application, it's much more critical and you really see ALL the flaws with the commercially made lenses.

Wilt wrote in post #8605476
But the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is not as sterling a performer as the 70-200 f/4L IS...it is comparing the worst of the the Canon 70-200's (f/2.8L IS) vs. the Leica

Wilt, I'm sure my 70-200 f/2.8 is great. At leat it's great for me. I'm sure a lot of bad shots are MY human error.
The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is an engineering wonder.

It's just the Leica is unreal.

My 70-200/2.8 is at least as sharp @ f/4 as the f/4 IS control-copy I've tested (incredibly sharp brand new year 2009 copy).
Apart from a very little chroma aberration, my f/2.8 and the f/4.0 are identical @ f/4.

The Telyt 180/3.4 is not a good performer at medium distances (about 5 to 10 meters) because of the awful bokeh,..
... however I think this close focus performance is more than enough for me (5D2, manual focus, f/3.4, 1/1250sec, ISO 200, great day ):

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

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

I thought it was a nice example.
Do you perhaps use a filter on and off on your 70-200?

for whomever mentioned about the hubcap..the hubcap was not the focus point in those photos, merely a corner of the frame to show the sharpness (or lack thereof) in the corners. OP, correct me if I'm wrong here.

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.

Really? This might not be interesting to you cause you know so much, but it might be interesting to others.

Thanks for the post.

CheshireCat wrote in post #8607844
Wilt, I'm sure my 70-200 f/2.8 is great. At leat it's great for me. I'm sure a lot of bad shots are MY human error.
The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is an engineering wonder.

It's just the Leica is unreal.

My 70-200/2.8 is at least as sharp @ f/4 as the f/4 IS control-copy I've tested (incredibly sharp brand new year 2009 copy).
Apart from a very little chroma aberration, my f/2.8 and the f/4.0 are identical @ f/4.

The Telyt 180/3.4 is not a good performer at medium distances (about 5 to 10 meters) because of the awful bokeh,..
... however I think this close focus performance is more than enough for me (5D2, manual focus, f/3.4, 1/1250sec, ISO 200, great day ):

I'm not contesting the super performance of the Leica, I am merely pointing out that the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS does not test out as well as all three of its cousins.

run-kmc wrote in post #8605493
Even Leica? Nikon, I'd expect, but not much is going to be able to touch Leica.

I don't care what lens it is or who makes it, if you go up against Canon here then there are gonna be people who will get their undies all in a twist... happens every time

Wilt wrote in post #8609176
I'm not contesting the super performance of the Leica, I am merely pointing out that the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS does not test out as well as all three of its cousins.

Lots of lens elements and plenty to go wrong. It's not a simpler formula like the prime lenses and Canon does have to try to optimize all the focal lengths as well as incorporate IS into the lens. Not an easy job, but it's commendable on how they tried!

The Leica test is one of the many reasons why I switched from using a 70-200 2.8L to many prime lenses. Optical quality. But there are times when I do feel lazy and put the 70-200 2.8 onto the camera. Mostly for wedding pics. I used to carry the 200 1.8L EF and the 85 1.2L EF II lenses for weddings, but that's my indoor sports rig now.

mikeassk wrote in post #8608119
I thought it was a nice example.
Do you perhaps use a filter on and off on your 70-200?

No, I never use filters (even when I should ).

So let's expose the bad part of the Telyt with this "awful bokeh" shot showing how the lens is clearly overcorrected.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The subject was very far and pavid, so the shot has been heavily cropped to a ~600mm FOV, in the original shot the rings are barely noticeable due to their size.

I didn't have the 70-200/2.8 to compare, sorry, but after all I got the Telyt to travel light !

I prefer the 70-200 bokeh, but some people like this kind of bokeh... and I can live with this.

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

I really doubt Canon can do it MUCH better bokeh wise in such a harsh background....maybe a tad better.
However, the resolution of the Apo Telyt is unbeatable, especially at its infinity.

This lens is surely designed for infinity, but near focus is great and I love how colors are rendered.
This one is straight out of the camera (default LR 2.5 processing).
The hair is actually that pale orange color (very rare).

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

Nice picture there...deep and rich rendering...

Thanks for the review Cheshire. I am interested in the 3.4.