35-70/4 vs 28-90/2.8-4...any opinions?

[cpclee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 35-70/4 and 80-200/4 were manufactured by Kyocera (Contax) on behalf of Leica from late 1990s through 2009 or so when the R line was terminated.  I have the 80-200/4 lens and it is extremely good and a fantastic value.  The 35-70/4, I understand, is very similar in performance and have a matched look in terms of image quality.  I believe it utilises aspherical elements even though it was not marketed that way.  

[sblitz]

On 12/29/2019 at 10:46 AM, atournas said:

The 28-90 is an outstanding lens, performing like a prime one even at 28mm. I used to have it for years, on R7 and R6.2, and it was stupid---stupid!--- of me to sell it. I guess the expected profit blinded me, for I had bought it in mint condition for 1200 euros (!) from someone who apparently did not know about Leica lenses and eventually sold it for 2800 euros. I really miss it.

It is now retailing for around 4000 euros .... if that helps 🙂

 

[Advertisement]

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

[sblitz]

On 12/29/2019 at 8:32 PM, jaapv said:

You are right, a bit , but I had the 28-70 in the past and found that the lens is not half as bad as the blogs and forums make out.

Not half as bad? Okay, but does that mean it wasn't very good either?

[jaapv]

It was as good as any contemporary Canon or Nikon offering, and Sigma, of course  but is did not quite reach Leica standards as we like to see them. I took quite a few  nice photographs with it.

[gbealnz]

And I think Jaap has it in one, it was as good as contemporary offerings.

I too ended up with many nice shots when I had one.

Gary