Leica 35-70/4 VS 28-90/2.8

<p>Can anyone tell me which lens gives a better image in term of contrast, resolution etc....?<br>

As from the MTF data, they dont differ from each other very much (Correct me if I'm wrong) but the price of 28-90 is a lot more than the 35-70.<br>

What is the resolution in term of lp/mm for 35-70/4 ?<br>

Thanks!</p>

 

<p>No surprise the 28-90 costs more, wider focal length range, and a stop faster. Such things are never free. Also, it's Leica-manufactured, where the 35-70 was made by MInolta, with Leica adding a layer of tough quality control.<br>

See <a href="http://www.imx.nl/photo/ebooks/llcforweb.pdf">http://www.imx.nl/photo/ebooks/llcforweb.pdf</a></p>

 

<p>The 35-70 f/4 is a Leica design made for Leica by Kyocera. It's not a Minolta lens.</p>

<p>The 35-70/4 is the best zoom lens I have ever used, equal to the best primes.</p>

<p>I agree....I have used and own the 35-70 F4 lens and it is as good as the primes. Additionally, the macro setting is very useful, too. There is a huge price difference between the two lenses but unless you have to the have the 28mm setting, it is not worth the extra cost.</p>

<p>Additionally, Doug is correct...lens is made by Kyocera, not Minolta. The mechanics of the lens are as good as the other (6) Leica R lenses that I own.</p>

<p>Additionally, Doug is correct...lens is made by Kyocera, not Minolta. The mechanics of the lens are as good as the other (6) Leica R lenses that I own.</p>

<p>When I had R I had that lens during maybe three months. I bought in exchange for the 28-70 (ex-Sigma) which was so distorting on both extremes that I was unable to use where were any straight lines in the picture. The 35-70 F4 had a remarkable performance, however I found it too small a range and too slow (not so easy to focus @ 35mm) for useful. Because I still needed to carry a 28mm and a 90mm, I rediscovered that with a 50 I could almost always take one or two steps fwd or rear and get the same shot as the 35-70, plus many more since the 50 was 2 stops faster. </p>

<p>I've had both the old 28-70 and the 28-90 asph. The 28-90 asph is a cracking lens, way way better than my old 28-70. I haven't used the 35-70/4 though. Personally I would buy the 28-90 if you can find one at a good price.</p>

<p>Charlie</p>

<p>I have the 35-70 ASPH f/4. I can agree that it is a very fine performer. However I might comment that in some shots I took with it at the top of Fall River Road, in Rocky Mountain National Park, I did get some veiling flare. I don't know why, as I have not seen that in other shots with the same lens. I've taken many pictures with both Nikon and Leica primes in that same (high altitude) location, and never saw this before. Film was Velvia 100.<br>

I had been under the impression that this lens was designed and built by Leica in Germany, so I just took it out for a look. By golly, it <em>does </em>say "Designed by Leica Camera MFD in Japan."<br>

I have had the 28-70, which was a Sigma designed and built lens. Yes the distortion is there, though my sample was not as awful that way as some reports would indicate.<br>

I've also had the 35-70 f/3.5. That's a Minolta lens, which must be what John was remembering. Not a bad lens, really. It has "personality," both optically and mechanically.</p>

<p>I have the 28-90mm, and I recommend it very highly. I used it for most of my work on the DMR. It is very high resolution, has a wide and useful focal range (I do find the space on the wide and long end to be useful), and the speed on the wide end is useful as well. It has great bokeh as well. There is very little to criticize with it. Yes, price is high, but if you are smart with your purchases, you can get a good deal. I bought used -- today Leica R prices are really really low, so you can probably find one for less than the Nikon 24-70 (which is almost as good, but it falls apart in the corners). </p>

<p>I knew the 35-70mm f3.5 was a Minolta design, rebadged for Leica R (as was the 75-200mm f4.5) but I had wondered about the 35-70 f4. It didn't occur to me that Kyocera might have made it. I suppose that though there were links between Leica and Minolta, the Minolta guys might draw the line at being a mere subcontractor for a Leica lens design.</p>

<p>I have the 35-70/3.5 Minolta MD and I find it to be quite good. I thought the earlier 35-70/3.5 Minolta lens (without the button for macro/close-up use) was the one also sold as a Leica lens.</p>

<p>I have had a 28-90 for many years and concur... simply outstanding. I had the 28-70 as well as the 35-70 and they were good & great respectively but not comparable to the 28-90...<br>

Go for it and you will not be disappointed...</p>

<p>I have had a 28-90 for many years and concur... simply outstanding. I had the 28-70 as well as the 35-70 and they were good & great respectively but not comparable to the 28-90...<br>

Go for it and you will not be disappointed...</p>