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

[thebarnman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

That's what I'm going to do.  I'll start with the 35-70 f4, then get the 21-35.  Later (which I might) get the 28-90 f/2.4-4.5 (maybe) if needed, but I don't like variable f stops on zooms.  If I was buying into the M system, to me the option would be easy as I would simply get one of the newer M 35mm lenses as the performance of those are better than any of the R wider angle lenses (prime or zoom.)  It's just a newer design.  If the R series was still being sold; I'm sure there'd be updates in the R series when it comes to the wider angles such as a prime 28 and a prime 35, but that's not the case.  So I'm doing my best to get the best of what was designed for the R series.  Sure; I'd like the faster lenses, but if the f/4 35-70 performs in that range better than what the best R primes have to offer in that range; I'll deal with that slower lens and try to adjust to the dimmer view!   

[masjah]

That makes sense. I honestly don't think you'll find the slower aperture too much of a problem in the viewfinder in practice.

[Advertisement]

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

[thebarnman]

That makes sense. I honestly don't think you'll find the slower aperture too much of a problem in the viewfinder in practice.

 

I did ask on the first post, but I really didn't follow up on it.  About the f/4 35-70, I have a chance to pick up a copy of it (according to the serial numbers) one from 1998 which looks mint...like it had never been used, and there's a couple available that (according to the serial numbers) are from 1998 (that looks like a fraction less than mint, but still like new.)

 

Was there any differences in this particular lens during it's manufacturing?  If so, are there any serial numbers to be looking out for?   

[robgo2]

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 

 

 

Erwin Puts is entitled to his opinion, and who am I to question such an expert? But I am pretty sure that Leica uses their best skill and knowledge in designing their prime lenses, just as they do their zoom lenses. Common sense tells us that it is virtually impossible to design a single zoom that can perform as well at all focal lengths as corresponding primes. As an example, the SL 24-90 is regarded by many as the finest zoom lens in its range that has ever been produced, and it is indeed a very fine lens. Yet I can tell you from personal experience that my prime lenses in its range are better, at least in ways that matter most to me. What one can say about zooms is that they are definitely more versatile than primes, although they may be slower.

 

(I cannot believe that I have gotten myself into a prime vs zoom debate. My final word:  People should use whatever suits them.)

[masjah]

Erwin Puts is entitled to his opinion, and who am I to question such an expert? But I am pretty sure that Leica uses their best skill and knowledge in designing their prime lenses, just as they do their zoom lenses. Common sense tells us that it is virtually impossible to design a single zoom that can perform as well at all focal lengths as corresponding primes. As an example, the SL 24-90 is regarded by many as the finest zoom lens in its range that has ever been produced, and it is indeed a very fine lens. Yet I can tell you from personal experience that my prime lenses in its range are better, at least in ways that matter most to me. What one can say about zooms is that they are definitely more versatile than primes, although they may be slower.

 

(I cannot believe that I have gotten myself into a prime vs zoom debate. My final word:  People should use whatever suits them.)

 

 

The only comment I would add is that this presupposes that we are considering designs of a similar age. As has already been stated, some of the wide Leica primes are relatively old designs, and I'm quite prepared to believe that a much more recently designed zoom could technically outperform an older prime design. Whether one prefers the look of the images produced is a quite different matter, especially since rendering that appears pleasing to any one individual observer might even be caused by technical imperfections.

[fernando_b]

 

 

... Whether one prefers the look of the images produced is a quite different matter, especially since rendering that appears pleasing to any one individual observer might even be caused by technical imperfections.

 

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hmmm … Also a fact that some would never ever accept the fact that a zoom lens' performance can be comparable to / better than that of a prime lens. Zoom lenses are not, and never will be, on their radar or on their cameras.  "Zooms cannot match primes" is ingrained into their photographic philosophy … for ever and ever … which is OK if it works for them. 

 

dunk 

[tritentrue]

I did ask on the first post, but I really didn't follow up on it.  About the f/4 35-70, I have a chance to pick up a copy of it (according to the serial numbers) one from 1998 which looks mint...like it had never been used, and there's a couple available that (according to the serial numbers) are from 1998 (that looks like a fraction less than mint, but still like new.)

 

Was there any differences in this particular lens during it's manufacturing?  If so, are there any serial numbers to be looking out for?   

 

According to multiple sources the lens was manufactured by Kyocera, with no mention of any tweaks during its run of production.

 

The copy I had was, from f/4 to f/5.6 and at any focal length in the range, as good as any prime lens I've ever used in that FL/aperture range on both full frame and crop sensor.

[otto.f]

Hmmm … Also a fact that some would never ever accept the fact that a zoom lens' performance can be comparable to / better than that of a prime lens. Zoom lenses are not, and never will be, on their radar or on their cameras.  "Zooms cannot match primes" is ingrained into their photographic philosophy … for ever and ever … which is OK if it works for them. 

 

dunk

 

It’s true, I’m not a zoom photographer, I just can’t work that way because I don’t look that way. But that is something else as denying that some zooms are superb, Angenieux for instance was better than the first ‘Leica’ zooms

[edstock]

Given the weight for Leica R lenses, I try and keep down what I want to carry(lug around). I have two prime lenses. Macro 60 and 135 2.8. I have a 4/35-70, a 80-200 and a 105-280. I know people will say that there's an overlap but the 80-200 is an excellent all around focal length. The 105-280 extend the long focal out to 280, which is considerable over 200. So I make the choice before I go out as to what I want to include in my shoot. As to quality this is always, to me, pretty subjective until you run tests in a lab. I am very satisfied with all my R lenses, so were my clients before I retired, they were were my judges.

[thebarnman]

I finally purchased the R 35-70 f4.  I found a copy that certainly looks brand new.  I bought it back around August, and finally shot a few rolls on Thanksgiving.  The images I took will in no way give me a sense of the quality of the lens since I pushed some HP5 by three stops.  I won't receive the reversed rolls of film for at least a few more weeks, but I will at least get a chance to evaluate the various angles the lens is capable of.  

One thing I did learn is I'm not nearly as fast working with the variable lens as I am with my fixed lens since there is one more option to fiddle with...the zoom.  It was my first time with it, so I expect with time the zoom feature will hopefully become 2nd nature.    

 

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!