Vario Elmar 1:3.5 35-70 Lieca R

Hello ye Leica faithfuls,

 

<p>

 

I am wondering about the shooting quality of the Leica 35-70 1:3.5. Is it as aweful as everyone says. I understand it was made by Minolta? Does this lens perform similar to other japanese lens of this era? i.e. Canon, Nikon, Pentax?

Or does this lens have any Leica redeeming qualities at all? I have read the 1:4 35-70 is far superior (but still not quite in my budget yet). Better to wait to purchase this version? Don't even get me started on the 1:2.8 version. I'll never purchase one in this life time (I don't think).

I am looking for a Leica zoom in this range that will afford me the flexibilty it will provide. I am primarily a Wedding Photographer (special events, portraits).

 

<p>

 

Your comments are appreciated.

I have never seen this lens called awful. It is generally thought

that it is as good, or better than any mid 70's zoom made by Nikon

or Canon. In fact the PhotoDo website rates it a 3.6, on par with

such lenses as the 35-70 F2.8 A/F Nikkor. There are two versions of

the lens, both optically the same, but with different barrel

construction. They are easily idendifiable due to the fact that the

earlier, Minolta-made version has a rotating front element, while

the later German-made (Solms) version does not, making it easier to

use with polarizing and gradated filters. As well the earlier

version had some vignetting problems wide open. Also the earlier

Minolta lenses are prone to a wobble that develops in the barrel of

the lens, that while supposedly does not affect its sharpness is

annoying. I've had one of the German versions for about a year now

and am very pleased with it. The newer F4 version is rated sharper

at the edges, but as 90 percent of what I do is of the portrait

nature it is nothing I've ever noticed (the old 'if the eyes are

sharp it's a good portrait'). I have an upcoming gallery exhibit

that is all printed to 11X14 and 16X20 and the images through this

lens appear to be as sharp as those made with my 35 F2 Asph M lens.

Expect to pay twice the money for the German version, well worth it

in my opinion.

I don't know if it's better than the other Japanese lenses of the

same time frame, but there are other considerations:

<P>

Do you use polarizing filters? the E67 version of the f/3.5 lens is

much more convenient than the earlier E60 version or the current

f/4.0 lens.

<P>

Are you using a Leicaflex? The f/4.0 lens is R only, with ROM

contacts. Either f/3.5 lens can be used on any Leicaflex, given

appropriate metering cams.

<P>

If you decide on the f/3.5 lens, look for the later E67 version. The

optical unit was made by Minolta as was the older version, but

mechanically it was re-built by Leica and is less likely to develop

mechanical problems with age. <BR>

See http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/35~70r35.html

Dear Brooke: I used to have the 28-70mm F3.5-4.5 R zoomlens

and traded it in last year for the 35-70mm F4. What a difference!!

The F4 is sharper and a joy to work with. I recently saw and used

the 35-70mm F2.8. It is very sharp but heavy and therefore a pain

to carry around. The price ($6800) is ridiculous and I suspect will

drop once Leica figures out how to produce the lens in greater

quantities. In sum, go for the 35-70 F4. You won't regret it.

The 35-70 f4 can be found in great shape used for under $700 and often under $600. Jim Keuhl usually has them in this price range. I think it would be a mistake to purchase the older lenses. The first version is usually wobbly and sells for $3-400, the 2nd is as much as a brand new 35-70 f4. The 35-70 f4 is my most used lens and it's performance is wonderful.

Hello All,

 

<p>

 

ThHank you all for the great answers. I will look for the E67

version, or an 1:4 (which ever one becomes available first at the

right price) as polarizers and grads come in handy. Plus I have a

Bronica bellows hood that holds modified Colkins that I use a lot. I

shoot with a late model R4 so the ROM is not currently important.

Although I am saving for an R8.

cheers,

Brooke

The 35-70/3.5 is as good as what it is: a 1984 vintage Minolta

zoomlens. Except that it is priced as a Leica lens. It also has a

close-focus distance of 1m (about 3ft)vs the 35-70/4 which focuses

down to a few inches in its "macro" setting. True, the fly in the

ointment is using a polarizer, which is for all purposes impossible

with the newer lens. I got an E60 B+W polarizer and ground off the

front threads; it does not vignette except in the close range (under

3m) at the 35mm setting.

A better alternative to the 35-70/3.5 IMO is the Tamron Adaptall 35-

105/2.8SP (not to be confused with the current 28-105/2.8SP).

This lens is hardly awful. I have an E-60 German version

mounted to a SLII, and it matches the built quality quite nicely

(i.e., like a tank). I use a polariser, so this had to be it. And there

is no need to grind off front threads to avoid vignetting. Many

manufacturers make thin mount polas. But if you're seriously

considering a R8 and don't plan to keep the R4, then a newer

ROM may be a better choice.