21-35, 28-90, or 35-70 Vario?

[thebarnman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have read that most if not all the Leica Vario lens perform better than their primes at certain wider angle settings.  Since I've been shooting with my APO-Summicron-R 90mm f/2 ASPH for well over 10 years now; I'm now looking for something similar in performance at wider angles such as around 35mm.  I'd get a 35mm prime for my R9, but I have read the Vario lenses around those wider settings perform better.

The 21-35 might seem right since it's the wider angles I'm looking for, but I've been reading the 35-70 f/4 has better performance.  

So I'm currently considering the Vario R 35-70 f/4 ROM for it's price and performance.  Was there any improvements with the 35-70 f/4 ROM during it's production?  If so; what serial numbers should I look for? 

Also, I know the 35-70 f/4 is slower than the others, so I'm guessing that's why the cost seems to be more reasonable?  With it's dimmer view; I'm sure it will also be harder to view the image in the viewfinder when compared to what I'm used to with my 90mm f/2.  But at it's price point and performance; I don't think there's much to loose quality wise considering.   


In the samples below, the 28-90 looks like it performs better than the 21-35 examples.  And the 35-70 4.0 examples seem to be on par (or exceed the 28-90 examples.)  

21-35 https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/260701-leica-dmr-image-thread/page-10?do=findComment&comment=3088897
21-35 https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/260701-leica-dmr-image-thread/page-6?do=findComment&comment=3058189

28-90 (A couple distant shots of planes on the ground) https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/260701-leica-dmr-image-thread/page-4?do=findComment&comment=3056693

35-70 4.0 https://www.flickr.com/groups/1191210@N22/pool/with/36334761352/


I know I'm answering my own question here, but I'd like to hear from others their thoughts of the various Vario lens. 


Thanks! 

[masjah]

My own view is that all three of those zoom lenses produce very good results, and that forensic examination of different photographs taken under different (certainly not controlled for comparison purposes) conditions is likely to produce spurious results, perhaps even dominated by the circumstances under which each image was taken.

 

Given that you've already got a 90/2 Apo Asph R, the answer, IMHO is clear. Get the 21-35 zoom, and the 35-70 zoom. Together with the 90, you've then pretty well got the range 21-90 covered (albeit with a small gap between 70 and 90) by very high quality lenses, and at a relatively reasonable cost.

[Advertisement]

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

[otto.f]

I have read that most if not all the Leica Vario lens perform better than their primes at certain wider angle settings.

 

I don’t know who wrote that but that’s nonsense in that general sense. The Vario 3.5-4.5/28-70 for instance is a relatively poor performer and I see no Leica character at all in its performance, whereas the more recent 2.8/28-70 is said to be legendary. But you can’t compare all these zooms with primes because they mostly start with 4.0 or 3.5 and ‘their’(?!) primes start with 1.4, 2.0 or 2.8.

This is not meant to quarrel about insignificant details: buying zooms means most often compromising on selective focus. Noctilux zooms do not exist, yet. The MDF’s of the 21-35 can be technically better than those of the Summilux 35 R, but that does not tell me much about the character of the lens, its bo-keh for instance.

I also looked at the images you have linked to, but you seem to compare different angles. To my knowledge the 21-35 performs better on the 28 position than the 28-90, but at 90 the latter is remarkably good.

Edited July 30, 2018 by otto.f

[tritentrue]

I've owned all three.  The only one I still have is the 21-35mm.  Without software corrections at about 28-32mm it is noticeably superior to the 28-90mm.   While the 28-90mm is indeed sharp at 90mm, it loses contrast at the long end whenever there's a strong light source even in the periphery of its field of view.

 

I recall no weaknesses in the 35-70mm f/4, which probably owes its more modest price to its country of origin, Japan.  Nor did I see any compromise in build quality, its only limitation (and why I replaced it with primes) being its f/4 maximum aperture. Its macro feature is also on par with primes.

[Keith (M)]

I don’t know who wrote that but that’s nonsense in that general sense. The Vario 3.5-4.5/28-70 for instance is a relatively poor performer and I see no Leica character at all in its performance, whereas the more recent 2.8/28-70 is said to be legendary. But you can’t compare all these zooms with primes because they mostly start with 4.0 or 3.5 and ‘their’(?!) primes start with 1.4, 2.0 or 2.8.

This is not meant to quarrel about insignificant details: buying zooms means most often compromising on selective focus. Noctilux zooms do not exist, yet. The MDF’s of the 21-35 can be technically better than those of the Summilux 35 R, but that does not tell me much about the character of the lens, its bo-keh for instance.

I also looked at the images you have linked to, but you seem to compare different angles. To my knowledge the 21-35 performs better on the 28 position than the 28-90, but at 90 the latter is remarkably good.

 

As regards the 21-35mm, Erin Puts wrote in his Leica Compendium:-

This lens is very pleasant to use, compares favourably to companion lenses of fixed focal length, has excellent to outstanding overall performance and gives the user a new range of creative possibilities. It is one of the few lenses that has no weak points in performance or handling.

 

A good enough recommendation for me and I certainly have not found anything in my results (with M240 and R5) to dispute his findings. 

Edited July 30, 2018 by Keith (M)

[jaapv]

I think the Sigma 28-90 (yes, it is a rebadge) is certainly the weakest of the bunch. I think in terms of quality per Dollar, the recent 35-70 is the one to get.

[tritentrue]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I believe the Sigma rebadge was a 28-70mm.  The 28-90mm f/2.8-4.5 ASPH Vario-Elmarit-R was made in Germany by Leica.

[otto.f]

I thought the 3.5-4.5/28-70 was a Minolta

[masjah]

The 28-70 was a Sigma design. The OP did not mention this lens in the original post, and it is generally recognised to be significantly less good than the others.

 

I have the 28-90 and the 21-35, as well as the 90/2AA (all three are in house Leica design and construction, and all very good performers).

 

As tritentrue says, the 35-70/4 is also generally recognised to be very good (with a macro capability). It does actually have an aspherical element.

 

I stick with my original thoughts: 21-35 plus 35-70/4 plus OP's existing 90/2AA giving best value for very good quality.

 

(Yes of course there's less somewhat selective focus at less wide apertures, but at the very wide end, with  21-35 focal length?)

[jaapv]

I believe the Sigma rebadge was a 28-70mm.  The 28-90mm f/2.8-4.5 ASPH Vario-Elmarit-R was made in Germany by Leica.

I think you are indeed right.

In general it is hard to tell where external output ends and Leica design begins with the earlier Leica zooms. Initially there was little expertise and a considerable amount of foot-dragging at Leica regarding zoom lenses, so the designs were farmed out to Agenieux, Minolta and Sigma. Gradually the Leica design department gathered enough experience to take over and forge ahead.

[adelie]

I recently acquired the 21-35 Vario R. I use it with my other "zooms" - the 35-70 Angenieux R and the 70-210 Angenieux R. I think I am covered!

 

The Angenieux lenses are very nice. Light weight, sharp, with a characteristic "warmth" to them. 

 

John

[masjah]

I think you are indeed right.

In general it is hard to tell where external output ends and Leica design begins with the earlier Leica zooms. Initially there was little expertise and a considerable amount of foot-dragging at Leica regarding zoom lenses, so the designs were farmed out to Agenieux, Minolta and Sigma. Gradually the Leica design department gathered enough experience to take over and forge ahead.

 

 

Jaap, I think that is a very fair comment indeed. The 28-70 was Sigma, and the 35-70 (not of course the 35-70/2.8!!!) had its origins in a Minolta optical design, with Leica mechanics, originally at f/3.5 before evolving into the present f/4 version with an aspherical element and a macro facility.

[wizard]

The 28-90 was the lens that had me enter the R system. It performs (my copy at least) tremendously well over its full range, and at 35mm is indeed visibly better than 35mm Leica primes (Summicron and Elmarit). No wonder, as the 28-90 is one of the last Leica-R lenses designed, whereas the 35mm primes are all older by several decades.

 

Cheers, Andy

Edited July 30, 2018 by wizard

[earleygallery]

Buy the lens you need. They're all going to deliver excellent results, you'll only notice differences in resolution if you 'pixel peep'.

 

I have the older type Summicron 35 which is a superb lens, better in some respects than the newer version and when I tested it against a 21-35 zoom at 35, I thought it was better than that too, but again minute differences at very close inspection.

 

A 35-70 is a useful lens, the trade off is an f4 maximum aperture (or the earlier f3.4). The 21-35 gives you a lot of options too so as John said above, buy both! That or a 35 and 50 Summicron and you have the 'holy trinity'.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Page 286 Leica Pocket Book 8th Edition published 2012: 

 

"Vario Elmar R 1:4/35-70mm

 

Current thinking in Solms is to produce zoom lenses which are at least as good as the fixed focal lengths in the Leica stable and this Vario-Elmar proves the fact "

 

​… which s/b interpreted as ' … …   produce zoom lenses which within and at their comparable focal lengths     are at least as good as the fixed focal lengths in the Leica stable …' 

 

The Leica Pocket Book 8th Edition is well worth buying and includes performance data for all Leitz / Leica lenses from 1925 - 2010. 

 

I use the Vario Elmar R 1:4 35-70 and can confirm it's an excellent lens and is very usable at full aperture … The 35mm primes have the faster aperture option which could be important if using film rather than digital.

 

I have owned both the 21-35mm and 28-90mm both of which are superb lenses … the 21-35mm was my preferred 'standard zoom' for the R9/DMR  (28-50mm FF equiv.) . The R 28-90mm is a very sought after lens and commands a premium price e.g. a well known London dealer lists three examples at c.£3500-£3700 … which are cheaper than some o'seas dealers' list prices.  The R 21-35mm can be purchased for c.£1500 …  and if you can find one, the R 35-70/4 is c.£700.   The R 35-70/4's macro facility is useful. 

 

dunk 

Edited July 31, 2018 by dkCambridgeshire

[robgo2]

Regarding the point about zooms outperforming primes at the 35mm focal length, I have my doubts. Of course, much depends upon the metrics that are used to determine performance (i.e. sharpness, color, contrast, overall rendering etc). That said, my Summicron-R 35 f2 (vII) is probably my all-time favorite 35mm lens, and that includes a bunch. I also currently own the ultra-sharp Zeiss ZM 35 f1.4, which is regarded by some folks as the ne plus ultra of 35mm lenses, but I prefer the "look" of the Summicron (very organic and with a great sense of depth). It is also plenty sharp.  Having never owned any of the Leica zooms, I am not prepared to offer direct comparisons--just a healthy dose of skepticism.

Edited August 2, 2018 by robgo2

[dkCambridgeshire]

Regarding the point about zooms outperforming primes at the 35mm focal length, I have my doubts. Of course, much depends upon the metrics that are used to determine performance (i.e. sharpness, color, contrast, overall rendering etc). That said, my Summicron-R 35 f2 (vII) is probably my all-time favorite 35mm lens, and that includes a bunch. I also currently own the ultra-sharp Zeiss ZM 35 f1.4, which is regarded by some folks as the ne plus ultra of 35mm lenses, but I prefer the "look" of the Summicron (very organic and with a great sense of depth). It is also plenty sharp.  Having never owned any of the Leica zooms, I am not prepared to offer direct comparisons--just a healthy dose of skepticism.

 

 

Maybe read Erwin Puts opinion … Leica Lens Compendium, Page 206 … but it's the performance comparison at 'like apertures' i.e. f4 and smaller apertures …  It's a well known fact that late Leica zoom lenses designed by Leica are every bit a good as Leica primes at the same zoom lens max apertures. If Leica prime lens users choose not acknowledge this fact that's a bit like maintaining the Earth is flat   Computer lens design worked wonders for zoom lenses in the late 20th C. 

 

dunk 

[otto.f]

This is not about the earth being flat. It’s about character of a lens, not the mdf-curves. Plus speed. The latest Leica zooms are perfect, that’s not the point.

Edited August 2, 2018 by otto.f

[michaelm3]

I tried my first zoom lens from Leica 4.0 35-70mm to fit my R6.2. It looked nice, seemed to be perfect for a zoom but for me it was a bit boring...ended up with Summicron 35mm (that I love to use on my SL2) and Elmarit 60mm. In combination with your Summicron 90mm or the pre asph. it would be right for me..

 

Yes, the Summicron 35mm is not perfect but it has so much character..

 

Michael

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[thebarnman]

Maybe read Erwin Puts opinion … Leica Lens Compendium, Page 206 … but it's the performance comparison at 'like apertures' i.e. f4 and smaller apertures …  It's a well known fact that late Leica zoom lenses designed by Leica are every bit a good as Leica primes at the same zoom lens max apertures. If Leica prime lens users choose not acknowledge this fact that's a bit like maintaining the Earth is flat   Computer lens design worked wonders for zoom lenses in the late 20th C. 

 

dunk 

 

I would have to agree.  If the f4 35-70 can perform just as well if not better at 35mm when compared to the 35mm prime at f4; that sounds like a winner to me.