28-90 vs. 35-70 -- share your knowledge

[dritz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Came across a mint 28-90 at a good price (US$2250). No doubt that it is a better lens but wonder about how well it handles. The dark viewfinder of the 35-70/f4.0 makes it less than ideal lens. Does the 28-90 appear to the eye as brighter for focus?

 

Thanks.

[earleygallery]

You would do better with 28/35, 50 & 90 primes.

[hunterits]

I have been using the 28-90 for about a year and I am very happy with the purchase. I also have a number of other Lieca ROM lenses in that focal range, but I am constantly using the 28-90 as my primary lens. I paid considerably more for the lens than you are stating. Sounds like an excellent price. You will not be disapponted with the lens. Yes, it is must brighter in the view finder and was one of the reasons I purchased it. I was using a 28~70 3.5/4.5 Leica lens and replaced it with this one.

 

John

[ho_co]

Can't advise directly, but you might check E Puts's review of the 28-90 at Vario-Elmarit-R 1:2.8-4.5/28-90mm ASPH | Photography and image capture: the Leica technique and philosophy by Erwin Puts | Erwin Puts if you haven't already done so. He does mention that the lens is a bit dim at 90 mm.

 

Many modern zooms are optically in the same league as primes in the same range, though the primes are generally faster.

 

--HC

[jlancasterd]

I have been using the 28-90 for about a year and I am very happy with the purchase. I also have a number of other Lieca ROM lenses in that focal range, but I am constantly using the 28-90 as my primary lens. I paid considerably more for the lens than you are stating. Sounds like an excellent price. You will not be disapponted with the lens. Yes, it is must brighter in the view finder and was one of the reasons I purchased it. I was using a 28~70 3.5/4.5 Leica lens and replaced it with this one.

 

John

 

I've had the 28-90 for about a year. I use it with an R8+DMR and my experience is very much the same as John's.

 

The only disadvantage of the 28-90 vs the 35-70 is increased size and weight. As a travel, or 'walk around', lens it is considerably more convenient than a set of the equivalent primes, and its optical performance is more or less equal to the primes at the wider end - it's possibly even better than the Summicron-R 35, which is an oldish design that is certainly outperformed by the 21-35 R-zoom.

 

If you find you need greater speed at the 90mm end you might consider buying an Apo-Summicron-R 90 at a later date.

[Ivar B]

The 28-90 is a very good lens and I disagree with the view that the primes are better. At least up to 50mm or so, the zoom is better. The only "problem" is its slow speed at 90mm.

 

I sold my 2.8/35-70 and bought this lens. Prices for the 35-70 are sky high, but optically the 28-90 is as good and it is more versatile. if you do a lot of low light photography you could maybe supplement it with an 1.4/80.

[masjah]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 28-90 is a very good lens and I disagree with the view that the primes are better. At least up to 50mm or so, the zoom is better. The only "problem" is its slow speed at 90mm.

 

I sold my 2.8/35-70 and bought this lens. Prices for the 35-70 are sky high, but optically the 28-90 is as good and it is more versatile. if you do a lot of low light photography you could maybe supplement it with an 1.4/80.

 

I couldn't agree more - it is a superb lens, as good as the primes, and somewhat better than the more elderly prime designs within the range. Its only drawback is the somewhat smaller maximum aperture (obviously worse at the long end, when you also need a higher shutter speed for shake-free images).

 

It is though, IMHO, the perfect travel lens. I've got an R8 loaded with ISO 400 with the 28-90 living on it, and my R9 loaded with Reala to use (often with a tripod) with my primes. And I'm a happy bunny.

[masjah]

PS: I got my 28-90 as one of the special offer Leica "Ex Demo" lenses, with full warranty and passport for the sterling equivalent of about US$2500, so actually I'm a VERY happy bunny.

[earleygallery]

I recently had the chance to compare my (older version) Summicron 35 to the 21-35 and 35-70 Zooms. I used all at 35, at the same aperture (f4 I think I used) and the Summicron shots were the ones I preferred, more fine detail especially at the edges. I can't comment on the 28/90 which I understand is a better performer than the 35/70, or at least is more versatile.

 

I jumbled the shots up so I wouldn't know which was which. OK its not scientific but I was surprised to see that my old prime lens still outperformed the new zooms, and of course offers the faster maximum aperture.

 

But a 35/70 or 28/90 is going to be very convenient as a standard zoom and travel lens and they are certainly excellent lenses. Personally I will stick with my primes and the extra weight/inconvenience.

[topoxforddoc]

I have a 28-90; it's a very good lens, much better than the previous 28-70 ROM that it replaced. I've never used the 35-70/4 or the 35-70/2.8. The 28-90 sits on my R9/DMR 80% of the time.

 

Charlie

[earleygallery]

I wasn't going to post these because its not a perfect test, just three shots taken in succession on a less than perfect day for light, hand held. These are crops from the full frame image, about 1/8th of the image area from off centre frame.

 

Ok they're hand held so there may be a degree of camera shake which cannot be quantified, but the exposure was the same for each (R3 at f4 auto) but nevertheless they are what they are and I have drawn my own conclusions from them.

 

In no particular order they are with a 35/70 f4, a 21/35 and an old style Summicron 35.

 

Which do you prefer?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[earleygallery]

And 3 more, same ratio crop.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[robert_parker]

James

 

Eeeek !! - I'd be in interested to confirm which lens took image 1 of the windows series !!

[earleygallery]

One more sequence.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[fusion5]

I also have an 28-90 lens, it´s a very good lens.

 

I have being using a 35-70/4 for two years, and I think the 28-90 is better.

 

Actually, when I only need a lens, I take the 28-90.

 

I changed the focusing screen( uniform ground glass screen) to solve focusing problems

 

whit zooms.

 

Antonio.

[dhsimmonds]

I also keep the 28-90 on my R9/DMR most of the time. I disagree with James, this lens is a cracker and you would be hard put to get a better image from it's equivalent primes. The big advantage is that you don't even have to consider changing lenses so more likely to get the shot which might have otherwise been lost whilst changing lens!

 

For travelling I use this lens most of the time, say 80% but I also have in my bag a 21-35 and 80-200. With these three lenses I can cover most eventualities........but as standby I also take my trusty LC1 (D2 equivalent). Just occasionally when I have got either the wide or long lens on the R9, and I need the 28-90 the LC1 quickly comes to the rescue to "save" the shot!

[wizard]

Dean,

 

the 28-90 lens was THE single reason for me to invest into Leica R gear (as I already had a Pentax SLR outfit). It is a fabulous lens, very sharp and contrasty, but not harsh, and with a vivid yet subtle rendering of colors. It is also amazingly flare resistant. Color slides taken with this lens blow me away every time. The lens is bulkier than the 35-70, but in return offers a lot more versatility due to its extended range. Buy it, you won't be disappointed.

 

James,

 

although I am far from discrediting your Summicron 35 lens (there is no such thing as a bad Summicron!), I believe the results you posted do not indicate the true potential of all the lenses you used. For example, in the first series of (window) shots, I am pretty sure that nos. 2 and 3 are a bit blurred due to shake. In the last series of shots, the performance between the three lenses is much closer together as regards sharpness, with nos. 2 and 3 of that series being almost indistinguishable in this regard. There is some difference in contrast, which will likely spring from the fact that the 21-35 was used almost at full aperture while the Summicron was used stopped down. In the last series, I'd say the first shot was the 21-35, followed by the Summicron followed in turn by the 35-70 (although if it was the latest 35-70, I am surprised by the relatively weak performance, and so suspect it was an older version of the 35-70 lens).

 

Regards,

 

Andy

[dritz]

Thanks for the kind responses. I have my offer out and am awaiting an answer. The choice of current vs. classic design is close to my heart. My sweetheart, a women with beautiful eyes (in both directions) but without photographic training is fairly quick to identify those images taken with the classic formulations rather than the current. For her, the slides produced by the 80 summilux, 35 summicron and 135 elmarit R-lenses immediately move her as more human, perhaps more humane. The 35-70 (when stopped down a little) produces that look for her, but I almost always choose the wide primes just for their flexibility in low light. The 2x zoom isn't enough of a factor for me. The 3x of the 28-90 is compelling, and if it performs even better (for some definition of "better").

 

R9 w/80 summilux, Ilford HP5.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[earleygallery]

In my examples above, the running order for each set is Summicron, 35/70 and 21/35.

 

I took these for my own comparison on a less than perfect day and I accept that its not a conclusive test, but having been told by a dealer (of course they would say that wouldn't they) that I'd see a significant improvement in quality between my old version Summicron and the 35/70 zoom (at 35), I'm surprised how litte difference there actually is.

 

Yes there is camera shake on the first set but there is also obvious differences in the colour/tonality of the brickwork.

 

All shots were taken at f4. One other point for those using the DMR, you aren't seeing the extremities of the image area (these were taken on film) which should equal better performance especially at the wider apertures.

 

I was partly playing devils advocate in my first post on this thread, but then again what I say stands in so far as you do benefit from the faster primes, and with prices of s/h R lenses at the moment you can probably do so for for the same cost as a latest version zoom, but of course the zoom is convenient.

 

It comes down to personal choice in the end (although I don't know if the 28/90 is significantly better than either of the lenses I tried).

 

James,

 

although I am far from discrediting your Summicron 35 lens (there is no such thing as a bad Summicron!), I believe the results you posted do not indicate the true potential of all the lenses you used. For example, in the first series of (window) shots, I am pretty sure that nos. 2 and 3 are a bit blurred due to shake. In the last series of shots, the performance between the three lenses is much closer together as regards sharpness, with nos. 2 and 3 of that series being almost indistinguishable in this regard. There is some difference in contrast, which will likely spring from the fact that the 21-35 was used almost at full aperture while the Summicron was used stopped down. In the last series, I'd say the first shot was the 21-35, followed by the Summicron followed in turn by the 35-70 (although if it was the latest 35-70, I am surprised by the relatively weak performance, and so suspect it was an older version of the 35-70 lens).

 

Regards,

 

Andy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[spylaw4]

James, I'm assuming that these were taken at the Dec. London meet, and that IIRC the 35-70 f4 was the one I lent you for that purpose. If so it is a late one - no.3849885 ROM, and these are supposed to be better than the earlier f3.5 versions.