Compact Zoom Options

[dsedov]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm currently using M lenses (21, 50, 90) on the SL body. As much as I love the lenses and their weight on the camera, I don't particularly like the process of changing them, especially if I need to make it fast. I've tried the 24-90 and it is a perfect lens for me with exception of its weight. I usually shoot on the street, and the thought of walking with SL body and 24-90 on my neck is awful. I'm ok with focusing manually, and am looking for a lens that is small and light enough, because it doesn't have autofocus and IS. What would be your suggestion if you looked for the smallest and lightest lens possible with a versatile focal length? I'm ok with non-Leica lenses and adapters of course.

[meerec]

I'm not an expert on the R lenses as some people here but it would be my choice to look there for an R zoom.

Also the WATE should be on that list but it's wide of course.

 

I'm currently using M lenses (21, 50, 90) on the SL body. As much as I love the lenses and their weight on the camera, I don't particularly like the process of changing them, especially if I need to make it fast. I've tried the 24-90 and it is a perfect lens for me with exception of its weight. I usually shoot on the street, and the thought of walking with SL body and 24-90 on my neck is awful. I'm ok with focusing manually, and am looking for a lens that is small and light enough, because it doesn't have autofocus and IS. What would be your suggestion if you looked for the smallest and lightest lens possible with a versatile focal length? I'm ok with non-Leica lenses and adapters of course.

[LD_50]

If you try a different strap system that takes the weight off your neck you may find the weight of the SL and 24-90 manageable.

 

I have carried this combo for entire days of shooting with the stock strap across my chest, pad on my left shoulder and camera on my right hip without any weight issues.

 

Similarly with my old Nikon setup (D4s and 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 f2.8 zooms) a Black Rapids strap kept the weight off my neck and allowed comfortable shooting with a heavier setup.

 

If you're willing to shoot with adapter and need light weight you can check out the various f4 zooms for Nikon and Canon mounts.

[steppenw0lf]

Try the older zooms: The R 4/35-70 Macro is quite small.

Currently I like the Contax 3.4/35-70 even better, that is very small and offers high IQ.

Btw, I think they are actually both made by the same factory.   

The Contax 28-85 is maybe even better, but already half-way to the 24-90 regarding weight and size.

The nicest is probably the R 28-90 but currently extremely expensive and not very small.

The MATE  28-35-50 is also an option (small), but quite awkward (it is no zoom) to use. And maybe more for collectors (expensive).

[38wadcutter]

Interesting that no one mentions the T 18-55 or 11-23, anything wrong with them that we don't know about?

[steppenw0lf]

Maybe another word about the Contax 28-85. It is heavy and also quite big, but despite that it is very usable, because it is built "in inverse order" meaning it is short at 85mm and long at 28mm. So if you often use the longer focal lengths like me, then it is "quite small". (At 85mm it is much smaller than the 24-90 at 90 mm, but at 28mm it is actually longer, strange world   ).

I like its optics (stronger at the long end), but it is certainly not the smallest on the list, probably too big for your requirements.

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting that no one mentions the T 18-55 or 11-23, anything wrong with them that we don't know about?

For me the problem with them on the SL is the limited resolution of the files.

[Guest]

Interesting that no one mentions the T 18-55 or 11-23, anything wrong with them that we don't know about?

 

Only that they are APS-C

[waterman1]

I use my SL and the SL zoom with the Harry Benz SL Brogue strap across my body.  Last Friday at the company picnic used this setup all afternoon and did not notice any fatigue.  I do the same in DTLA for street shooting, I also don't feel the need to use the hood.

[dsedov]

Thanks everyone. I think I'll try the 35-70/4 R lens. Regarding the Contax lenses - what mount do they have and how do you mount them on the SL?

[BCMielke]

Thanks everyone. I think I'll try the 35-70/4 R lens. Regarding the Contax lenses - what mount do they have and how do you mount them on the SL?

 

 

 

C/Y Mount.  They work very well.  If you don't mind the limited zoom range the 35-70 has a macro function and is also beautiful.  Another keeper is the 100-300.  I have been using it as I save for the 90-280.  Just lovely glass.

[steppenw0lf]

You probaby have the M to L adapter. So the easiest is to add a Contax to M adapter. You find some in ebay, e.g. from K&F Concepts.

http://www.ebay.de/itm/Contax-Yashica-mount-C-Y-lens-Objektiv-adapter-to-Leica-M-L-M-M7-M8-M9-M-E-M-240-/321808572613?hash=item4aed4920c5:g:5bYAAOSw1DtXF0YT

There is also a Novoflex adapter (LEM/CONT). And there is also a direct adapter SL to Contax (LET/CONT).

And there are many more to be found online.

[ynp]

The Konica Dual 21-35 works for me in the streets instead of Zooms.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[albertknappmd]

try carrying the lens on your shoulder..

Much easier on the body..

Albert     

[wlaidlaw]

Another vote for the two Contax lenses 28-85 and 35-70. The 28-85 is not a whole lot lighter or smaller than the 24-90. Both have superb imaging abilities, work well on the SL, have good colour rendition and high macro and micro contrast. For speed of use, I particularly like the single ring control, with trombone to zoom and rotate to focus. Some of the R zoom lenses are better than others. Erwin Puts did a good write up and comparison. 

 

Wilson

[helged]

Anyone with additional experiences to share regarding the smallish Leica R 30-70/f4 vs the Contax 35-70/f3.4?

 

Thanks...

[mmradman]

Any opinion on Contax 28-70mm, they seen to be plentyful, any good? Ok saying 28-85 or 35-70 are good but where do you find one?

[proenca]

For me, Contax is the bargain of the century ( ok, lets say of the moment ) . 

 

Up until mirrorless cameras came along, they could be had for a steal. heck, I bought a 50mm 1.4 for 80 euros couple years ago. 

 

35-70 is a lovely compact"ish" zoom and sharp. 28-85 nicer but larger. 

 

Be advised ( don't know if you are aware ) that Contax lenses ( same lens ) in 4 versions : AEJ, AEG, MMJ, MMG. Basically AE = older design, no chip, MM = newer design, chip. Of course the chip is useless but there is one key difference : MM lenses were ( almost all of them ) updated the optical formula. They have better bokeh, better contrast, better corrections, better coatings. J = made in Japan, G = made in Germany. Does NOT make a difference if a Conta lens is made in Japan or Germany ( quality wise - either image or construction of the lens ), it does if it is MM or AE. Always try to go MM.

 

How to tell the difference ? The f number scale : ask to see the lens, check the f stop markings : 1,4, 2, 2.8, etc etc etc... the last number, the smaller aperture, usually 16 or 22 : if it is a MM lens, the last number of the f stop will be green. If it is a AE, will be either orange or white.

 

MM lens :

 

 

AE lens

 

[caissa]

Anyone with additional experiences to share regarding the smallish Leica R 30-70/f4 vs the Contax 35-70/f3.4?

 

Thanks...

 

The Contax is amazingly small, quite fast (constant 3.4) and gives sometimes excellent IQ (outstanding!).

The Leica 4/35-70 Macro is a bit slower, a tiny bit heavier, not as pretty, but has a shade that moves with the focal length. Both are pretty sharp when used properly.

The main difference lies in the macro mode: The Leica is "better" as 70mm is used for macro. The Contax uses the 35mm for macro which is first awkward.

Both were made by Kyocera, so are very "similar" and probably equal in quality.

If I plan to use no macro I prefer the Contax (in my eyes it is the nicest looking and least obtrusive zoom for the SL), if I plan to use macro I usually take the Leica.

 

Read the original descriptions for these two zooms from Contax and Leica and you will see their characteristics (both are regarded as equal to primes). (at the time of their production)

 

About MM or AE, there are fierce discussions among Contax users. But officially there were no new constructions for the MM lenses (so the same formulas), but maybe a slightly better coating, so sometimes it is possible to see a touch more "coma" or ghosting (of a slightly different color) on the older lenses. I would not worry too much about it. Actually some users prefer the old lenses because of the more interesting "light effects". (mostly in WA and UWA) More important is that Zeiss will not service the AE lenses anymore, while they probably still do the MM types.

In my eyes the differences are marginal. Read more on Contax user forums. Or simply try the lens before you buy. (The 35-70 zoom is always MM so no difficult decision). Some lenses were always AE and others only MM (because developed later).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[proenca]

The Contax is amazingly small, quite fast (constant 3.4) and gives sometimes excellent IQ (outstanding!).

The Leica 4/35-70 Macro is a bit slower, a tiny bit heavier, not as pretty, but has a shade that moves with the focal length. Both are pretty sharp when used properly.

The main difference lies in the macro mode: The Leica is "better" as 70mm is used for macro. The Contax uses the 35mm for macro which is first awkward.

Both were made by Kyocera, so are very "similar" and probably equal in quality.

If I plan to use no macro I prefer the Contax (in my eyes it is the nicest looking and least obtrusive zoom for the SL), if I plan to use macro I usually take the Leica.

 

Read the original descriptions for these two zooms from Contax and Leica and you will see their characteristics (both are regarded as equal to primes). (at the time of their production)

 

About MM or AE, there are fierce discussions among Contax users. But officially there were no new constructions for the MM lenses (so the same formulas), but maybe a slightly better coating, so sometimes it is possible to see a touch more "coma" or ghosting (of a slightly different color) on the older lenses. I would not worry too much about it. Actually some users prefer the old lenses because of the more interesting "light effects". (mostly in WA and UWA) More important is that Zeiss will not service the AE lenses anymore, while they probably still do the MM types.

In my eyes the differences are marginal. Read more on Contax user forums. Or simply try the lens before you buy. (The 35-70 zoom is always MM so no difficult decision). Some lenses were always AE and others only MM (because developed later).

 

Not 100% accurate, but then again, I re-read what I said and that is not 100%.

 

Contax DID update their optical formulas during the lifespan of their lenses. 90% of them were updated on the late production cycle of the AE.

 

Examples are : 25mm f2,8, 28mm 2,8, 85 1,4 and a couple of others.

 

So if we compare late AE versions with MM, if they are in identical condition, they are most likely the same in optical formula. However, the only way to be sure,is just buying a MM lens in the first place.

 

Coatings are improved in MM lenses ALWAYS - AE lens do flare a bit to a lot, while MM lens are much more controled the flare.

 

Then there is the issue of "Ninja Stars", when you stop a AE lens down : ALL AE lens do this and no MM lens do this.

 

In the end, the difference in MM vs AE is not that much and you end up much better buying a MM than a AE.

 

Have a look at Contax line up. they have TERRIFIC lens at killer prices : my favorites include 85mm 1.4, 100 f2, 18mm and 25mm.