28-70mm Vario-Elmar-R points

On my other subject of my entire new R8 assortment there were a lot

of conflicting opinions about the 28-70mm all of them made good

points and I wanted to thank everyone for their thoughtful

responses. I know from my research that this lens is controversial.

Here is my thought process why I even considered this lens and

perhaps it can clarify...I still have time to return it if there are

enough compelling reasons to, but this is my rationing:

I have fixed lenses for the M and for my Spotmatics and really only

want zooms for the R8, plus the 50 f/2 for low light (I might also

buy the 90 but not sure, depends on the "deal"). The 28-70 I have is

the first version (which I like better because it has an integrated

hood I don't need to unscrew and reverse)and is costing me just under

$400. At 28mm the distortion is livable and at 35mm it is gone. At

50 to 70 is where I see major distortion at the far sides of the

frame but I have the 50 Summicron, and the 70-210 at 70mm doesn't

show the pronounced distortion. So for approximately $400 I get a 28

and 35mm rolled into one. If I got the first version 28mm (the only

one I can afford, and which is by my research best used stopped down)

and a 35mm I'd be over $1000 and have to carry and change two lenses

for the small (but to me significant) difference in focal length.

And as long as no vertical subjects are at the ends of the shot, 50

to 70 are fine on the 28-70 also. And Martin Tai makes a relevant

point to my intended use: for outside shooting like scenery, the

distortion is not going to jump out at the viewer. Finally, looking

ahead to the digital module back which is probably going to be the

wave of my future at some point in a few years, it will crop the

distorted part of the 28-70 anyway. For about $400 I don't compare

it to a $800 Canon 28-70/L or a Nikon AFS, I compare it to one of the

28-70 f/3.5-4.5 lenses and it is no worse opticaly and way better

constructed. I'm sure the 35-70 f/4 might be a better lens

performer but it doesn't have 28mm so its of no use to me. And the

28-90, as someone said I'd need to take a second mortgage out (if I

owned a house, that is!).

Ben wrote:"The 28-70 I have is the first version (which I like better because it has an integrated hood I don't need to unscrew and reverse)and is costing me just under $400. At 28mm the distortion is livable and at 35mm it is gone"<p>

Exactly, that is the whole Zen of using a zoom: almost every zoom lens

provide ONE focal length, at which the distortion is zero, even better

than the distortion figure of Summicron 50, (< 0.5 %)<p>

Mine VE28-70 is first version, I bought it new in 1990. It is my most

used Leica lens. The built in hood is computer desinged variable hood, at 28mm, it is a 28mm lens hood, at 70mm it becomes a 70mm lens hood. Very nice feature, very convenient. To replicate such a variable hood on

the 2nd version, some sort of bellow hood is necessary<p>

"I compare it to one of the 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 lenses and it is no worse opticaly and way better constructed"<P>

Exactly, it is an all metal construction construction, barrels and zoom gears

that is why it focusing ring is so smooth like silk. The only

'non Leica' like part is the rubber wrap on the focusing ring. In the

second version, Leica replace that part with metal.

Ben,

One of the great things about this forum is that folk do debate their points of view

and relate experiences with equipment. This becomes a valuable resource for those

participating and who also come along after us. Discussions over the R system tend

to generate some heat here and that is on the whole a good thing. It produces an

archive of full of divergent thought.

You obviously understand that at the end of the day one can listen to as many points

of view as you like. Ultimately we as individuals have to take the plunge and find out

for ourselves whether a piece of gear fits the bill or not. It would be a very boring

place indeed if our approaches to photography were the same.

Thanks for relating your storey, and hope you enjoy the new toys.

Regards, Craig

Having read plenty of not very good stuff about these 'cheaper'zooms from Leica I stayed away from them.I bought only when I could get them really cheap.I got a first gen.(and supposedly Sigma formula tweaked by Leica but still Sigma built)35-70VE and it had plenty use on it and was loose and somewhat foggy inside.Being cheap I took a chance to tear it down and clean it myself.Put back together and it seemed better through the viewfinder.I took it for a few shots along with some primes on the same roll.I lost account of which shots were done with what and could not tell by their quality in the prints either.Still the lens was loose due to excessive wear but taking great casual shots.Of course being slow lenses the depth of field is rather large.Not much margin to toy with that like in the primes.

Next I bought the 21-35 and I find it stunningly sharp,good distortion control and flare and glare control too.

Next I bid on a 28-70mm on ebay and got it for very little money .It was the final nail in the coffin of the bad reputation of these lenses.It is a fine performer.Could it be that maybe there is not really good qc at the alternate factories for some of these(and it's seems to be more true for the first gens. of the 80's)batches?The performance is not far from the 21-35mm for which I payed around the typical price.I haven't even looked hard for distortion because the pics make the task pointless.The texture and color are so nice you just stop looking .Isn't that the point of it? A balance that makes the lens enjoyable if not stunning?Anyway one thing I noticed is that the screw-in hood and the front cover form a dust tight seal.The lens keeps clean longer.