A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Leica and Rangefinders > Leica R > Leica 35-70/4 VS 28-90/2.8

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

Michael Fan , Aug 03, 2009; 06:52 a.m.

Can anyone tell me which lens gives a better image in term of contrast, resolution etc....?
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.
What is the resolution in term of lp/mm for 35-70/4 ?


    1   |   2     Next    Last

John Shriver , Aug 03, 2009; 09:36 a.m.

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.
See http://www.imx.nl/photo/ebooks/llcforweb.pdf

Douglas Herr , Aug 03, 2009; 10:28 a.m.

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

Robert Meier , Aug 03, 2009; 11:11 a.m.

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

sonny Chastant , Aug 03, 2009; 11:50 a.m.

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.

sonny Chastant , Aug 03, 2009; 11:54 a.m.

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.

sonny Chastant , Aug 03, 2009; 11:55 a.m.

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.

L DaSousa , Aug 03, 2009; 01:01 p.m.

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.

Charlie Chan , Aug 03, 2009; 03:12 p.m.

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.


Rob F. , Aug 03, 2009; 09:55 p.m.

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.
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 does say "Designed by Leica Camera MFD in Japan."
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.
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.

    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses