Re: Question about R series and 28-70 Vario-Elmar f/3.5-4.5

["Charles E. Love, Jr." <cel14@cornell.edu>]

At 11:39 PM 1/18/97 +0100, you wrote:
>I recently joined this list since I am an aspiring Leica owner. I have two 
>questions:
>
>1).... Are the R bodies not considered true Leica's? I notice that 
>the R6.2 and R7 were apparently designed by Minolta but are built by Leica
(although the R8 is apparently a Leica design). Are the R6.2 and the R7
designed and manufactured up to the same quality standards as the M series?

Leica had a relationship with Minolta that bore fruit in the '70's.  The R3
is very close to a parallel Minolta model, and so is the R4, though both
were toughened up, had features added, and were built at Leica factories.
As the R series has moved on through the R5, RE, R6, and R7, Leica has
slowly (as always!) changed them, moving them away from the original Minolta
design.  Probably the least Minolta-like of these is the R6 and R6.2, since
they are all manual.  The R8 is, as I understand it, a "pure" Leica design.
The Leica CL rangefinder and its descendants, whatever they're called, were
mostly designed by Leitz (up to the CLE) but built by Minolta.  The lenses
are really fun--some built by Leitz, some by Minolta.  (If you ever find a
bunch of Leica fans in a bar, a good trivia question to ask is "What
Leica-built lens was sold as a Rokkor?")  The Minolta relationship extended
to SLR lenses, some of which used just a Minolta design and glass (e.g., the
24), and others of which were actually totally made by Minolta (e.g. the
first 35-70 and all the 70-210, 80-200, etc. until the current one, which is
built by Kyocera).  There are certainly Leica purists who have contempt for
the Minolta-derived SLR's ("The last real Leica SLR was the SL2!" is a
typical sentiment), but the Minolta-derived ones are generally OK except for
the R4, which had many problems.
>
>2) Leica is offering a package of the R7 with the 28-70 lens at about USD 
>2,500 (through B&H in New York), presumably to clear out R7 inventory as 
>they ramp up sales of the R8. I would prefer the R6.2, but could live with 
>the R7 at the lower current price. This lens seems to be a versatile way to 
>enter the Leica lens system (I would certainly buy some prime lenses over 
>time as budget allows), but I heard that the lens is produced by SIGMA of 
>Japan! Now, I am sure that Sigma can manufacture lenses to very high 
>specifications if they want to (I have some of their lenses in Nikon mount), 
>but somehow it seems difficult to think of the words "Sigma" and "Leica" 
>together. Question: How does the 28-70 zoom compare to other Leica zooms 
>(like the German-made 35-70) and all of those fine Leica prime lenses? Does 
>this zoom use the same glass as the Leica R primes made in Germany? Or 
>should I avoid this lens in spite of the current promotional price as a 
>starter lens?
>
I haven't owned the Sigma/Leica 28-70.  The anecdotal evidence on it is not
good, and I understand it's been discontinued.  The "German-made 35-70" is
in fact a Minolta design, and has been changed optically only slightly over
the first 35-70, which was built by Minolta in Japan.  The later one has a
larger lens mount which does not rotate, so a polarizer is easier to use,
but will not perform noticeably better than the first one.  The anecdotal
evidence on both these lenses is quite good (and my direct experience is
too).  If my  budget were restricted to that $2500, and I wanted a zoom, I'd
buy an R7 body and a mint used first-version 35-70--this lens is way
underpriced on the used market because it's not made in Germany.  I'd also
not feel bad having an R7 vs. an R6; the R7 has all R6 features, including
the mirror lifter, and can do more too.  If you are worried about battery
power, take an extra!

Hope this helps.  Have fun!  Charlie
Charles E. Love, Jr.
CEL14@CORNELL.EDU