Best R 35mm lens or R 28mm lens from a zoom lens?

<p >According to Dale, He stated...<br /><br /><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1001759">Dale Edward</a><a href="../member-status-icons"> </a>, May 28, 2007; 08:43 p.m.<br /><br />Currently, the best optical performance in a Leica R 35 mm focal length is obtained with either the 28-90 mm or the 21-35 mm zooms. Between the 35 mm Summilux 1.4 and the 35 mm Elmarit 2.8, it really comes down to your particular needs in this focal length.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Is this true? That the best optical performance in a Leica R 35 mm focal length is obtained with either of those two zooms? <br /><br />How can that be? A zoom lens has to provide good performance at all focal points. If true, how did Leica achieve this? <br /><br /> <br /><br />How about the latest Leica R 28mm lens...is it the better performer when compared to the choices of 35mm R lens (including the zooms???)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For a full detailed discussion of these issues you really need to read Irwin Puts analyses of the various lenses. Suffice it to say, his comments on the 28-90 at the 35mm mark with the aperture set at at f2.8 are that resolution is above 150 Lp/mm at the center and over 100 Lp/mm at the edges with fine micro contrast and relative distortion is -1%. He details the optical and mechanical designs in agonizing detail, much too long to answer here on the forum. OTOH he also mentions some of the shortcomings of the lens which any buyer should be aware of in the course of normal use. Do a Google search on him, and you will find several hundred pages of his analyses to read for free. I understand that he anticipates publishing his works in the future, at which pointvthey will probably no longer be freebies to review online.</p>

<p>Yes but neither of the two zooms are f1.4 or f2 at 35mm.</p>

<p>Thanks. And I'll have to check out Irwin Puts's analyses. <br /><br />And from what I have read before (not Irwin's words) is the 28mm R is the better performer when compared to all the 35mm Rs and the 19mm R performs even better than the 28mm R. <br /><br />However the 19mm lens is too wide for my use. Then the 28mm R might be the good choice. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Although I have not used the zooms, I'd take this statement with a grain of salt. I own the 2/35 Summicron R, which is an outstanding lens. It has a different chararcter, but I consider it equal to the 2/35 Summicron M pre asph I also own.<br>

I used to have the 1st version 2.8/28 Elmarit R, which is a decent lens, but there are better lenses in the R range. Apparently the 2nd version 2.8/28 Elmarit R is excellent.<br>

The 2nd version 2.8/19 Elmarit R is my favourite of the R lenses I have used. It's stunningly good.</p>

<p>Both 28mm Rs are good, but the 2nd version is superb - I could not see any difference between it and the 28/2 ASPH for the M, although Puts says the latter is superior. I sold it when I went over to Canon and in many ways I wish I still had it as 28mm is my favorite wide angle and there is not a good Canon equivalent. The 35/2 R Summicron is a real beauty and was, with the 80mm Summilux, my favorite R lens.</p>

<p>I currently own a 35mm F/2.0 Summicron-R which I regularly use on my Leica R6 and occasionally on my Nikon D50 and Nikon D300 using a Leitax adaptor. Below I've given a link to some of the <a href=" Shots on Flickr</a>. The shots were taken from June 2008 to July 2010 and please bear in mind that most of the shots have been minimally post processed using either Photoshop or Lightroom. To summarise my opinion on the lens:<br>

A 35mm lens is possibly the most generally useful of all focal lengths in 35mm camera photography. It is ideal for general travel photography, street scenes, groups and family snaps. It gives a markedly wider view than a standard 50mm lens but does not pose the difficulties often encountered with wider angle lenses, when it comes to composition and keeping the camera level.<br>

I hope those samples could offer some help to this thread.<br>

Regards<br>

<em>Fadzly Mubin</em></p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/2864646140_db8f848b8e.jpg" alt="" width="333" height="500" /><br>

<em id="yui_3_1_0_1_12890170622971757">Gears: Leica R6 and Leitz Leica Summicron-R 35/2.0, on Fuji PRO400 Negative<br />Location: Chendering Fisheries Complex, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia</em></p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4431510187_2e439bc57f.jpg" alt="" width="333" height="500" /><br>

<em>Nikon D50 | Leitax | Summicron-R 35/2.0</em></p>

<p>With all due respect, I would primarily consider the creative aspect of working with a 28 versus a 35 mm lens instead. In my book, this would be way more important than "ultimate optical performance". <br /><br />Other important factors would be the speed of the lens (could be that the 1st version 28/2.8 is not that sharp wide open - I have no first-hand knowledge) and whether you would be comfortable carrying and using a relatively large manual focus zoom. I know that I wouldn't like to do that, myself.<br /><br />Note: Please take advice on this topic from a guy who shoots a 1936 wide-angle Elmar (35/3.5) with serious quantities of salt :-)<br /><br />Soeren<br /><br /></p><div></div>