Seeing as I will be going to my Leica dealer tomorrow morning, I'd better ask this question quickly! I am thinking of trading in my R 28-70 Vario for a 35-70 4.0 after reading about how much better it is. Does anyone agree with my decision? Or is the difference in quality not worth the difference that I will have to pay after the trade? Secondly, does the R50 2.9 'cron have a place in my bag along side either of the two Varios? I am considering it purely for image quality and maybe a bit for the speed? Help! Only a few hours to go...

-- Reynald la Gaillard (Reynald@wanadoo.fr), March 07, 2002

Answers

Reynald: I had a 28-70 as an entry level to leica R and I really didn't like the lens, when used at 70mm the thread mount receeds deeply into the lens and a polarizar filter can't be used, besides that at 28 mm wide open huge aberrations showed up on the corners of the image. I sold it and went for prime lenses. But the 35-70 seems to be a better lens, polarizars can be used and aberrations are not as bad as with the 28-70. I have not used it though, but , as far as I know is a much better lens. (the 28-70 is made by Sigma, not Leica ) I don't know who makes the 35-70. The 50 focal lenght, is always a much sharper lens, that is with all brands. therefore if you want to make a big blow up you can use this one for that purpose. Good luck with the trade, and don't let them pay you too little money for your 28-70, it still can deliver good photos!

-- Marco (marco_hidalgo@hotmail.com), March 07, 2002.

Reynald,

I have never used the 28-70 so I cannot comment on that. I do have the 35-70/4. I really like the lens and the convience of the zoom and occasional Macro.

However, I tend to shoot slow speed film and find quite often I want a faster lens. I carry a 35/2 with me just for that purpose. Obviously a 1.4 lens would be better but I like the size and weight of the f/2. Plus there is the price!

Are you having problems with lens speed with the 28-70? If not I would go with just the zoom.

I don't know if the 50/2.8 will help that much in your case. I guess it would depend on you, the suject, and the film. Also , some photographers just love their primes and would not be without them.

One thing I have noticed about my 35-70 is that if I have to, if concentrate on technique and shoot at slow speeds (for a SLR) at f/4, I can get pretty good results! I am not sure why, but the mass of the R8 might help stabilze things somewhat.

The real question is, are you unhappy with your 28-70? If not I would keep it. I have seen some great work by talented photographers using that lens. Speaking for myself, the lens is not the weak link in the process. It is usually my lack of knowledge, technique, or vision that yeilds an unstatifactory image.

Some of the best advise I have been given has been said here many times "Save your Euro's/Dollars and buy film." I doubt there is going to a shortage of the 35-70 anytime soon so take your time. Can you borrow one from the Leica rep or dealer? Get one and shoot a few rolls. Then decide.

I hope some of this helps. In any case, I wish you the best of luck with your decision.

Stay safe!

-- Scott (PFD261@hotmail.com), March 07, 2002.

I'm not a zoom user (but, actually, think that is one thing that SLRs are good for). I have/do use the recent 50 summicron, and it is really nice. To see the flag's individual stars and stripes, and the pointy tops of radio antennaes on top of a 20 story building 1/4 mile away, and see that the full power is limited by the film grain (provia), with accompanying brilliance, is nice. I got it fairly cheap, but if I had the 35-70, I don't know that I would have the need. I suppose if Iwera landscape person, the 50 (or 35) would be my lens, but for people/portrait/grabshot/motion I would bet the 35-70, and probably the 28-70, woudl be hard to distinguish.

-- Lacey Smith (lacsmith@bellsouth.net), March 07, 2002.