Zoom vs prime quandary

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I once owned a 28 Elmarit v.2 and sold it () before returning to film. I have a 35 Summicron but another 28 Elmarit v.2,  as well as a 28-90 ƒ/2.8-4.5 and 21-35 ƒ/3.5-4 have appeared for pretty fair prices. Thinking of selling the 35 but am uncertain which of the 3 to go for.

Thoughts from experienced hands appreciated.

 

(I should mention my other R lenses: 90 AA, 100 Elmarit Makro APO, 180 Elmarit APO & 280 Tele APO)

Edited March 14, 2020 by james.liam

[wlaidlaw]

People rave over the 28-90 but it is quite large and heavy. I would be very tempted by the 21-35. These always fetch £1500+ in the UK. The only R Zooms I have at present are the excellent 80-200/f4 and the 28-70 Version 2, where Leica took the indifferent Minolta optics in hand and improved the wide end considerably. The 70 end is still pretty geometrically challenged with very noticeable pincushion distortion but it is pretty good at the wide end, where I mostly use it on my R4 and R9. It is a ROM version, so cannot be used on my Leicaflex SL2. My local auction house has a 40-90/2.8 Angenieux zoom in R/Leicaflex mount, where the estimate is quite low. This is normally regarded as a collectors item and is much sought after by videographers, so if I don't like it or find it too heavy (it is a bit of a lump - see photo), I could always resell it. I am tempted to put in a bid. 

Wilson

 

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!

Edited March 15, 2020 by wlaidlaw

[Advertisement]

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

[masjah]

James, there is another possibility which could be considered. Of your existing lenses, your 90/2AA and 100/2.8 both cover much the same focal length, so I presume you need a macro facility too. So you could buy a 21-35 and the latest 35-70/4. In terms of focal lengths, then you would have the whole range covered. The thing is, if cost is a consideration, the latest 35-70/4 also has a macro facility, so you could then sell your 100/2.8. Just a thought!

I've got the 28-90 zoom and it is indeed a very good performer, being my travel lens of choice when I can only carry one lens. As Wilson says, it is a bit big and heavy, though manageable. The 35-70/4 is rather more compact, and the 21-35 certainly is.

[gbealnz]

Why change James? Is the extra bulk and weight of the zoom(s) an issue, and/or do you need the convenience of the zooms?

As an aside, I dipped my toes into the SL (Typ601) waters again, briefly, recently. I do like the SL, but it's a lump of a camera, and not exactly cheap, even at today's prices. It came with the SL24-90 as well, a lens I swore I would never own.

I wanted to see what the relative merits were of the 24-90, as opposed my current R35/2, R50/2, and R90/2, (all E55 lenses). From a quality point of view, no contest, the 24-90 was better even to my R prime biased eye. Then there was this nagging "it weighs a tonne, and is huge" feeling. Putting the three R primes on top of each other, as well as on the scales showed that the zoom wasn't any more huge or heavy. Hmmmm.

Fortunately, I sold it, and now still have the three aforementioned R primes, and my old Leicaflex SL, happy as. I did have a fling a while back with an R8, and at the same time an R28-70. Everyone reckons they are substandard, I found it adequate to my requirements. From all accounts the 28-90 and 21-35 are better still.

If you are buying a zoom for travel convenience, then it makes some sense. But with your current lenses I think I'd either stick with the 35/2 or get the 28 Elmarit and see, before selling the 35.

Gary

 

[james.liam]

12 hours ago, masjah said:

Of your existing lenses, your 90/2AA and 100/2.8 both cover much the same focal length, so I presume you need a macro facility too.

My personal experience with the 90 vs 100; the former is not all that impressive at closer distances.

[AZN]

The last 35-70mm Vario-Elmar f4 is indeed an excellent lens.  Not perfect though: it has a bit of barrel distortion at the wide end and a bit of pin-cushion when you go long.  f4 is also a bit on the slow side, especially when compared to  modern optics like the ASPC Sony 16-55mm f2.8 G lens (which is my travel lens now).

What I found useful about the Leica Vario-Elmar, however, was that the ROM contacts transmit the actual focal length when shooting.  The Leica R-to-L adapter can use this information to write it to the image EXIF file.

I agree that the 28mm-90mm lens is impractical for day-to-day use. "Measurebaters" bang on about how great it is, but IMO it is too big and too heavy.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

40 minutes ago, james.liam said:

My personal experience with the 90 vs 100; the former is not all that impressive at closer distances.

Yeah, it is pretty well established that the 90 ASMA in either M or R mount is optimized (brilliantly) for long distances, but not for close-ups. There is a reason Leica added a floating element to the 75 ASMA (unfortunately never ported to R mount).

My serious recommendation is 21-35 zoom (if you must zoom). Plus a 50 prime if you find 35>90/100 to be too large a gap. Many M shooters really like a 21-35-90 trio. It is almost 5:3:1 framing proportions (and more so with a 100).

Or if you want to go wild, substitute an 80 Summilux - a character lens wide-open, darn sharp at f/5.6-8. Which might replace the 90 - depends on what you shoot and how. It is definitely different from any APO.

[james.liam]

5 hours ago, adan said:

Yeah, it is pretty well established that the 90 ASMA in either M or R mount is optimized (brilliantly) for long distances, but not for close-ups. There is a reason Leica added a floating element to the 75 ASMA (unfortunately never ported to R mount).

My serious recommendation is 21-35 zoom (if you must zoom). Plus a 50 prime if you find 35>90/100 to be too large a gap. Many M shooters really like a 21-35-90 trio. It is almost 5:3:1 framing proportions (and more so with a 100).

Or if you want to go wild, substitute an 80 Summilux - a character lens wide-open, darn sharp at f/5.6-8. Which might replace the 90 - depends on what you shoot and how. It is definitely different from any APO.

- 75 ASMA? 

- Was thinking the 21=35 too too. IIRC, it's a Kyocera production. Wonder how good it is and is it an apt replacement for a later 35 Summicron I have.

- Already have the 75 Summilux on loan to me, and presently doing trials with it on an M6.

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by james.liam

[Keith (M)]

The 21-35mm makes a very good 'walk-about' lens, works well on my R5 and M240.  A small album of results on Flickr.

[adan]

ASMA - acronym I thought up 15 years ago to save typing time. APO-Summicron-M-ASPH.

[Mr.Prime]

I just don't like zoom lenses where you twist a ring and the front piece starts extending out -  I just don't like them. I'd rather it was all internal to the lens. Perhaps because there were so many point and shoot cameras with dodgy looking zooms back in the day when they were ten a penny.

[Keith (M)]

13 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

I just don't like zoom lenses where you twist a ring and the front piece starts extending out -  I just don't like them. I'd rather it was all internal to the lens. Perhaps because there were so many point and shoot cameras with dodgy looking zooms back in the day when they were ten a penny.

Then the 21-35mm is just the job for you!  

[Mr.Prime]

Indeed, that looks like a nice zoom. 

Nevertheless, I've found myself using zooms mostly at their extremes of range. Perhaps not always, but I've usually found that most of the zoom range is not used unless I get into the 'tourist mode' of zooming to frame my shots which we all know is a drug to avoid. So the main value of zooms for me has been to avoid changing lenses and introducing dust to the sensor. In most cases I simply prefer a prime lens

[Per P.]

I Have many different options for my SL but I often carry a trio of the R 21-35, an M 50mm, and an old Olympus 100mm. That required me to repurchase the very same 21-35 zoom that I sold last year. Red Dot managed, to their credit, to keep a straight face ...

So on the basis of having fallen for this little gem twice I am happy to give it my best recommendation - if you really do want to add a zoom 🙂

[james.liam]

I'm now edging toward the 21-35 zoom. From what I gather, the 28-90 is indeed world-class but heavy and dark at the far end of the FL.

Edited March 18, 2020 by james.liam

[masjah]

1 hour ago, james.liam said:

I'm now edging toward the 21-35 zoom. From what I gather, the 28-90 is indeed world-class but heavy and dark at the far end of the FL.

I agree about the weight (though I find it manageable).  Personally I've never found the smaller aperture at the long end a problem in the viewfinder. Perhaps it depends on the sort of subjects one photographs. The remaining question would then be whether you need to fill in the gap between 35 and 90, and, if so, with what. That was my reason for suggesting the last version of the 35-70/4, but a 50/2 might be an alternative.

 

[Keith (M)]

I fill the gap between 35 and 90mm with the highly versatile 60mm Macro-Elmarit-R.

[Per P.]

I should add, maybe, that I did also have the 35-70mm for a while and have made some of my best pictures with it. For what it was set out to be, and within its limitations it is a brillant lens. But some would find the relatively narrow zoom range and f/4 aperture too limiting.

[james.liam]

I also shoot with an M6 and Nikon FM2-T; for both, already have several 'normal' lenses (NOCT Nikkor, CV SLI 2/40, 50 AA, Canon 50/1.8 LTM) so it isn't as critical. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wlaidlaw]

The Angenieux 45-90 in Leicaflex mount (and the 100mm APO Macro-R) lenses at my local auction, where I thought nobody would have seen them or bother to bid for them, went for very high prices. I gave up on the Angenieux when it was at £500 and the APO Macro 100 when it was at £800 all plus 29.4% buyers commission. I don't know what the final prices were as their sale price system is not working at the moment. That is higher prices than you would pay on eBay. 

Wilson