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.

I thought it was a minolta design:
have a look here: http://leica.nemeng.com/019c.shtml

seems not that good...

It is an OK lens, but the current 35-70mm f4 is better and it is no where near the quality of the 35-70mm f28.

The earlier lenses were also poorly designed and would get a wiggle in them. The German version was a mechanical redesign, but same optical formula.

On most Leica lenses, my experience has been that Erwin Puts' Lens Compendium was dead on regarding lens performance. If he posts the PDF again in the future, you may be able to download the PDF of his book and look up what he wrote about the lens.

http://www.imx.nl/photo/downloads/page70.html

Robert

I have the current 35-70 f4 which is excellent on my 5D. I've seen price fluctuates on the 35-70mm f3.5 made in germany but never tried it.

35-70/4 ROM is the way to go. Try to avoid Minolta-design lenses even if they were sold very cheap.

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.

Thanks for all the comment.
Grilled my friend on his claim and he finally revealed that comment is based only on wide open shots.