35-70 zoomlens, which one?

I am in the market for a small SLR with AE mode and a zoomlens in the

range of 35-70, maybe a 28-70/80. I have looked at the R5 but I

thought the plastic transport lever was rather weak, like it could

very easy break. Has anyone had a problem with this lever? In this

respect I liked the R4 better. Does the R4 s2 has the AE mode?

 

I would like to put a 35-70 zoomlens on it. There is the current 4.0

35-70 of which I have read good reports. There is also the 3.5 35-70

available secondhand, which was a couple of years ago more expensive

new than the forementioned current one. How is this lens?

 

About 10 years ago there was also a Sigma made zoomlens sold under

the Leica name that was not up to Leica standards in optical quality.

What are the specifications of this lens, so that I can avoid it?

 

Thansk for any reactions, Frank

The best one is the current 35-70/f4. It is not a Minolta design, like previous

models, but a Leica design built for Solm in Japan. Some people rank the 35-

70/f4 higher in performance than the 35 and 50mm Summicron primes at

equal aperature settings. That may or may not be true, but it's performance is

better than any other Vario in this focal range EXCEPT for (drum roll).....

 

The king of the hill is the rare 35-70/f2.8. Leica supposedly only made about

300 examples of this lens, which is supposed to deliver exceptional

performance, above anything out there in its class. Unfortunatly examples are

going for $4000-6000 dollars. That is if you can find one.

 

 

feli

Hallo Frank. I have a 4/35-70 and I am very content with it. At 35 it is better than all of the R35s but not as good as the new 21-35 at 35.

The 28-70 is still the old one from Sigma, only in new clothing. The 2,8/35-70 was built as feli said only a few times because Leica made a loss of 1500$ per lens, so they stopped this wonderful lens which was also prepared for AF. Pit

Frank: The newer 35-70mm f/4 is the best zoomlens. Avoid the

28070mm f/4 as there can be some optical distortion that is not

present with the first zoomlens. The 35-70 f/2.8 is certainly "king

of the hill" and is a joy to handle. However, its great weight and

bulk make it a pain to carry and render you very conspicuous. It is

said (by the usual Leica rumor mongerers of course!) that a

newer (ie cheaper) version of the f/2.8 is under consideration. I

don.t know if this will affect either the weight or bulk of the lens

however, issues that rank up there along with the price.

Peter, you said that the 35-70/2.8 was "prepared for AF." do you mean that if Leica ever releases an AF camera this would focus with AF???

<I>I have looked at the R5 but I thought the plastic transport lever

was rather weak, like it could very easy break. Has anyone had a

problem with this lever? In this respect I liked the R4 better.

Does the R4 s2 has the AE mode? </I><P>

The film advance lever on the R5 is metal with a plastic skin.

The same lever is used on the R4s2. The R4s2 (USA: R4sP)

has aperture-priority AE with spot or averaging meter pattern. I

used R4s and R4sP bodies for several years and the film

transport is quite reliable.

Dexter, ofcourse Leica did want to bring out an AF camera, they planned it with Minolta, but Minolta wanted too much for the AF-licence - so the plan was cancelled. The price now for the 2,8/35-70 is a realistic one. So it may be as Albert says, that they plan a changed, less expensiv and big one. What comes is a Summicron-R 2/90 asph (and I hope a prime lens 35/2 asph). Pit

The film transport lever on the R5 is a metal lever with a plastic overlay, and is actually the strongest link in the film transport mechanism, which is the second-least reliable feature of the R4-F7 series after the DOF preview mechanism. The former was lifted directly from the consumer-grade Minolta chassis on which the R4 was based (it is a myth that the R7 has a beefed-up transport, fueled by the thicker bottom area which in reality is only because of the larger battery chamber but otherwise hollow); and DOF preview was a Leica design which is a nightmare of poor engineering compared to its Leicaflex ancestors which were brilliantly simple and totally reliable. However at half the cost of an R7, the R5 or RE have the best feature:dollar ratio of them all, provided you aren't into doing daylight fill flash with TTL and aren't planning on using manual metering very much (less friendly finder display and no 1/2-stop shutter speeds in manual).

 

As to lenses, the 35-70/4 is not just the best Leica lens in that range, IMO it is the *only* Leica lens in that range aside from the ridiculously overpriced and overweight discontinued "rare" 35-70/2.8. The 28-70's and 35-70/3.5's were bought-in from Sigma and Minolta, respectively (though the final version of the latter was assembled in Solms in a Leica-made mount)and though they are not bad lenses by any stretch of imagination, they are no better than equivalent Sigma or Minolta lenses which can be bought for a fraction of the cost.

I would like to thank everybody for their responses and in particular to Douglas Herr I would like to say that I absolutely love the pictures on your internet site.

 

While I was leaning towards the 4 35-70 I was also considering the latest 28-70. Although not as good, considerably cheaper and I wonder if the optical differences would show in normal reportage photography as that is what I plan to do with it. The camera was of minor importance since it is the glass that matters.

 

However, today I ran into a 2.8-4.0 28-80 L usm Canon lens in excellent shape for very little money (less than US$ 600.00). I am going to hook it up to an eos 600 body. Simple but sufficient for my purposes and the lens is a dream come true. I have used Canon EOS in the past and always liked it, the optics, the handling, so the choice was quickly made. So, no leica for me.

 

Thanks again, Frank

Can someone help clarify:

I read in the above responces with reference to "the NEW 35-70, F4". Was there an old 35-70 f4? Is there is, how can I tell the difference?

Thanks.