28-90 R zoom questions

[cpclee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does the length of this lens change as you zoom in and out or as you focus?  Is the pull-out hood plastic or metal?  If plastic, is it fragile and prone to breaking?  Thanks.

ps. Not sure if there were earlier 28-90 zooms for the R system but here I’m referring to the latest ASPH model. 

Edited May 24, 2019 by cpclee

[masjah]

The physical length of the lens changes as the focal length is altered. It is physically shortest at a focal length very fractionally longer than 50mm, and gets longer from there towards each of the extremes. However, the barrel does not rotate, so there is no problem with a polariser. There is provided with the lens an outer dust cap, in addition to the usual lens cap, and the lens needs to be set to around 50mm for this to be fitted (which can be done with the usual lens cap still in place). The hood is plastic, but it seems perfectly rugged enough to me.

[Advertisement]

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

[Leicaiste]

The R 28-90 doesn’t extend much in comparison to the L 24-90. 

 

the sliding lens hood is made of metal. 

[masjah]

8 hours ago, Leicaiste said:

The R 28-90 doesn’t extend much in comparison to the L 24-90. 

 

the sliding lens hood is made of metal. 

 

Quite correct - apologies for my mistaken recollection - the sliding hood is indeed metal. (I thought it was rugged!)

 

[MarkP]

The 28-90R is a fabulous lens.

As John wrote,there is some variability of lens length through the zoom range but nothing compared with the 24-90SL. It is otherwise a light & compact but very robust lens.  It's main limitations for me were 1. distortion at 28mm and 2. never going quite wide enough (to 24mm) to be that ideal all-round travel zoom (even though my most used focal lengths are 28 & 50mm).

I bought mine (very late production) at a great price before the big price rises for use with an M240 & Visoflex, and an R7 (now sold as I'm back shooting M film cameras). I subsequently sold it to fund an SL with 24-90 SL.  I don't miss it because the SL and zoom do its so much better, and to 24mm with IS.  However good the imaging of the 28-90R, it doesn't compare with the 24-90SL( albeit at the expense of weight and bulk).

 

[cpclee]

1 hour ago, MarkP said:

The 28-90R is a fabulous lens.

As John wrote,there is some variability of lens length through the zoom range but nothing compared with the 24-90SL. It is otherwise a light & compact but very robust lens.  It's main limitations for me were 1. distortion at 28mm and 2. never going quite wide enough (to 24mm) to be that ideal all-round travel zoom (even though my most used focal lengths are 28 & 50mm).

I bought mine (very late production) at a great price before the big price rises for use with an M240 & Visoflex, and an R7 (now sold as I'm back shooting M film cameras). I subsequently sold it to fund an SL with 24-90 SL.  I don't miss it because the SL and zoom do its so much better, and to 24mm with IS.  However good the imaging of the 28-90R, it doesn't compare with the 24-90SL( albeit at the expense of weight and bulk).

 

I have the 24-90 for the SL and love it.  The reason I’m inquiring about the 28-90 is because I want something similar for my R9.   I already have a 50 Summicron (E55) and a 80-200/4 for the R9 so the addition of the 28-90 will complete my R kit quite nicely.

28 is about as wide as I will regularly use.  

If I end up getting a 28-90 I plan to still keep the 24-90.  Not only because optically the 24-90 is (presumably) better, but also the SL is so capable when mated with a native lens (lightening fast AF, full electronic integration, etc).  

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's so funny. My lens setup for the R7 was identical: 2.0/50 Summicron R v2, 28-90R, and 80-200R.

However, I almost never used the 80-200 and the R was usually looked over for the M7 (with primes or the MATE 28-50 if I wanted a 'zoom'), and hence it all went to a good home.  Furthermore, once the SL came along the 28-90 was not going to get used on the M240 or then the M10.

Fully understand your reasoning for the 28-90 on the R9.

[farnz]

13 hours ago, cpclee said:

Not only because optically the 24-90 is (presumably) better,

I'm not convinced it's optically better.  The pictures it produces with the SL are perhaps better but that's as a result of aberration corrections in the SL's software.  This is the main reason I haven't acquired any of the SL lenses - they're not 'transportable' to cameras other than Leicas in the L-mount range because they're dependant on the software.

Pete.

Edited May 28, 2019 by farnz

[cpclee]

27 minutes ago, farnz said:

I'm not convinced it's optically better.  The pictures it produces with the SL are perhaps better but that's as a result of aberration corrections in the SL's software.  This is the main reason I haven't acquired any of the SL lenses - they're not 'transportable' to cameras other than Leicas in the L-mount range because they're dependant on the software.

Pete.

I have not done any real world comparison between these two zooms.  But the optical superiority of SL mount lenses in general can be easily seen in the MTF charts which according to Leica are before any in-camera processing.  And it’s not hard to see why: the girths allowed by the R and M mounts were set in the analog days and are too narrow for optimal results with digital sensors.  The L mount relaxed that significantly and the lenses are much bigger/heavier as a result, but the image quality is on a much higher level.

[cpclee]

5 hours ago, MarkP said:

That's so funny. My lens setup for the R7 was identical: 2.0/50 Summicron R v2, 28-90R, and 80-200R.

However, I almost never used the 80-200 and the R was usually looked over for the M7 (with primes or the MATE 28-50 if I wanted a 'zoom'), and hence it all went to a good home.  Furthermore, once the SL came along the 28-90 was not going to get used on the M240 or then the M10.

Fully understand your reasoning for the 28-90 on the R9.

I’m still debating whether I wouldn’t do just as well by adding a 28 Elmarit-R (v2).  

Did you ever mount your 28-90 on the SL?  Did it feel noticeably lighter / smaller than the SL with 24-90?  There is about a 350g difference between these two setups.   The size differences seem significant when the hood and lens extension are taken into account.

[Leicaiste]

5 hours ago, farnz said:

I'm not convinced it's optically better.  The pictures it produces with the SL are perhaps better but that's as a result of aberration corrections in the SL's software.  This is the main reason I haven't acquired any of the SL lenses - they're not 'transportable' to cameras other than Leicas in the L-mount range because they're dependant on the software.

Pete.

I am with you. The R debacle made me think twice.

Now that Panasonic and Sigma are involved, the L mount has more chance to survive. 

Still debating ... and enjoying my wonderful R lenses on the SL. 

[MarkP]

9 hours ago, cpclee said:

Did you ever mount your 28-90 on the SL?  Did it feel noticeably lighter / smaller than the SL with 24-90?  There is about a 350g difference between these two setups.   The size differences seem significant when the hood and lens extension are taken into account.

160 gm difference...

So the 24-90 SL weighs  1140gm (138-180mm length, max diameter 88mm), furthermore has a ginormous hood (although I use a very compact screw on B+W hood instead, and is as wide as a stovepipe (the tradeoff for IS and AF and extra reach to 24mm)

the 28-90 R weighs 740gm (100mm length, max diameter 80mm) but you need to account for the R-Adapter L on the SL 155gm (240gm with tripod foot which I left on, and another 33mm length) bringing it up to 980gm.  However, it is much less bulky, especially with the very compact slide-out hood.

If you want a cross-platform lens then the superb 28-90R makes sense. I no longer required this for M+Visoflex and R7, so was happy to go with the SL +24-90.  

A 28 Elmarit-R with the 50 Summicron-R is a more compact and much cheaper option.  28 & 50 is a nice combo.

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by MarkP

[wizard]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb MarkP:

A 28 Elmarit-R with the 50 Summicron-R is a more compact and much cheaper option.  28 & 50 is a nice combo.

That may be true, but then again you would be giving up the upper half of the 28-90's range. If complemented by, say, a 90mm lens, I much doubt that such a three lens combo is more compact, let alone more lightweight than the 28-90 lens. And that does not even take into account the ease and swiftness of changing from 90mm to, say, 35mm (oops, that focal length would not even be included in the suggested three lens combo) with the 28-90 lens, as opposed to the three lens combo.

In my opinion, the 28-90 is a stellar lens.

Cheers, Andy

[cpclee]

12 hours ago, MarkP said:

160 gm difference...

So the 24-90 SL weighs  1140gm (138-180mm length, max diameter 88mm), furthermore has a ginormous hood (although I use a very compact screw on B+W hood instead, and is as wide as a stovepipe (the tradeoff for IS and AF and extra reach to 24mm)

the 28-90 R weighs 740gm (100mm length, max diameter 80mm) but you need to account for the R-Adapter L on the SL 155gm (240gm with tripod foot which I left on, and another 33mm length) bringing it up to 980gm.  However, it is much less bulky, especially with the very compact slide-out hood.

If you want a cross-platform lens then the superb 28-90R makes sense. I no longer required this for M+Visoflex and R7, so was happy to go with the SL +24-90.  

A 28 Elmarit-R with the 50 Summicron-R is a more compact and much cheaper option.  28 & 50 is a nice combo.

 

I calculated the weight saving to be greater because the Novoflex adapter is only 70g giving an all-in weight difference of 330g.   But I see your point that the big difference is in size where the 24-90 extends much more and has a very big add-on hood

[cpclee]

9 hours ago, wizard said:

That may be true, but then again you would be giving up the upper half of the 28-90's range. If complemented by, say, a 90mm lens, I much doubt that such a three lens combo is more compact, let alone more lightweight than the 28-90 lens. And that does not even take into account the ease and swiftness of changing from 90mm to, say, 35mm (oops, that focal length would not even be included in the suggested three lens combo) with the 28-90 lens, as opposed to the three lens combo.

In my opinion, the 28-90 is a stellar lens.

Cheers, Andy

In terms of total bag weight, yes, the 28-90 is not more than a three lens combo.  But I still have to decide whether I prefer changing between 3 lighter lenses or having one big/heavier lens that won’t need much changing.  

[cpclee]

Happy to say that I found / bought a 28-90!

[wlaidlaw]

The earlier 28-70-R, which I have, is an odd beast. The overall length does not change including the hood but the inner barrel does extend and retract within the outer barrel. You can fit an e60 filter on the thread on the inner barrel. Rotating a polariser is therefore none too easy - you need long dextrous fingers, if a hood is fitted. 

BTW although there is no official lens cap listed for when the 12437 hood for the 28-70 lens is mounted but a 14233 Leica hood (74mm I.D.) is a perfect fit. 

Wilson

[gvaliquette]

On 6/7/2019 at 8:00 AM, wlaidlaw said:

The earlier 28-70-R, which I have, is an odd beast. The overall length does not change including the hood but the inner barrel does extend and retract within the outer barrel. You can fit an e60 filter on the thread on the inner barrel. Rotating a polariser is therefore none too easy - you need long dextrous fingers, if a hood is fitted. 

BTW although there is no official lens cap listed for when the 12437 hood for the 28-70 lens is mounted but a 14233 Leica hood (74mm I.D.) is a perfect fit. 

Wilson

Odd beast indeed.  It has terrible barrel distortion at the wide end.  One might argue that it matters little in a digital age, but it matters a lot on color reversal slides.

Guy

[wlaidlaw]

3 hours ago, gvaliquette said:

Odd beast indeed.  It has terrible barrel distortion at the wide end.  One might argue that it matters little in a digital age, but it matters a lot on color reversal slides.

Guy

The other odd thing is that the barrel distortion, which is very slightly improved on the Mk.2 version of the lens, is worse on the left hand side than the right hand side. I tried a friend's 28-70 -R and it was exactly the same. I can only assume Sigma had a bent machine 🤣. I mainly use it between 28 and 50 so not a huge problem for me.

Wilson

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear