ERWIN PUTS: This LEICA-R zoom lens is better than the corresponding fixed focal lengths!

[PetersPhotoChannel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

I am new here in this forum and wondered why there is still no thread about a LEICA-R zoom lens, which impressively contradicts the rule that fixed focal lengths are better than zoom lenses. Moreover, it is currently available on eBay for less than € 1.000. The lens in question is the

LEICA VARIO ELMAR-R 35-70mm f4 MAKRO

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!

This photo was taken by Adele M. Buttolph and shows the extraordinary imaging performance of this zoom lens, here in macro mode.

Who of you also takes photos with this lens and can contribute pictures here?

More info, including Erwin Puts' assessment of this lens, can be found on my website.

Greetings

Peter

PetersPhotoChannel.com

[Advertisement]

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

[davidmknoble]

@PetersPhotoChannel, great photograph!  Welcome to the forum.

I do have the 35-70 f/4 lens and it is very good.  It is also fairly compact and covers a good range.

 I have also read much of Mr. Puts’ work.  In general he does point to some zoom lenses as being very good, and in some cases better than certain primes. However, he is also famous for saying that it depends on what you are shooting.  In the 35mm side of that zoom there are three other primes:  Summilux, summicron and elmarit (f/1.4, f/2.0 and f/2.8).  Each has their own strength and use.

This lens is very similar to the Leica M Tri-Elmar MATE 28-50-35.  While f/4 is less limiting in the digital world, it needs more light for any given image just because of the f-stop.  Additionally, many Leica lenses perform admirably at their wide-open f/stop, but many also have their optimum f/stop 1 or 2 f/stops higher (here f/5.6 or f/8). In addition, close up performance on many lenses also produces softer details, so a higher f/stop is recommended, further changing the light needs.

If you enjoy zoom lenses, another great Leica R zoom lens is the 80-200 f/4 which runs about $1,400 US or so depending on the condition. It is compact and superb in the 100mm range, although I use it in all ranges.  It is a tremendous travel lens on the SL with the L to R adapter.  So I do think both lenses are good values for their money.  

However, the v2 Summicron 50 f/2, v2 elmarit 90 f/2.8 and the v2 elmarit 28 f/2.8 have stronger performance at f/5.6 in some aspects, than the 35-70 zoom.

I really enjoy the R lenses for use on R film cameras paired with the SL system and adapters, providing both digital and film with the same kit.  Exploring the R lenses can be a lot of fun!

 I’ll try to add some images here as you suggested from the 35-70 as I get time in the next week or so.

[PetersPhotoChannel]

Hi David,

you're of course right - I should have written "better than primes at the same focal length". And even so, of course each glass has it's own pro's and con's, including welcomed imperfections 😉

For me it was simply very surprising that somebody like the LEICA pope Erwin Puts would write something like this about a zoom lens. Until now, I had been convinced that fixed focal lengths always beat zooms by a long way and that the only reasons for a zoom lens were economy, transport, flexibility - or not having to change lenses in a sandstorm. 😉

So, even if the zoomlens would be only at par or slightly below, I'd have been astonished. Until now.

I also just bought the VARIO-ELMAR-R 80-200 f4, in MINT conditions (really) for as low as € 642 on eBay. Now I'm going for the 21-35mm, in order to complete the trinity, but these are much more expensive.

Glad that you entered this thread and looking forward to those images of yours . . .

Regards

Peter

 

 

 

[hepcat]

3 hours ago, PetersPhotoChannel said:

Hello,

I am new here in this forum and wondered why there is still no thread about a LEICA-R zoom lens, which impressively contradicts the rule that fixed focal lengths are better than zoom lenses.

Greetings

Peter

PetersPhotoChannel.com

Good morning Peter.    

"Better" is an ill-defined comparator, and it is often used in misleading ways.  It is a very broad brush and a logic trap.  And photographers have been swept up in it since at least the photo magazines started selling camera ads in the 1950s. 

I have been a working pro photographer off and on since 1971 in a variety of venues and genres of photography; mostly commercial-industrial.  I don't claim any further expertise than that, and I certainly don't have the resume to contradict folks like Erwin Putz; however, my own experience and the job in front of me informs my selection of lens, not reviews. 

That said, I would argue that in use, every Summicron and every Summilux is "better" than every Elmar or even Elmarit.    f/2 and f/1.4 allow you to make images that just aren't possible with an f/4 lens in low light.   Is the ability to actually MAKE an image (regardless of l/mm resolution) "better" than failing at making an image when the ability to use f/2 or f/1.4  comes into play?   In my world, I am paid to bring in the image...  every time...  regardless of the circumstances;  and that's a completely different set of criteria than Putz (and you) are using.   So OBVIOUSLY then, this zoom you're touting is NOT "better" than any other f/2 or f/1.4 lens in the Leica lineup... using MY criteria. 

If the image of the cat you posted is reduced to 1600px and the EXIF is stripped off,  or it's printed in 12x12, matted, framed and hung, there's no way anyone could tell what lens/camera/film/sensor combination was used to make that image, or for that matter, any other image.   And does it really matter?  Are photographers about chasing images or are we about chasing lines per millimeter of resolution and lack of optical distortion in glass?   I would argue that every lens Leica has rolled out during their tenure as an optics manufacturer is competent to make excellent images.    I think that objective discussions on HOW lenses render is a great topic for discussion as some lend themselves to making pleasing portraiture and others to clinical industrial tasks.   The "better" comparative is difficult to assign meaning to,  except in the context of specific tasks where a purpose-built macro lens will certainly outperform a purpose-built portrait lens when doing macro work. 

My point is that every lens has its strengths and weaknesses, and most of them perform at a higher level than the person holding the camera is capable of when used for the purpose for which they were designed.   Many of THE most amazing images in the history of photography were taken, developed, and printed with very primitive equipment on very primitive emulsions, yet they remain iconic; and the lens make/model/maximum aperture is irrelevant. 

I'll  end this by using one my favorite phrases here...  "definitive" comparisons like this are often like folks arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  They're interesting from an academic standpoint, and everyone brings their own perspective to the arguement, but at the end of the day,  the arguments are not terribly valuable unless you're trying to sell copy in a magazine.  

Roger

[AZN]

I have and occasionally use the 35-70 Vario-Elmarit f4.

As others have noted, it is quite sharp.  However it does have image geometry issues: barrel distortion at the wide end and a slight amount of pin-cushion on the long end.

Easily fixed in Capture One, but it's annoying as you have to hand-tune each image.

Have also found the zoom range quite limiting.  24-90mm would have been much better, but of course $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ more expensive.

Consequently I don't use the 35-70mm often.  Presumably many others are in the same boat, hence the lack of posts about the lens.

[Pintpot]

Having been in the photo world all my life, the understanding was that zooms are good but primes are better and this was true of early zoom lenses. Take the 'kit' lenses from modestly priced SLR & bridge cameras for example. Todays high end, and expensive, zooms are another matter entirely. Rather too rich for my blood these days - says the man with 6 primes for his MM246! Anyway here's a shot from the other short R zoom, the 28 - 70 f3.5-4.5 Vario Elmar on my R7.

 

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!

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not having my copy of Erwin's 'Leica Compendium' to hand I cannot quote chapter and verse of his description of the qualities of the 21-35mm Vario Elmar-R versus prime equivalents but it was in the vein of "as good as..."  Haven't put mine to use for quite a while but when I have used it (on R5, M240 and M10M) I have found the results to be very pleasing.  A versatile if somewhat (at 500g) heavy.

Example taken with M240. (Backlit Bodium Castle)

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!

 

[Mr.Prime]

Hi Keith - hard to see but I get a sense of purple fringing from this lens around some of the trees?

[Keith (M)]

7 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

Hi Keith - hard to see but I get a sense of purple fringing from this lens around some of the trees?

Being away from home I've had to choose an example from my Flickr page so perhaps file compression etc etc has come into play...

PS - a small album of results on Flickr.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Keith (M)
Flickr link added.

[PetersPhotoChannel]

Here are two pictures I can share:

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!

This parrot is painted on a decommissioned american war-helicopter and is now a symbol for peace . . .

An that's a painting from Emil Nolde. I made this photograph in a museum, in a room with very little light, and was surprised about the colours and the rendition.

The whole story plus the camera settings are here on my website (just scroll down a little once you get there).

Regards

Peter

[wizard]

Am 11.4.2022 um 10:57 schrieb PetersPhotoChannel:

LEICA VARIO ELMAR-R 35-70mm f4 MAKRO

If you think that lens is good (and it is indeed), give the Leica Vario Elmarit-R 2.8 - 4.5/28-90mm a try when you can. Its performance is mind blowing (at least my own copy is that good). Some years ago, I have taken a shot of the town of Cefalu/Sicily from above (there is a large rock nearby), on Fuji Provia 100F slide film, using the 35mm setting of that lens. When projected large (1.8m in width) onto a screen, there is a small dot visible (from the regular viewing distance of, say, 3.5m it looks like a dust spec on the slide) almost at the lower edge of the shot, next to an ancient wall. Once you approach the screen closely, it turns out that this small dot is a no-parking sign in blue and red, supplemented by an even smaller rectangular white board just below the no-parking sign, which indicates certain hours. Simply unbelievable.

[Pintpot]

On 4/11/2022 at 9:57 AM, PetersPhotoChannel said:

Hello,

I am new here in this forum and wondered why there is still no thread about a LEICA-R zoom lens, which impressively contradicts the rule that fixed focal lengths are better than zoom lenses. Moreover, it is currently available on eBay for less than € 1.000. The lens in question is the

LEICA VARIO ELMAR-R 35-70mm f4 MAKRO

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!

This photo was taken by Adele M. Buttolph and shows the extraordinary imaging performance of this zoom lens, here in macro mode.

Who of you also takes photos with this lens and can contribute pictures here?

More info, including Erwin Puts' assessment of this lens, can be found on my website.

Greetings

Peter

PetersPhotoChannel.com

Peter,

Very much enjoyed your PhotoChannel and your conclusions, and you are correct there's one on eBay for £750 at the moment.

[Huss]

R9, ROM 35-70 f4, c200

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!

[jmahto]

I have 80-200 vario f4 and it is superb. I have shot it only on digital (Canon/Sony crop and M240). It is sharp as a prime and has pleasant bokeh.

I have few pics in my Flickr album from this lens. 

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 October 13, 2022 by jmahto

[Aram Langhans]

I own the 35-70/4 and it is a marvelous lens.  I changed the mount so I could use it on my Nikon F system.  Compared to Nikon's 24-70/2/8, the Leica lens is far superior at all overlapping focal lengths as far as sharpness and CA.  In LR I do not have to look at the lens data to tell which lens I was using.  Just zoom to 1:1 and look for CA.  If there is none it is the Leica lens. The "Macro" mode is also quite good and very convenient.  My 100 APO is better, of course, but I don't drag that around with me on hikes unless I have a goal of taking a lot of macro shots.  Of course, what everyone else has said about the limited range, the F-4 vs faster lenses holds true, but I would not hesitate to use that lens wherever needed and expect excellent results.  I am going to convert it back to R mount and get an adapter for my new Z mount Nikon so I can now use it on my R8 if I am so inclined to shoot a roll of film like I do every so often.