Alternatives of R 35-70mm f4

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I dropped it and caused internal damage. not repairable. I use X Vario as the alternative. 

Sometimes I wish I had an alternative standard zoom on M 240, MATE is a choice, but with limited focal range. I wonder if anyone used Zeiss 24-70mm f 2.8 or Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 (with adapter and evf)? 

[Advertisement]

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

[dkCambridgeshire]

9 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

I dropped it and caused internal damage. not repairable. I use X Vario as the alternative. 

Sometimes I wish I had an alternative standard zoom on M 240, MATE is a choice, but with limited focal range. I wonder if anyone used Zeiss 24-70mm f 2.8 or Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 (with adapter and evf)? 

What type of internal damage? If by any chance it's the focusing helicoid, some independent lens technicians might offer to recut the thread. Newton Ellis Liverpool recut the focusing helicoid on my 'dropped' Leitz R 180/2.8 – which was purchased for £low with very stiff unusable focus.  

[Einst_Stein]

Thanks for the info, Yes, it is the focus or zoom helicord.  The repair cost is higher than a used ZA 24-70mm and much higher than T 28-75mm. So I wonder if I should repair it. 

[Einst_Stein]

28 minutes ago, cbass said:

ZA? That’s a Sony E mount? If so, then in my opinion the Zeiss Contax 35-70/3.4 is the optical superior of the Leica R 35-70/4. I will go retreat now before the flame war begins. 
 

My understanding is both were designed by Kolsch and made by Kyocera.

There is Sony A mount too. I am aware of Contax 35-70mm. It is excellent. Whether it is better than Leica can be debatable. But I want 28mm on the wide end. 24mm is fine but I might not use it much.  

I can find a lot of discussions based on paper sheet, but I am interested in actual user experience, particularly with Leica M (digital).

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Einst_Stein

[Einst_Stein]

Contax Zeiss 28-85mm f3.3~4 is quite highly regarded, and price is good, below $200 for excellent condition. The next to consider is Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 price is even lower (below $150). Tamron is much lighter too. 

[Einst_Stein]

For better IQ, I would use Leica primes. They are lighter too. I use zoom when changing lenses on the go is not wanted. Zoom is definitely a compromise. 

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Before my 35-70mm f4 was damaged and before my MATE was stolen, these are my most often used lenses. I preferred any Leica primes in the range when IQ is more important than convenience, what IQ means to me may not be the same of others, though. But, this does not apply to other Zeiss primes, such as ZM 25mm f2.8 and ZM 35mm f2. I think it is due to the firmware lens correction. ZM has Xmas aberration that is not in MATE, for example. 

As much as I like the best zooms, including Zeiss 35-70mm, 28-85mm, 35-135mm, and 100-300mm, I don’t see them reaching  the height of their prime siblings. At most, close enough at certain focal length and lighting conditions. 

Too much expectation On those zooms is not practical. Nevertheless, this will not dismiss their usefulness and value. Compromise is not a bad word. 
 

[Einst_Stein]

My ZM 25mm and 35mm has color aberration that is not on MATE. 
But, I can tolerate a lot of imperfection. So long as it is the practical suitable tool for the situation. 

 

[edstock]

Prime vs zoom, seems the eternal question for debate. I can only add that I keep my 35-70 f4 on my R3 electronic, or R7 for most shooting. At 35 you have the most preferred focal length, you have 40 which is touted by some as the "ideal" length between 35 and 50. At 60 you have more reach, at 65 and finally 70. I started in photography in the 70's and zooms were just beginning to make their presence felt. I was using a Canon A1-E program and third party lenses. My first zoom was a Canon 35-70 with f3.5-4.5 speed. For walking around in an urban setting the 35-70 is tough to beat. My Leica R 35-70 f4 delivers excellent performance.