miguel_jiminez Posted June 22, 2000 Share Posted June 22, 2000 How good is this lense as compared to equivalent fixed focal lenses. In Erwin Putts' page the newer 35-70 f4 gets very good marks. I'm thinking of downsizing my equipment to a very good zoom plus one or two lenses for low light shooting. For the record, I would use this lens for the moment with an adaptor on a Canon EOS camera, only for B&W. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_schank Posted June 24, 2000 Share Posted June 24, 2000 Someone else can correct me here if I'm wrong, but I was told this lens was made for Leica by Sigma. That doesn't mean it isn't a good lens, but it sure makes it hard to justify the price difference, especially if your going to put it on a Canon body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_smith Posted June 24, 2000 Share Posted June 24, 2000 Andrew was correct. The new book, "The Leica Lens Book", by Brian Bower, states that the lens is a dirivitive of the "successful" Sigma design. The narrative states the performance is about the same as any low end consumer lens, with the expected aberations, based on that level of design. Vignetting and barrel distortion are evident. Miguel, I would if I were you, (wanting to down size), get a good prime lens within that range. A 35 or 50mm summicron will give you the Leica quality with an increase of one and a half to two stops of availible F stop. I can't speak for this exact lens, but I tried very unsuccessfully to use Sigma lenses on my Nikons... the key word being "unsuccessfully"! Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z1x4y7 Posted June 25, 2000 Share Posted June 25, 2000 Al: <p> Most of my experiences with Sigma match yours [i haven't had much luck with the one Sigma Zoom that I have]; but there are exceptions. I have about 14 Nikon fixed length lenses between about 16 and 300 mm. I have one Sigma; a 135 mm. This particular lens is better than my Nikon lens of the same focal length. In addition, I have a Sigma 85/1.8/t-mount for my Minolta [purchased in the 60's]. It has awful flare problems, but used properly, it is outstanding. Otherwise, I have also been unsuccessfu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miguel_jiminez Posted June 26, 2000 Author Share Posted June 26, 2000 Thanks for the info. More or less what I wanted to know. <p> As for my downsizing strategy, yes, having to or three prime lenses is another option. I already have the 35 Summicron, which I find very good at f2 and f2.8. Sometimes I'd just like to have a zoom for the convenience, without losing optical quality. By the way, my first lense was a Sigma zoom which I don't use anymore (it will be a victim of the downsizing), because I simply like my prime lenses better. Sometimes I also prefer autofocus for the convenience as well. But this is only the nerver ending problem of finding the perfect outfit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_smith Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 Miguel,I think that seeing that since you have the 35mm summicron, you would be best served by living with that for awhile. I've gone through the whole gambit of "gotta have it", but after many thousands of dollars, I have arrived, (a bit too late), to the minimalist school of thought. I've lugged a 20 pound bag through Europe and Asia, only to be frustated by what I left on the shelf back home. Then again I spent a month in Spain with a single Leica M3 and a 35mm lens. It was liberating. 4 months in the philippines with only a 50mm lens also proved fruitful. The lack of "potential versitality" of a full outfit is more than made up for by the speed, mobility and lack of decissions when it is one camera and one lens. You will find yourself being in the right place based on your total understanding of your lens and its angle of view. 28-70 sounds good, but your feet and the 35 will get the same shots...better, sharper and in most any light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_schank Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 I purchased an older Tamron SP 35 to 80mm F2.8-3.8 Macro zoom to use with my Leica when I want a zoom. The lens was used by a press photographer who was now retired, and he swore by it. I did some side by side comparisons to my R primes, and except wide open, it holds it ground. It goes nearly 1/2 life size on the macro, and the macro shots are extremely sharp. It is built beautifully, with very smooth focus and zoom action. You may want to consider it, as you can pick one up on e-bay for $140 + the Leica R adaptall mount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTC Photography Posted July 5, 2000 Share Posted July 5, 2000 For downsizing, Leica' new lens Leica R Vario-Elmar f2.8 35-70mm ASPH may be an attractive alternative. It has a macro setting focusing down to 30mm. I am thinking of upgrading my Vario Elmar 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 to this ASPH Vario. The Vario-Elar 28-70 /3.5-4.5 was based on a Sigma, but with Leica QA and all metal construction, instead of metal + plasic for Sigma version. German foto Magazin rated Vario-Elmar 28-70/3.5-4.5 as Optik performance 9.6; construction quality 9.6. Leica Summicron f2.0 35mm 9.4/9.6. It is quite good, enlargeable to 24x 36" One gripe: The lens is a bit too long to fit into the Eveready case ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_smith Posted July 5, 2000 Share Posted July 5, 2000 Martin, If you think the 28 to 70 is inconveient due to its size preventing the use of an (n)ever-ready case, the 35-70 2.8 is a monster. It weighs 1000 grams, (2 and 1/4 pounds) and is six inches long. that is twice the weight and length of the 28-70. It also takes 77mm filters. The list price exceeds the price of a brand new M6 with 50mm Summicron. It may be outstanding, but if I lugged that big of a package around just for 15mm on one side and 20mm on the other side of a faster 50mm lens, it wouldn't take me long to see the folly in that selection. Miguel, I reiterate from a previous post, zooms are not the great panacea they are made out to be. Use your 35mm summicron forever and use the money you would have spent on a new lens to take a trip. That can expand your photo horizons and leave you with shots and memories that will last a lifetime. Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTC Photography Posted July 5, 2000 Share Posted July 5, 2000 Al, your are right. It is upsizing, not down sizing :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTC Photography Posted July 6, 2000 Share Posted July 6, 2000 Was the Leica R Vario-Elmar 3,5-4.5/28-70 really Sigma ? Sigma made 3.5-4,5/28-70 for Canon AF EOS, Nikon and other non AF cameras. Lens Length Weight Vario Elmar 3.5-4.5/28-70 length = 84mm 468 g Sigma /EOS length = 63.5mm 330 g Sigma UC 3.5-4.5/28-70 64.5 mm 330 g Apparently Sigma 3.5-4.5/28-70 for EOS and other non AF camera were the same lens, being of same weight and nearly equal length. The length of Vario-Elmar was more than 20 mm longer, and weight 50 % more. Vario-Elmar 3.5-4.5/28-70 was not Sigma 3.5-4.5/28-70 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_smith Posted July 6, 2000 Share Posted July 6, 2000 Martin, I have three different publications that all corroberate this fact. the latest is the book that I quote in the post made earlier. Cosmetics can look very different, while optics are the same. The 90mm elmarit M is the same optical formula as the last R series. Even though the back focus had to be added to make up for the mirror box absence on the "M", the lenses still look dramatically different. The diameter of the lenses are completely contrary to the fact that if you stripped away all of the metal... you would have the exact same lenses. Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTC Photography Posted July 7, 2000 Share Posted July 7, 2000 German foto Magzin tested over one hundred zoom lenses, no other lens achieved a rating of 9.6/9.6 and five star "foto SUPER" rating. except Vario-Elmar 2,5-4.5/28-70. Sigma 3.5-4.5 /28-70 came second, at 9.6/9.4 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 3,3-4.9/28-85 came third, also a 'foto SUPER" and rated as optik 9.6 mechanik 9.2. Nikkor 3,5-4.5/28-85mm 'foto Super" rated only 9.2/8,8 Leica Vario-Elmar R 35/35-70 did not made it to "foto SUPER", with rating of only 9.0/9.6. No matter what the association with Sigma would be, the Vario_Elmar 28-70 it is an excellent lens. "Sharp and brillant at wide open, at 28mm slight vignette, disappear stop down". IMO, in this zoom range, the only other zoom lens as good as Vario-Elmar is the Zeiss Vario-Sonnar, but it is much heavier and longer.. So far I am quite happy with it, so do other users in LUG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_smith Posted July 7, 2000 Share Posted July 7, 2000 Martin, The only true test of a lens is... Do you like it? And it appears that you do, so that should be the only validation that is needed. As far as magazine tests, Popular Photography rated the 50mm Summilux poorly. I bet that shocked all of the happy users who didn't know they shouldn't like their lenses. Also could a German photo magazine have a vested interest in showing Leica and Contax lenses to be superior to other (Japanese) models... Possibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTC Photography Posted July 7, 2000 Share Posted July 7, 2000 Al, Popular Photography test labs was run by Kenny Yamamoto (?), and Leica lenses faired poorly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_fong1 Posted July 10, 2000 Share Posted July 10, 2000 I have used the VE 28-70 for a while and find it every bit as sharp as equivalent zooms from Nikon and Canon. Very convenient and user friendly for travelling and quick street shots. But eventually I gave it up for a 24/2.8 Elmarit and use this in tandem with the 50'cron. This has shown to be the perfect combination for me. You might find otherwise. The reason I gave up the VE is because of the very noticeable barreling at 28mm setting. It drives me crazy everytime I see that. The 24 Elmarit has very little distortion despite being wider. The bottom line is what you intend to do with this lens and what level of distortion you are willing to put up with. As far as sharpness goes, I think the VE is very good if you stop down 1 stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_smith Posted July 10, 2000 Share Posted July 10, 2000 Surfing around again... Found a reveiw of various 28-70 lenses including the Vario-Elmar. There is a follow on review linked to this site for the 3000 dollar 35-70 2.8 Leica zoom. <p> I must guard against my blood pressure raising from all of the grains of salt that must be taken with these reviews, (ha, ha), but this one jibes with others floating around... believe it, reject it, here it is: <p> http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Forest/2252/review6.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTC Photography Posted July 11, 2000 Share Posted July 11, 2000 Al, thank your for the geocity URL. It is a surprize that the f2.8 ASPH zoomdid not outperform the slower lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTC Photography Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 Steven Fong wrote that there was "noticeable barrel distortion at 28mm setting"??I check my Vario Elmar 28-70 at 28mm, pointing to a window frame, there is very little barrel distortion at 28mm setting, hardly visible, and gone completely by 30mm.Steven must have mixed up with other lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTC Photography Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 Surfing the web, I find a picture taken with Vario Elmar 28-70:It was on the cover of Leica Historical Society Viewfinderhttp://www.lhsa.org/vfcover322f.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTC Photography Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 Re Zoom lens vs prime lens.With the wide spread use of sophisticated computer aided lens design software, moderm zoom lenses are approaching the performance of prime lens.A few years ago, PoP test a zoom lens vs a prime lens (Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.7 ) and concluded thatthe zoom lens was nearly as good as the prime.Many famous photographers have no hangup on zoom, for example, Art Wolfe uses zoom lens in his landscape photography.Six or seven years ago, I used to bring a Carl Zeiss T* Distagon 28mm f2.8 lens and a Planar 50mm f1.4 lens on trips; because I hate changing lens in the middle (dust got into the camera )I carried to Contax bodies, one lens on each. After I discovered the Vario Elmar was rated ***** by German magazin, I bought one new, and test it with Kodachrome 25, found out thatthe pictures were indistinguishable from my Zeiss Prime lenss (both were five star lenses ), I never look back. Why ? Because prime lens does not provide the same ease in "cropping on the fly" framing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robin_smith Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 Martin <p> OK, OK already, I'm convinced! I still won't get one though as 3.5- 4.5 is too slow for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_smith Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 I would have to agree with Robin here, The lens is too slow for me also. I use Nikon as my SLR (sorry leicaphiles!)and purchased their 28-70 3.5-4.5 zoom, which received good reviews. It utilizes aspherics to reduce the number of elements to 8 in theory reducing potential flare that some zooms display. After a couple of walk-a- bouts, I found myself packing my 35mm f1.4 lens for the aperture... the zoom proved too slow on numerous occasions. Shortly there after I noticed the 35 stayed on my camera most of the time... later the zoom didn't even make it to my bag... it just didn't earn its keep. <p> 28-70 just isn't broad enough a range that I couldn't simply step forward or backward to frame. The long end isn't truely tight enough for headshots and I like the "environmental" look of the 35mm anyway. <p> As the car ads say, "your mileage may differ" This zoom range may be fine, but to me the viewfinder sure does get dark fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTC Photography Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 Fast lens of f1.4 /F1.0 has long being a forte of Leica rangefinders. There are fast lenes for Leica R, but the advantage is not as great as M series due to more camera vibration. F1.4 at 1/4 sec has long being a specialty of Leica photography (represented by HCB ). With R series, 1/25 sec is the lower limit of hand holding. As for 35mm lens, this is undoubly the most popular focal length, as evident from the large number of compact camera with lenses in this range. I find out that for low light situation, I rather use the super sharp Minoxar lens of my Minox GT-E at f2.8 and hand held at 1/4 instead of using my f1.4 Carl Zeiss Planar lens at 1/25; with my GT-E loaded with TMAX 3200, I can use it in nightclub with shutter speed about 1/8 to 1/15, comfortably hand holdable and not attracting attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTC Photography Posted July 18, 2000 Share Posted July 18, 2000 Leitz introduced zoom lens into Leicaflex as early as 1970 with Angenieux- Leicaflex f2.8 45mm- 90mm 15 element zooom lens. Angenieux was a major player in zoom lens for motion picture industry (an Oscar winner ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now