Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/04/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]As I read this pdf it seems Erwin is hot on the 1998 designed 2.8 aspheric lens designed by Leica who by that time would seem to be sick of the mediocrity being put out for them by Minolta or Sigma. I think at least the view could be thought of as Leica was at that time finally was able to view zooms seriously. Not a decade too soon. Which if you are going to be in the SLR biz you'd think you'd need to be in the mind set of. http://tinyurl.com/3clqktr >From the Leica en site and he wrote it in 1995 Minolta in 1983 the 3.5 LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 35-70 mm Sigma in In 1990 the f/3.5-4.5 LEICA VARIO-ELMARR 28-70 mm Both as Erwin is concerned are a huge compromise that people concerned with Leica quality would not be bothered with and nor would the Leica design team. And didn't stop their wide use. Again you'd need to read it yourself as this is my phrasing. He says that not only does not the 2.8 ASPH zoom not lag behind the fixed lens offerings but steps ahead of it. Reading between the lines I think I'm getting that size and weight wise the trade off being that the 2.8 ASPH was a bit of a monster. But what saves the day for Leica R glass users is that a year before in 1997, Leica had come out with the f4 35-70 mm LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R with Leica quality and design but without the high speed and is an ASPH without saying so. And has design similarities with the TRI-ELMAR-M 28-50!?! I take an unusual view of not caring at all for ubiquitous 2.8 zoom monsters that most serious shooters seen to find necessary to be seen with and use. If I need large apertures I'll just use a fixed focal length lens. And I'm like that now last time I looked. Even though I'm now using a backpack with an internal frame for my camera hauling. Erwin seems to be saying that the f4 is the "first choice" which to me means he'd use it over the 2.8. If that's what he's saying than I'm glad to have the same view of that. F4 is a very nice f stop. I've always liked it. I never met an f4 I didn't like. To me on the LUG I don't see the point of talking about zooms made by Minolta and Sigma in the same paragraph as those made by Leica. Just became Leica put their name on it does not me we have to blur that line as well. I have to say that the concept that a zoom can exceed fixed glass in any way is one I have always had little problem with - even reading it here from Erwin. The Rabs > From: Michiel Fokkema <michiel.fokkema at gmail.com> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:10:04 +0200 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] 28/35-70 R zooms: recommendations? > > Puts is enthusiastic about the 4/35-70. I agree with him. I had the > 28-70 and it's not worthy of the Leica name. The 3.5/35-70 is not too > bad but the f4 outperforms it easily. > > Cheers, > > Michiel Fokkema > > On 25-4-2011 23:07, Stan Yoder wrote: >> There is the Sigma-designed 28-70, the Minolta-designed f3.5 35-70, >> and the Solms-designed f4 35-70. Puts is not especially enthusiastic >> about any of them, though the last-mentioned above seems the least worst. >> >> The Solms 28-70 would be too big/heavy for me. >> >> What do 'yinz' (Pittsburghese for 'you all' or 'you ones') say? >> >> Stan Yoder >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > -- > ----------------------- > Fokkema Fotografie > www.michielfokkema.com > +31(0)615569576 > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information