From Leica to 5DIII

[StephenPatterson]

I opted for the new Sigma 35/1.4 DG HSM instead of the Canon 35/1.4L and so far I'm extremely pleased with the results. My primary motivation for purchasing this lens was to have a fast, walk around lens for evening and low light shooting on the 5D3, however this lens is extremely versatile and definitely reminds me of Leica glass.

OK, here are a few samples.

 

[alajuela]

Hi
I live in Shanghai - if you ever find your way over here, we could have a coffee and do some local shooting
Phil

 

[pophoto]

Stephen, I've been keeping an eye out for this Sigma, A1 lens for a while, although I don't use this focal length nearly enough, the lens sure looks like a winner!

I'd love to see more examples from this lens combination when you have the chance later!

 

[Amin]

The new 35/1.4 Sigma was the lens that came closest to giving me that 35 Summilux ASPH look, although as many have pointed out the bokeh isn't as nice.

With any Sigma or CV lens, there are always people saying that the Leica equivalent has nicer looking bokeh. This is usually accompanied by some cherry picked samples of "harsh" bokeh from one lens and "smooth" bokeh from the other. Having looked at a lot of samples from the Sigma and a ton of samples from the Leica, I would be very surprised if the Sigma didn't show nicer looking (smoother, less color fringing) bokeh than the Leica (FLE version) when in controlled tests shooting the same subject at the same settings.

 

[arild]

Before I hopped over to the M/X/R forum, I used a 24/1.4L mkII quite extensively, as my sole lens. Awesome optics, and I can´t do anything but to recommend this lens for you. It´s even weather sealed with the appropriate camera body (and I think the 5D mkIII is?).

I think its rendering is a bit similar to the 35 Lux FLE, which I had in my possession very briefly. Meaning sharp, "poppy", very well corrected for barrel distortion ( I think it actually distorts less than the 35/1.4L), but very heavy vignetting when shot wide open. Three-four stops in the corners heavy, a lot more than the 28 Cron I shoot now.

I know you wanted to keep your wide angle shooting for the M-cameras, but if you want to touch a bit deeper into the darkside of Canon to see some fabulous optics, I can highly recommend the 24/1.4L II.

 

[Professional]

In the past i was dreaming to get Leica, i am a Canon shooter, but when i got Canon 1 series Mark IIIs then followed with Hasselblad i ignored Leica completely, and now that i got 1DX, i don't think that Leica will blown away my mind over Hasselblad or Canon, sure Leica is a phenomenal remarkable camera, but i don't have very strong reason to get Leica now, maybe film Leica i accept, but digital?!!!

Congrats on your Canon gear and be happy with it and post more images out of it.

 

[MCTuomey]

Interesting thread. I have been shooting Canon for over 10 years, these days concentrated on subjects needing long teles or TS-E's where Canon excels. Also have several L lenses in medium focal lengths. I could see myself using a small Leica MM-centered kit (nothing like it elsewhere for small form, high iso, and per pixel resolution) and a 5DIII kit for everything else once I curtail the sport shooting. The only reservation I have is that the Canon kit is just going to be a whole lot more volume to carry easily versus a Leica kit. I try to carry a camera everywhere, and dSLRs sometimes discourage me from doing so.

 

[StephenPatterson]

Interesting thread. I have been shooting Canon for over 10 years, these days concentrated on subjects needing long teles or TS-E's where Canon excels. Also have several L lenses in medium focal lengths. I could see myself using a small Leica MM-centered kit (nothing like it elsewhere for small form, high iso, and per pixel resolution) and a 5DIII kit for everything else once I curtail the sport shooting. The only reservation I have is that the Canon kit is just going to be a whole lot more volume to carry easily versus a Leica kit. I try to carry a camera everywhere, and dSLRs sometimes discourage me from doing so.

In my brief experience these past few weeks with the Canon I am finding the size the biggest drawback to the system. It's not a huge issue, and the use of a sling strap helps greatly. But the size and weight of not only the camera but the lenses means I end up carrying more gear. The 24-105L is a great "walk around lens" but I find the 35/1.4 and 85/1.2 don't get left behind very often, as IQ trumps everything else for me, and compared to hauling my wife's shopping it really is no big deal.

I'm going to add a wide to the mix (16-35 or 17-40) for shooting at Angkor Wat this week, so tomorrow it's off to the camera shops of Bangkok.

 

[pophoto]

I'm going to add a wide to the mix (16-35 or 17-40) for shooting at Angkor Wat this week, so tomorrow it's off to the camera shops of Bangkok.

I tried the 16-35L II a couple of years ago, and just didn't like it IQ wise, I ordered the 24L II along with it at the time, and while not quite as wide, I shoot panos with it and works a treat, IQ wise it seems miles better! Something to bear in mind when you visit shops in Bangkok. I guess it also goes without saying, what didn't work for me may work for you!

I couldn't resist, my Sigma 35mm f1.4 arrives tomorrow, I plan to make this a more common mounted lens!

I posted some examples with the 5D3 and 24L II on another thread here:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/canon/36303-fun-5d-mark-iii.html

 

[Paratom]

For my part I decided to first try to "live" with the 24mm wide end of the 24-70.
Some people report that it is very close to the L-primes at comparable f-stops, and I assumed it would be better than the 16-35 in the 24-35mm range.
So far I like the results , but my experience is still limited at the moment.
I relly like it a lot that the 24-70 is good at both ends.
This helps me also to keep the kit small, when I go for a walk outside.

On the other side 24 is not that wide..., and if you find a good sample of the 16-36 you could carry just the 16-35 and the 85 and leave the 24-105 at home.

I am interested to hear your experiences with the 16-35.

 

[arild]

I can only speak for the old 24-70L, but I know it was very good at the 24mm end, except for one thing, and that one thing was pretty huge for me at the time. Field curvature. I could not accurately focus up close using the more peripheral focus points or focus/recompose with any degree of success. This effect faded more and more until about 35mm, where it really wasn´t an issue.

Ended up getting rid of it and bought the aforementioned 24L II instead.

 

[ptomsu]

For my part I decided to first try to "live" with the 24mm wide end of the 24-70.
Some people report that it is very close to the L-primes at comparable f-stops, and I assumed it would be better than the 16-35 in the 24-35mm range.
So far I like the results , but my experience is still limited at the moment.
I relly like it a lot that the 24-70 is good at both ends.
This helps me also to keep the kit small, when I go for a walk outside.

On the other side 24 is not that wide..., and if you find a good sample of the 16-36 you could carry just the 16-35 and the 85 and leave the 24-105 at home.

I am interested to hear your experiences with the 16-35.

Tom,

I said in his forum multiple times that I was VERY happy with the 16-35II of which I owned 2 versions over the years. IMHO by far the best WA zoom available, definitely better than all the Nikon WA zooms (which I owned and shot extensively as well). I actually do not understand why there are so many complaints about that lens.

Peter

 

[Paratom]

I can only speak for the old 24-70L, but I know it was very good at the 24mm end, except for one thing, and that one thing was pretty huge for me at the time. Field curvature. I could not accurately focus up close using the more peripheral focus points or focus/recompose with any degree of success. This effect faded more and more until about 35mm, where it really wasn´t an issue.

Ended up getting rid of it and bought the aforementioned 24L II instead.

I cant comment yet if it is a problem with the 24-70II or improved.
I am sure the 24/1.4II is the "better" glass at 24mm, but as long as I dont explore any issues with the zoom this is my way at the moment to keep my DSLR-kit simple and to not carry too much glass.

 

[Paratom]

Tom,

I said in his forum multiple times that I was VERY happy with the 16-35II of which I owned 2 versions over the years. IMHO by far the best WA zoom available, definitely better than all the Nikon WA zooms (which I owned and shot extensively as well). I actually do not understand why there are so many complaints about that lens.

Peter

Peter,
it is allways hard to find out which lenses work or dont work for someone.
I had lenses which worked good for me and others said they were medicore.
And the other way around.

In the end the 24-70 fitted my bill also regarding the range. If I had a strong need going wider I wouldnt hesistate to give the 16-35II a try.

I also have to say that I now judge lenses more on the overall look they create (color, contrast, "pop") than searchig the corners at 100%.
In this regard the 50/1.2 seems to give me a special IQ quite often.

Overall there are very few reports from persons disliking the new 24-70, while there are all kinds of reports about the 16-35/2.8.
What I have to say that I find the range and speed of that wide angle zoom very usefull. The 14-24 Nikon in comparison, while being a great lens, I found to wide for my taste.

Here is a recent shot from the 24-70 at the wide end. Sorry for posting it in 2 threads:

 

[ptomsu]

Tom,

I also had the 14-24 Nikkor and while a good lens, it was simply not the rnge I was looking for. And also to bulky.

The 16-35 is covering much more the range I usually need. A good alternative might be the 17-40, which could be used as kind of standard zoom for walk around - again in my case.

I fully agree that looking for the "clinical" perfect lens is not what one should do and I long time stopped judging lenses by this method. I can see that the 1.2/50 is a stellar performer and if I would go Canon again it would be one of my fix starters.

Enjoy

Peter

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I have the 16-35LII and love it but in all honesty the corners are horrific. Doesn't bother me, I don't really use it for that and it's good even for event type shooting but a landscape photographer wouldn't like it.

 

[algrove]

So Stephen-What is your Canon lineup these days? Did the 24-105 do all you had hoped? It just seems slow to me, but then again pick your light. Was at a Leica Academie class and a guy from Chile had the 5D3 (left it at home so as not to freak out Tom) and just loved its high ISO capabilities. We talked lenses, but no conclusion.

I picked up a 5D3 (still coming from B&H) for learning (I am a slow learner remember) to use my R (mostly) zoom lenses, but am not sure which Canon lenses I really need/want. For AF capability, I got the 85/1.2 and the 70-200/2.8. Really need one lower end AF lens, but want to hear from others before stepping into something. Your Sigma sounds nice, but I am hoping for an AF wide zoom maybe. I say that and then think that I use my 35/1.4 FLE M lens more than any other M lens. What do you hear about Zeiss glass for Canon? Did you try any Zeiss glass in HK? They tend to render nicely.

Thanks. Lou

 

[StephenPatterson]

Hi Lou,

Because of my choice of using Canon as a backup to my Leica I have decided to stick with AF lenses with the 5D3. Currently I am using the Sigma 35/1.4 as my ultra low light lens, as when combined with the 5D3 it's an extremely powerful combination.

I have said for a long time that with Leica the reason to buy fast glass is DOF control, and not low light performance. Until the Leica bodies are capable of clean shooting above ISO1250 the Canon and Nikon dSLRs have a huge advantage. We will see what improvements the new M brings, but it still is going to have a max ISO of 6400...well below the 5D3.

The 24-105L is a great "walk around" lens. Not fast, but the IQ is very good and it's a bargain compared to the 24-70 f/2.8 II. I used the 85/1.2L II with great results, but traded it for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II because it's an amazing lens and gives me a capability I don't have with the Leica. I may revisit the 85/1.2, but my thinking now is to leave these type of portraits to the Leica with 0.95 Noctilux.

The rainy season will soon be here, and I am looking forward to getting out with my Canon and capturing images that I would have never gotten with the Leica. I know some like Jaap have taken the M9 on safari in the jungles of Africa in terrible conditions, but I just can't risk that sort of water damage living on the far side of the moon (aka central China).

 

[Paratom]

Lou,
for my part I have been using the 5dIII now with 24-70/2.8II, 50/1.2, 85/1.8,135/2.0 and 70-200/4.0.
The 24-70 is nice and sharp and I cant find anything wrong with it (besides maybe some vignetting but nothing really bad).
It is also quite good at the wide end (I never found the Nikon 24-70 to be that great at the wide end).
But my favorite of all those is the 50/1.2. I find it to deliver a special depth and color.
If you are a 35mm guy you have those 2 options Canon 35/1.4 and the Sigma which are both to be supposed very good.
I am with Steve that I want to stay with AF lenses for the 5DIII, because AF and high ISO are what I have bought it for.
For my use I thought to add maybe a 24/1.4 one day - but then the 24-70 is really good at 24mm.

 

[pophoto]

Paratom, the 24/1.4L II is my goto landscape and never had any complaints! However, while i did do some indoor shoots at f/1.4 at the beginning, I believe i haven't visited that aperture since, maybe something worth asking before you buy!

Rumor mill has it that a new 16-35 or 14-24 will be arriving at the end of year, so worth the consideration especially since you have the new 24-70L II. I am sure the new replacements are to improve the resolution of the lens as priority, something I felt strongly lacking about the 16-35L II, and more so in edge to edge degradation.

SLR Lounge also mentions the 24-70L II has greatly improved AF speeds and accuracy and no focus shifts, improvements I will welcome in any new Canon lens update. So while the 50/1.2 remains on my camera 90% of the time, it does suffer from focus shifts which is annoying for critical focus, a lens I will welcome an update soon since I use it so much!