Leica f/3.5 35-70 or Leica f/4 28-70

[huubl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have both. Which one to keep?

[Andreas_Kreuz]

Rock, paper, scissors
Why one is it? It's your decision

[Katzenjammer]

[davidmknoble]

@huubl, the f/3.5 lens was designed in 1983, the f/4 lens in 1997.  The f/3.5 lens designed by Minolta, the f/4 lens designed by Leica.  I had the f/3.5 lens long ago and sold it, and have had the f/4 lens for about 2 years.  I prefer it personally…

[huubl]

yes, thanks. I know there is a huge quality difference between de 3.5 and the 4.0 35-70 lenses. But I meant the 3.5-4.5 28-70. Sorry for this. I know both these lenses are inferior to the 4 35-70, but which one is the less inferior than the other?

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!

[davidmknoble]

@huubl, I apologize!  I read too quickly…  I have so little experience with theses lenses, but Puts does say that the 28-70 (sigma design) was an improvement over the earlier Minolta design, “but is no match for the current Vario-Elmar R 4/35-70.”  28-70 first computation was 1990 and a second improved 28mm in 1998, so I do not know which version you have.  It seems like the 28-70 has a lot more noticable distortion than the latter.  I am also a big fan of a constant f/stop for manual metering … Curious which one you land on..

[Stuart Richardson]

It seems like both are rather old and probably pretty mediocre performers, but one is a 28-70 and the other 35-70...seems like the 28-70 gives you a more practical zoom range. Probably that is enough right there to make it better? But also, why don't you just test them and see which you prefer? Or sell both and get a 35-70mm f4?

[masjah]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

It seems like both are rather old and probably pretty mediocre performers, but one is a 28-70 and the other 35-70...seems like the 28-70 gives you a more practical zoom range. Probably that is enough right there to make it better? But also, why don't you just test them and see which you prefer? Or sell both and get a 35-70mm f4?

........ or sell them both, dig into your piggy bank, and get a28-90 (just a thought!).

[davidmknoble]

3 hours ago, masjah said:

........ or sell them both, dig into your piggy bank, and get a28-90 (just a thought!).

I had the 28-90 vario lens, it is expensive, and I ended up not liking it as much.  For much less you could get a 35-70 f/4 (which is a very good lens) and an Elmarit 90 f/2.8 prime (v2) which is just about the same as the M lens.  I also really like the Elmarit 28mm v1 which is incredibly small (and inexpensive).  It covers the whole range, albeit not a zoom, but also gives you wide open ability to focus at f/2.8.  On a film camera, the 28-90 can give hard to focus at 90mm because the f/stop is so high…

Great lens, just wasn’t for me.

[huubl]

Thank you all guys! Since I also have a 50 Summicron and 35 Elmarit, it seems quality wise and monetary wise I'll be better off with a fixed 90 Elmarit (or 135) for a classic lens set than with any of the two zooms. I'll sell them both.

[davidmknoble]

3 hours ago, huubl said:

Thank you all guys! Since I also have a 50 Summicron and 35 Elmarit, it seems quality wise and monetary wise I'll be better off with a fixed 90 Elmarit (or 135) for a classic lens set than with any of the two zooms. I'll sell them both.

@huubl quick note.  I also have the Elmarit 35.  I find it has a lot more distortion than I like.  I use it, but take great pains to keep it paralell to my subject. The version 1 Elmarit 28mm doesn't have that distortion and is a fun lens to use.  

Here is an image I posted take with the Leica SL2-S (24mp) and the Leica R Elmarit 28mm f/2.8 Version 1.  It's not very expensive, especially compared to the newer version 2. 

I