Jump to content

advice on choosing r lens


ujjwaldey8165
 Share

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everybody

 

I am considering buying into the R system . My dilemma is : should I choose 2 zoom lens; or stick to 4/5 prime lens28, 35, 50, 80, 135( . I have read some negative comments on the zoom lens, but not sure how correct they are.

 

Can I please have any user's view on the optical quality of 35 - 70 f 3.5 3 cam zoom ; the 28 - 70 f3.5 - 4.5 3cam zoom; the 70-210 and the 80 - 210 3 cam zooms.

 

I might need to make a call on Monday, since there is one available at a pretty good price; so any help will be most gratefully received

 

Ujjwal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been using R glass since the beginning. Two key factors are missing in your post..(1) what type of photography do you do ....travel,street,sports,landscape etc. (2) one body....film? or the DMR . A nice well balanced set of primes works well ( 2 wide angles ,a standard and 2 telephotos) . if you go primes space them out ....for example a 19 ,28 or 35, 50 ,90,180. Lens that represent good value ....the older 19/2.8, the 35 and 50 summicrons, the 90/2.8 elmarit and the 180/3.4 apo .

 

The special lenses (expensive)..new 19/2.8, 50/1.4 newest,90/2apo,180/2.8apo,100/2.8apo,280/4apo and probably a few more ..

 

You do need to know the models and the fair value ...I would look closely at eBay..big difference beteen the old and new 19/2.8 for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica is the best in de prime lenses. I have the 28 60macro 135 and 180. it's a good range. I also use the 28-70, I don't have to change between 28 and 60 that much. But it's less sharp. Also the dept in the pictures are less. The prime lenses are f/2.8 so you need less light. (I sometimes use the extender 2x on the 135 and 180).

 

If you only want zoom lenses I would go for the 35-70 (it has macro) and it's a better lens than the 3cam 28-70. I would look for the 35-70 f/2.8 Macro if I was you.

 

I would never buy a 70-210. It's realy a bad lens. It's zoom mechanism is very very bad.

 

I think the 35 - 70 and a couple of tele-lenses is the best to go for.

 

Hi everybody

 

I am considering buying into the R system . My dilemma is : should I choose 2 zoom lens; or stick to 4/5 prime lens28, 35, 50, 80, 135( . I have read some negative comments on the zoom lens, but not sure how correct they are.

 

Can I please have any user's view on the optical quality of 35 - 70 f 3.5 3 cam zoom ; the 28 - 70 f3.5 - 4.5 3cam zoom; the 70-210 and the 80 - 210 3 cam zooms.

 

I might need to make a call on Monday, since there is one available at a pretty good price; so any help will be most gratefully received

 

Ujjwal

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting thread for me. I bought into the R system a few months ago, with an R7 and a 50mm Summicron, followed by a 180 f4.0. This is far from being my only system, since I have extensive M and LTM film bodies and lenses, as well as an Olympus DSLR with a range of pro glass.

 

That last is an important point, because by use of an adaptor I use the R lenses on the 4/3 body as well. I am interested in something wider than the Summicron, but my thinking is to go zoom for that, since it would not receive much use, and would be more versatile than a single focal length in an area in which I don't have a major need, if you see what I mean.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I please have any user's view on the optical quality of 35 - 70 f 3.5 3 cam zoom ; the 28 - 70 f3.5 - 4.5 3cam zoom; the 70-210 and the 80 - 210 3 cam zooms.

 

For the medium-long zooms the one I prefer is the 80-200mm f/4. Most of these are ROM but occasionally you will find a 3-cam version. This is a sharp lens even at full aperture, flare is well-controlled, bokeh is good, distortion is not bad, and the construction is Leica quality even though it was made by Kyocera (to Leica's specs). The front of the lens also does not rotate when you focus, so using a polarizing filter is much easier.

 

My other experience with Leica zooms in this range is with the 75-200mm f/4.5, made by Minolta for Leica in the late 1980s. For a 1980s zoom it's quite good, but zoom lenses have come a long way since then. It's reasonably sharp and flare is well-controlled, but bokeh can be very harsh, the front rotates when you focus and the construction is adequate but not Leica.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I must say my experience with the 35-70/4 and (the more rare and therefore expensive) 35-70/2.8 are great. The quality is top in both, only difference is amount of light required, weight and price.

 

I like zoom, but don't miss out on the 'special Leica look" you get inthe 80/1.4, 50/2.0, 60/2.8, 100/2.8, 180/2.0 etc.

 

Just based on how I feel today, I would suggest an economical 35-70/4, the very economical 180/3.4 and - as top of the icecream - the 80/1.4.

 

Study those, check prices and eventual visit Doughs outstanding R section http://www.wildlightphoto.com/LeicaReflex (which require password you will have to e-mail Dough to get).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I please have any user's view on the optical quality of 35 - 70 f 3.5 3 cam zoom ; the 28 - 70 f3.5 - 4.5 3cam zoom; the 70-210 and the 80 - 210 3 cam zooms.

Ujjwal

 

The 3.5 35/70 is the older model. The later one is meant to be much better but (at 35mm) my Summicron was sharper. The 28-70 is the lens which has had some negative comments but people using it on a DMR seem to like it.

 

A prime lens is generally better but the zooms are convenient. It depends what is most important to you.

 

Personally I'd stick to primes for wideangle to short tele and a zoom for the longer focal lengths (unless you specifically use longer telephotos then the quality and speed of a long prime may be preferable).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3.5 35/70 is the older model. The later one is meant to be much better but (at 35mm) my Summicron was sharper. The 28-70 is the lens which has had some negative comments but people using it on a DMR seem to like it.

 

A prime lens is generally better but the zooms are convenient. It depends what is most important to you.

 

Personally I'd stick to primes for wideangle to short tele and a zoom for the longer focal lengths (unless you specifically use longer telephotos then the quality and speed of a long prime may be preferable).

 

Although, maximum aperture apart, the 21-35 zoom is superb, and in some cases actually better than a prime within that range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for all the advice. This is what makes this place so special.

 

First off; regarding my photography : its pretty much at the beginners level ( meaning a leica is not justified at my skill level; except that I am lucky to able to afford it). We usually go out every weekend, especially in the summer months, when south of England is at its glorious best. And I practise on my photographic skills, much to the chagrin of my wife and daughter - who also doubles up as a most reluctant model. Most of what I photograph is Landscape - urban and rural; and portraits of my family. Folks have always said my portraits come out better than the landscapes; though I love doing landscape ( and neither, in my view, are really good enough. Got to practise more)

 

I use prime lenses - Leica and Zeiss. Obviously, a zoom lens is much more convenient, expecially when I want to get that perfect shot, and the 'lady of the manor' wants to move on. I was reading on various sites about the 28 - 70 ( 3.5 - 4.5) and the 35 - 70 ( f3.5) lens; and they seemed to have got a bad press. Not sure if it was by people who had used them and were unsatisfied, or mere armchair critics. The biggest point made was it was really a souped up Tamron(?) lens, with the leica looks missing. I fully understand that the primes will be better , but also wanted a more informed opinion whether the zooms are worth going for ( at a price range of say, 200 - 250£).

 

Incidentally just ordered a R4 + 50 mm summicron; so hopefully the next weekend will not rain

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it depends on what I will shoot.

If I go out and know it will be good weather I take a 28,35-70/4 and a 80-200/4.5.

If I know i'll be in low light I'll take a 28,35/2,50/1.4 and 90/2.

The 35-70/3.5 is not that bad, but the 35-70/4 is much better and has macro. And yes I have them both because the 35-70/4 does not work on my Sl2.

I also had the 28-70 bit only used it for a few months. The results were not Leica like at all. If you want this lens you better buy the sigma version with a cheap canon or Nikon body. It is the same lens.

In your case you go outside a lot. I'd buy the 28, 35-70/4 and the latest 80-200/4. This will cover 99,9% of your shooting. Later on you can always add a fast prime if you feel the need too.

 

Cheers,

 

Michiel Fokkema

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest point made was it was really a souped up Tamron(?) lens, with the leica looks missing.

 

Some Leica lenses are in fact made by other manufacturers. Sigma, Minolta, Kyocera - but not Tamron.

 

I've read that in most cases the lenses were manufactured then shipped to Leica's factory where they were checked and adjusted before being sent out for sale.

 

Regarding Tamron, you can get an ADll adapter for the Leica R and some of their lenses are very good indeed especially the SP range.

 

If you can pick up the older 35/70 for £200 (a minolta design I think) I'd go for it and see how you like it. If you decide to upgrade later on you will probably be able to sell it without any loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...Can I please have any user's view on the optical quality of 35 - 70 f 3.5 3 cam zoom...

Four 35-70 R lenses have been sold by Leica.

1. The 35-70/2.8, code # 11275, is a big and expensive lens which is considered one of the very best, if not the best 35-70 ever made but i have no experience of it. See the Leica PDF here : http://www.summilux.net/r_system/pdf/3570_28_e.pdf.

2. The earlier (1983-1988) 35-70/3.5, code # 11244, is a Minolta design made in Japan. I own one copy of it. Its fortes are its rather fast aperture, small size and weight but it is soft at full aperture and its performances are generally inferior to those of the 35-70/4.

3. The later (1988-1998) 35-70/3.5, code # 11248, is again a Minolta design AFAIK but it was made in Germany. It is said to be better that the previous model but i have no experience of it at all.

4. The 35-70/4, code # 11277, is a very good lens that i own as well. At f/5.6 and f/8 its results are very close to those of Leica primes and f/4 remains a very usable aperture to a point that i use it most of the time on my Canon 5D. See the Leica and Erwin Puts PDFs here:

http://fr.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1663.pdf.

http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1846.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

3. The later (1988-1998) 35-70/3.5, code # 11248, is again a Minolta design AFAIK but it was made in Germany. It is said to be better that the previous model but i have no experience of it at all.

[/url]

 

A dealer informed me that the German made lens is the same optically but the lens was built to tighter tolerances by Leica. If I recall correctly the front of the lens doesn't rotate either as it did with the earlier lens, which is preferable if you are using a polariser.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the 28-90 mm 2.8 which I think is a superb lens, even at 2.8. Also have the 21-35 mm which I think is better in image quality then some of the primes. But most of all the 70-180mm 2.8 is one of the best zooms ever made. Have the 35-70 mm macro and interestingly enough use that in macro mode quite a bit. But the lense that sits on the camera most of the time is the 28-90 mm. By the way, the DMR sits on the other end of the camera. I studied these zooms and read all I could about them before selecting them. Half the fun is doing the research.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both the 28-90mm and the 80-200f4 are superb lenses.

Others that I own are the 28mm 2.8 Rom - 50mm f2 Rom - 90mm f2 Canadain version -100mm 2.8 apo Rom and the 180mm.2.8 are also excellent lenses,

I also have the older 50mm F2 came with the SL and the first version 35-70mm3.5 are also very good.

 

I have been using Leica R lenses since the early seventies, and I simply love them.

 

Cheers.

 

Ken.

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!

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.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...