35-70 f4 or 28-70 f3.5 (ROM)?

[Khamel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello:

I'm a Leica novice. I recently acquired a 28-70mm ROM for my soon-to-arrive R9. I am hearing though, that the 35-70mm f4 is much better. Any thoughts, anyone? Should I keep the lens or trade it for the 35-70?

Thanks!

[SteveYork]

Here's a couple contradictory thoughts: Yes, everyone says the current zoom is better, and the tests point in that direction too. But since you already have the 28-70, why not shoot some film and see how you like the results? If you like the results, you have a lens w/ greater range of focal lengths and a 1/2 stop faster.

 

But my limited experience (w/ M lenses) is that you can see a difference between the current lenses and their 1980's counterparts (even if the optical formula is the same!) even on small prints. And since R lenses are selling so inexpensively now (relatively), you can get a 35-70/4 at more then 1/2 off list price, why not get a new lens? And isn't that the reason people use R cameras -- optical excellence?

Edited April 9, 2009 by SteveYork
mistake

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[topoxforddoc]

Khamel,

 

The pecking order for the standard range ROM zooms is as follows

 

1. 28-90 asph ROM (stellar performance)

2. 35-70/4 ROM

3. 28-70 ROM.

 

I've had both the 28-90 asph and the 28-70. Despite its detractors, the 28-70 turns in a pretty respectable perfomance; it's just not as excellent as the other two.

 

Charlie

[Khamel]

Steve and Charlie:

Thanks for your insight. I will try out the lens once the camera arrives. I will also attempt to get a 35-70; whichever one I don't want, I'll just resell!

Any other thoughts on must-have lenses for the Leica-novice?

[topoxforddoc]

Khamel,

 

The 28-70 is fine, except there's some barrel distortion at the wide end.

 

Charlie

[Michiel Fokkema]

I used to have the 28-70. Especially for the wide end. But it turned out pretty soon that it is not up to the Leica quality I'm used too.

I traded for a 35-70/4 and that lens is really leica quality. I might have had a poor copy of the 28-70though..

Cheers,

 

Michiel Fokkema

[Sandokan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I had the 28-70 for a long time and I thought there was something wrong with me. Some shots were excellent but I had such trouble focusing it. In the end, I traded it for the 35/f1.4 and 19/2.8 and 80-200 zoom, and have never looked back. These were so much better and easier to use that my keepers improved dramatically.

 

I tried a friend's 20-90 and would buy that if I could afford it ... and could carry it!

 

Good luck and enjoy the lens before you buy another.

 

Ravi

[Guest User 42869]

Hello,

 

don't get nervous! I use the Leica Vario-Elmar 3.5-4.5/28-70mm ROM-version since I've started to take photos with my R4 and R5 over two years ago and I never had any great problems with it. Maybe I'm too young and inexperienced to compare it with other Leica-Zooms, especially the "hyped" 4/35-70mm, but I'm very satisfied by the results I could get with this lense, even on really challenging slide films like Agfa Precisa CT100, Scala 200 and RSX 200!

This lense and a 2/50mm R-Summicron for low-light situations is a very good value for money (but not "cheap"!) to begin with the Leica R-System without a loss of creativity and versatility!

 

Bye, Alexander

[Khamel]

Thanks for the advice. Thank you, Alexander and everyone else. I guess the thing to do is try the lens out.

Appreciate all your input

[santchurn]

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

[santchurn]

I intend to buy LEICA 28-70MM ROM LENS for my R9. After reading the forum messages I think that the 35--70 mm rom lens is better than the 28--70mm lens.Could anybody help please .Thanks

[jlancasterd]

Steve and Charlie:

Thanks for your insight. I will try out the lens once the camera arrives. I will also attempt to get a 35-70; whichever one I don't want, I'll just resell!

Any other thoughts on must-have lenses for the Leica-novice?

 

The 21-35 complements the longer zooms and is an excellent lens - S/H examples are fairly easy to find and very reasonably priced (by Leica standards!)

[santchurn]

I intend to buy LEICA 28-- 70mm ROM lens for my R9. After going through the forum messages I think the 35-70 mm Rom is better than the 28--70mm. Could anybody advise please .thanks

[jothiratnam]

Hi, just to throw one more carrot into the pot, have you thought about Angénieux zooms, they made a zoom in that range too, if I'm not mistaken, and some people who have used them really like them. I use their 70-210/3,5 & their 180/2,3 DEM Apo, and find them to be really nice, the 180 especially is great for portraits. Sorry to cloud the issue further. Jothiratnam

[masjah]

The 21-35 complements the longer zooms and is an excellent lens - S/H examples are fairly easy to find and very reasonably priced (by Leica standards!)

 

Agree entirely - apart from maximum aperture it outperforms some of the primes within its range.

 

As Charlie says, for the mid-range zoom, the 28-90 gives you the best of all worlds in both zoom range and quality, but of course it's more money.

[jaapv]

I intend to buy LEICA 28-- 70mm ROM lens for my R9. After going through the forum messages I think the 35-70 mm Rom is better than the 28--70mm. Could anybody advise please .thanks

Yes, there is a quality difference, the 35-70 is certainly the lens with more "sparkle" Having said that, the 28-70 is a whole lot better than reviewers will have you believe. Actually, for the prices usually asked it cannot be beat.

[parrish]

One of the more compelling arguments for this lens comes from Jonathan Eastland's book "Leica R Compendium". He maintains it was denounced by the English speaking press from its introduction as being too high priced for a converted Sigma lens, but faired much better in the German speaking market. He then goes on to list seven ways by which Leica enhanced the lens and summarizes "in practice, this lens proved to be a fine performer". So there you go, another supporter!

[PasMichiel]

The 35-70 is also Macro. Its fine focus tuning is better. It's easier to sharpen. And the focus depth is better. But sometimes I like the fading focus view.

That's the reason I have the fixed focus point lenses with me as well. The focus depth of the 28mm is great. If you take diaphragm of 22 on the 28mm it's sharp from 58cm (23") till endless. The 60mm is great too. Its focus starts at 30cm (11.5") and the 28-70 at 50cm (20"). You even can turn it to 1:2 Macro (with adapter 1:1). And it all starts with f/2.8 instead of f/3.5. Not that I make pictures on 2.8 but when you then use 5.6 ,for example, the focus depth is greater.

With all those zoom lenses I mis marks on top of the lens.

But it all depends what you like to do with it.

[santchurn]

Yes, there is a quality difference, the 35-70 is certainly the lens with more "sparkle" Having said that, the 28-70 is a whole lot better than reviewers will have you believe. Actually, for the prices usually asked it cannot be beat.

Thanks Jaapv, for the precious advice.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[earleygallery]

Why go for the zoom anyway? Yes its a convenient 'walkaround' lens but a couple of primes will give you much better quality based on some basic comparisons I made.