The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
35-70/4 Query
- Thread starter robmac
- Start date
P
pascal_meheut
Guest
I had one. It was an excellent lens but of course, the f/4 aperture was a big limitation when using film.
I used it also on the DMR and it was ok but sold it because I had no use of a 50-100mm/4 zoom.
I used it also on the DMR and it was ok but sold it because I had no use of a 50-100mm/4 zoom.
MarkSaperstein
Member
I had the 35-70/4, but sold it and replaced it with the 28-90/2.8-4.5. In addition to having a more useful zoom range and being easier to focus, my impression is that images from the 28-90 have a little more pop than the 35-70.
--Mark
--Mark
robsteve
Subscriber
Rob:
The 35-70mm f4 is as good as the equivalent primes in that range. If you don't mind the F4 it is worth giving one a try. If you buy one, make sure you get it cheap, as it may not be easy to sell on the used market, short of putting it on Ebay.
My standard kit for shooting travel in the film days was 28mm, 35-70mm f4 and 105-280mm. With those three lenses I got fantastic results.
Robert
The 35-70mm f4 is as good as the equivalent primes in that range. If you don't mind the F4 it is worth giving one a try. If you buy one, make sure you get it cheap, as it may not be easy to sell on the used market, short of putting it on Ebay.
My standard kit for shooting travel in the film days was 28mm, 35-70mm f4 and 105-280mm. With those three lenses I got fantastic results.
Robert
atanabe
Member
Rob,
I had the 35-70 and really thought it was good lens for the money. I shot comparisons to the Canon L 24-70 on my D-60 and found that the cheaper Leica lens if that is possible, was sharper than the Canon. Another option is the 35-70 3.5 which was made in Germany, (the last version's front elements did not rotate when focused) which is a very good lens as well and can be found sub $600.
-Al
I had the 35-70 and really thought it was good lens for the money. I shot comparisons to the Canon L 24-70 on my D-60 and found that the cheaper Leica lens if that is possible, was sharper than the Canon. Another option is the 35-70 3.5 which was made in Germany, (the last version's front elements did not rotate when focused) which is a very good lens as well and can be found sub $600.
-Al
P
pascal_meheut
Guest
The 35-70/3.5 is good indeed but not as much as the 35-70/4. Especially wide-open.
And the 1m minimal focusing is annoying sometimes.
And the 1m minimal focusing is annoying sometimes.
I had the EF 28-70 some time ago and while good (surprisingly so) when I compare the IQ from it with the MTF from the 35-70/4 and my experience with Leica lenses with similar performance, it wouldn't surprise me the Leica F4 would be better - especially WO - and for 1/3rd less $$$ (900+ for the 28/24-70 vs $600 for the Leica).
The CZ 35-70/3.4 is another candidate, but I don't know how well I'd get along with the whole push-pull zoom concept. That and the Leica is reputed sharper at F4 than the CZ at 3.4.
The asking price for a 35-70 is within spitting distance of the 35 'cron (another candidate) so it's a bit of a toss up. The zoom has more reach, a macro feature and on paper (and by rep) is sharper across the frame at F4 than the 35 & 50 'crons vs the two stops gained, bokeh(?), size and likely resale that is in favor of the 35/2.
The CZ 35-70/3.4 is another candidate, but I don't know how well I'd get along with the whole push-pull zoom concept. That and the Leica is reputed sharper at F4 than the CZ at 3.4.
The asking price for a 35-70 is within spitting distance of the 35 'cron (another candidate) so it's a bit of a toss up. The zoom has more reach, a macro feature and on paper (and by rep) is sharper across the frame at F4 than the 35 & 50 'crons vs the two stops gained, bokeh(?), size and likely resale that is in favor of the 35/2.
I have been using the 35-70/4 for several years. It's an extremely sharp lens due to its ASPH lens surface. In my own experience, I felt it is sharper than both Summicron 35 and 50 at their respective F stops. But it has different image characteristics compared with Summicrons. In the beginning, I felt the 35-70/4 was 'too' sharp and somewhat lack of smoothness that I was familiar with the Summicron 35. But I've grown to like the lens more over time. It's become the standard lens on my R8 when I travel with Leica R system. If you can live with the F4 and limited range, it's one of the best R lenses available, irregardless of the price, IMHO.
For me, the biggest problem of whether to keep my R lenses is the future of R system.
Kind regards,
For me, the biggest problem of whether to keep my R lenses is the future of R system.
Kind regards,
Rob,
Here are few scanned images (Nikon 9000ED) taken with R8 and 35-70/4 (Kodak E100G). These are directly from scanner, PS only used to trim the film edges, no croppings.
Sorry that I don't have any close up that I can find at the moment. Will look later....
Kind regards
Here are few scanned images (Nikon 9000ED) taken with R8 and 35-70/4 (Kodak E100G). These are directly from scanner, PS only used to trim the film edges, no croppings.
Sorry that I don't have any close up that I can find at the moment. Will look later....
Kind regards