StevenPA
Online
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #6 · Leica 35-70 f3.5 E67 Germany | |
weekh wrote:
Any comment on this lens? A friend was telling me that this lens is 2nd only to the 35-70m f2.8. It is better than the Leica ASPH 28-90mm and Contax 35-70 f3.4.
If you want a Leica zoom in this range, then the 35-70/4 is the version to get. It's better than the 35-70/3.5, which is a Minolta design from the 80s, both optically and ergonomically. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the Leica 28-90/2.8-4.5 can't be used on a Canon body. The rear shroud has to be removed to fit on a Canon, but doing so releases a spring that interacts with the aperture lever, rendering it inoperable.
At one point in time, I had the Leica 35-70/4 (now sold) and Contax 35-70/3.4. I compared them directly, and this is what I found.
Leica
better ergonomics; shorter focus throw; better macro function (more adjustable and smoother focusing); wide open performance is slightly better than the Contax, especially in the corners; aperture control ring is easier to get at considering the use of adapters; aperture has half-stop detents (Contax has full-stops); cooler colours; better hood (more compact - but does it work all that well?); junky cap (What were Leica thinking?).
Contax
brighter maximum aperture makes for slightly easier manual focusing; long focus throw allows for better accuracy; 67mm filters are easier to find and cheaper than the Leica's 60mm; better contrast; stopped down to F5.6+ just beautiful all over (the Leica never seems to get as sharp though it's close); better flare resistance.
Conclusion
It will always be difficult to pick a clear winner here. I used both lenses on and off depending on how I felt. The Contax has the edge in image quality, while the Leica has better ergonomics, so I tended to use the Contax when I know I'll be on a tripod and used the Leica when I knew I'd be changing focal lengths and focus ranges more on the fly. I've said it before about these exact lenses: if the Contax optics could be put into the Leica casing, well, I'd pay a lot of money for that.
|
