Jump to content

R lens for SL ... landscape / general


lundyjim

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am loving this forum but have yet to brave posting an image with my only lens the R100mm macro ... however - the time has come to purchase a second R lens that will alleviate my frustration when it comes to light and a landscape - amongst other situations! Am pondering the 35-70 f4 as the best most affordable option ... then perhaps in time a prime wider lens to accompany. Or is the 28-90 that much better? 21-35? Would really appreciate some experienced words!!! Thanks ever so

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that 35-70 - it is a fine lens. Even if newer lenses may have somewhat better specs - it is debatable whether the small difference is worth paying serious money for. If you get it, have a trusted repairer give it a clean - there will be some haze.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, lundyjim said:

Am loving this forum but have yet to brave posting an image with my only lens the R100mm macro ... however - the time has come to purchase a second R lens that will alleviate my frustration when it comes to light and a landscape - amongst other situations! Am pondering the 35-70 f4 as the best most affordable option ... then perhaps in time a prime wider lens to accompany. Or is the 28-90 that much better? 21-35? Would really appreciate some experienced words!!! Thanks ever so

lundyjim

35-70 f4 is really a very good lens for general purposes.

35mm

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!

70mm

Lawrence

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, welcome to the Forum.

I agree with Jaap. Within it's more limited focal length range, the latest 35-70/4 would be just as good in practice as the more recent (and much more expensive) 28-90. I have to admit though that I have direct experience only of the latter of the two. You're covered already at the long end anyway. Then, as funds permit, if you find you are missing the wide end, you could get a 21-35 (which I like very much).

As David above implies though, it's also well worth looking for landscape shots with a somewhat longer lens. I have a photographer friend who is a terrific landscape worker, and he always says to me that, if he was restricted to only one focal length, it would be a 90, because of the way it encourages you to concentrate on essentials.

If you are using these lenses with a "digital SL",  and an R to L adapter, (as distinct from a "film SL") I personally would find the additional expense of ROM versions worthwhile.  ( Edit: Oh actually the 21-35 and 28-90 are only available as ROM lenses anyway, so we must be talking digital. My brain is addled by UK lockdown!)

Edited by masjah
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the wider end, I would suggest the Elmarit-R 28mm Version 2 ROM f/2.8.  Outstanding lens.  Yes it is expensive and somewhat hard to get, but it will last you a lifetime.

The Elmarit-R 35mm Version 3 f/2.8 is another amazingly sharp lens.  Good for general purpose when you want to go wide, but not too wide. I lucked out and manged to get a late ROM copy.

If you want to go w-i-d-e, the Elmarit-R 19mm Version 2 ROM f/2.8 is also pretty good, but the corners are weak and it is _really_ expensive and hard to get.

I own and use all these lenses, so am speaking from practical experience here 😃

On the longer end, think of getting a 2x APO-EXTENDER for your 100mm lens.  It will push it out to 200mm, although the f-stop will also be "extended" such that, say, f4 on the lens actually becomes f8 on the camera.

I also have the 35-70mm f4 Vario-Elmar.  Indeed it is quite a good lens, although with a bit of barrel distortion at the wide end.  The only problem IMO is that it is a bit limited for landscape work.  Either not wide or long enough.  It is great however, if you are thinking of shooting with a 50mm, but want a bit of angle-of-view framing lattitude without having to physically move in or out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, jaapv said:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that 35-70 - it is a fine lens. Even if newer lenses may have somewhat better specs - it is debatable whether the small difference is worth paying serious money for. If you get it, have a trusted repairer give it a clean - there will be some haze.

???

My R 35-70 f4 and two colleagues' 35-70 R f4 lenses have no haze whatsoever.

dunk 

Edited by dkCambridgeshire
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lundyjim,  I agree with Jaapv in his post #2.  The 35-70 f/4 ROM is an excellent lens.  I used it extensively when I owned the R9 w/DMR and it created superb landscape photographs.  Some of my landscape photographs taken with the R 35-70 f/4 ROM still sell via my business to this day.  I also agree with Masjah in his post #5 about the R 21-35 ROM.  The combination of these two superb R lenses will help you create a wide range of most excellent landscapes without overlap.  Both lenses work exceedingly well with the SL and Leica R to L adapter.   Plus you can find both lenses usually in excellent condition.  Worst case you get the lenses CLA'd as suggested and you are off and running.  I think you will have a great outfit to get out and capture the beauty of the world.  r/ Mark

Edited by LeicaR10
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I agree with all that was written about the 35-70. Within it's boundaries it is superb. 
 

BUT it is not very wide. Not very long. Does not handle out of focus that well. Jack of all trades, master of none. Nonetheless, within boundaries it is truly great and has produced some of my nicest pix. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need reasonable performance at infinity setting, I have found that the 21-35 which gave  good results with film  on my late Rs  but could not be mounted on the original SL, still performs with high-pixel sensors (in my case Nikon Z7), so the resurrected  "mongrel" SL.woukld be a good match. although I expect  mr. Karbes later creations would be superior.

p.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ph. said:

If you need reasonable performance at infinity setting, I have found that the 21-35 which gave  good results with film  on my late Rs  but could not be mounted on the original SL, still performs with high-pixel sensors (in my case Nikon Z7), so the resurrected  "mongrel" SL.woukld be a good match. although I expect  mr. Karbes later creations would be superior.

p.

Jono Slack was not impressed with the R 21-35 lens' performance on the SL 601 

dunk

Edited by dkCambridgeshire
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/11/2020 at 12:59 PM, dkCambridgeshire said:

Jono Slack was not impressed with the R 21-35 lens' performance on the SL 601 

If you compare it with the 21/3.4 SEM (take a look at the MTF data @ 21mm) you will see why. Wide-angle zoom lens designs are one of the last areas into which designers are applying modern techniques and they have become far better over even the last decade. They also have to compete with designs such as the 21SEM which is an outstanding lens by anyone's standards. The R 21-35 will still be perfectly usable but is no longer anything like state-of-the-art I'm afraid

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, pgk said:

If you compare it with the 21/3.4 SEM (take a look at the MTF data @ 21mm) you will see why. Wide-angle zoom lens designs are one of the last areas into which designers are applying modern techniques and they have become far better over even the last decade. They also have to compete with designs such as the 21SEM which is an outstanding lens by anyone's standards. The R 21-35 will still be perfectly usable but is no longer anything like state-of-the-art I'm afraid

Consulting the relevant pages of  E Puts's 'Leica Compendium' and yes, the graphs would imply the superiority of the 21mm SEM.  On the other hand, Erwin's conclusion for the 21-35mm Vario states:-

"...has an optical performance that equals and in many cases surpasses the comparable fixed focal lengths and delivers punchy images.

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."

I've used my 21-35mm on M240, M10M (& R5) and enjoyed its versatility and qualities.  This year I have also enjoyed using my new 21mm SEM on M10M but not being a pixel-peeper have not compared corner performance.  The versatility of the 21-35mm does come at a cost (for me, anyway) in that lens + R to M adaptor = circa 600g whereas the SEM is a mere 260g - an important factor when one is as old & doddery as me...

Edited by Keith (M)
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Keith (M) said:

"...has an optical performance that equals and in many cases surpasses the comparable fixed focal lengths and delivers punchy images."

Indeed. We are comparing excellent with outstanding. Many wide-angle (~20mm) lenses struggled to provide good performance on full frame digital sensors. I had a Canon 20/2.8 which was poor at best. But these were lenses designed for film. Since then wide-angle and wide-angle zoom lens design has improved dramatically (it has always lagged behind normal and long lenses). The 21-35 was no doubt a good design and its relative slowness probably helped, but newer designs are extraordinarily good. That said, te 21SEM is the finest win-angle I've ever used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pgk said:

Many wide-angle (~20mm) lenses struggled

Hence my recommendation for the Elmarit-R 19mm Version 2 ROM f/2.8 above.

Except for the extreme corners (blurring and vigneting), this thing still shines 20 years later 😃

Am amazed actually.  I have a few Nikon lenses from that era, but when you get above 40 MP then you can see just why the R lenses were so special.  Even today 😃

The modern 21 SEM is a fantastic lens of course, but you will struggle getting decent quality images from it, and most other M-wides, on non-Leica bodies.

R lenses don't suffer from this, which why they are still in demand, despite being discontinued in 2008.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Keith (M) said:

Consulting the relevant pages of  E Puts's 'Leica Compendium' and yes, the graphs would imply the superiority of the 21mm SEM.  On the other hand, Erwin's conclusion for the 21-35mm Vario states:-

"...has an optical performance that equals and in many cases surpasses the comparable fixed focal lengths and delivers punchy images.

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."

I've used my 21-35mm on M240, M10M (& R5) and enjoyed its versatility and qualities.  This year I have also enjoyed using my new 21mm SEM on M10M but not being a pixel-peeper have not compared corner performance.  The versatility of the 21-35mm does come at a cost (for me, anyway) in that lens + R to M adaptor = circa 600g whereas the SEM is a mere 260g - an important factor when one is as old & doddery as me...

Leica Lens Compendium was published in 2001 ... and likely written in 2000 or prior ... thus pre-digital SLR era. I was happy with my 21-35R used on my DMR (1.37 crop factor) but not so pleased with its performance on my FF SL 601  ... so the lens was sold. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dkCambridgeshire said:

Leica Lens Compendium was published in 2001 ... and likely written in 2000 or prior ... thus pre-digital SLR era. I was happy with my 21-35R used on my DMR (1.37 crop factor) but not so pleased with its performance on my FF SL 601  ... so the lens was sold. 

My reference was to his 'Leica Compendium', third edition published November  2011.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...