sebboh wrote:
35-70/3.5 is minolta. i've heard tell the mirror 500/8 is as well, but i've never looked into it.
the minolta md 70-210/4, 16/2.8 fisheye, 800/8 RF were also sold under the leica label
I regarding Minolta highly for their out-of-the box thinking (24mm VFC, 135 STF). For the premium pricing, however, some prefer to experience Leica-branded glass as an in-house design. Of course, the true cognoscente will use the Yashica 24/2.8 ML.
JohnJ wrote:
People speak of the R24 like it's an embarrassing old alcoholic uncle. I always liked it and frankly look forward to using it on a FF body again.
JJ
It is fairly awesome, if you like the focal length.
JohnJ wrote:
People speak of the R24 like it's an embarrassing old alcoholic uncle. I always liked it and frankly look forward to using it on a FF body again.
I just bought a Leica R 35-70 f:3.4 for my NEX 7, and I love it, considering the price and functionality. The soft colours and contrast are a welcome alternative to the razor sharp rendering of the C/Y 35-70. So I am not at all surprised to learn that it was born a Minolta. The only restriction is that the focus throw is a bit too hort, so that achieving perfect focus with a highly revealing camera needs a good amount of TLC
No, the f:3.5. Sorry for the mistake..:-(
It seems that the f:3.5 is a Minolta-sourced lens, Vs the f:4.0 which was sourced from Kyocera. I bought it, because it very soft and delicate colours are a complete opposite to the Contax G's übercontrast, and thus complement my bag nicely.
Thanks for all your answers guys. I think I better give it a miss on this one. Plus I was trying to get a decent wide angle, the fish eye might just be an over kill. The 19mm is probably more suitable but at a higher cost alas, all good thing come at costs.
"Later Leitz cooperated with Minolta and offered from 1983 the LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 35-70 mm f/3.5 as a Leica branded lens."
and
"in 1997, Leica had introduced a lens with a maximum aperture of 1:4 and the same range (35-70 mm) that offered almost identical image quality (PP: to the f2.8 lens) in a more convenient package: the LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 35-70 mm f/4. For some reason Leica omitted the designation ’ASPH’ for this lens, although it has an aspherical surface."
Quotes from Puts.
The f4 benefited from Leitz's experience designing the majestic 2.8/35-70mm ASPH Vario. Puts rates the f4 highly. Despite which, it never really took off like the Contax counterpart, though there are a few very nice images shot with earlier in this very long thread.
JJ, it seems people either love each specific Leica-R lens or reject it utterly...strange but true.
Thank you, John. I love the 100 APO for portraits/headshots. it is also strong at infinity, with similarly lush colors. The focus throw for portraits is manageable. For long to infinity, there is not a lot of travel in the focus, so it is easier than some lenses to miss it WO. That said, it is much sharper across the frame from WO to about f/5.6 at infinity than the Contax 100/2.
Because of the weight of the Leica lens, rather than its performance, I generally shoot landscapes with either the Contax 85 or 100.
philip_pj wrote:
carsten they made both the f3.5 and f4:
"Later Leitz cooperated with Minolta and offered from 1983 the LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 35-70 mm f/3.5 as a Leica branded lens."
and
"in 1997, Leica had introduced a lens with a maximum aperture of 1:4 and the same range (35-70 mm) that offered almost identical image quality (PP: to the f2.8 lens) in a more convenient package: the LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 35-70 mm f/4. For some reason Leica omitted the designation ’ASPH’ for this lens, although it has an aspherical surface."
Quotes from Puts.
The f4 benefited from Leitz's experience designing the majestic 2.8/35-70mm ASPH Vario. Puts rates the f4 highly. Despite which, it never really took off like the Contax counterpart, though there are a few very nice images shot with earlier in this very long thread. ...Show more →
Not sure what you're trying to say here.... as far as I know the early 35-70 f/3.5 is a re-branded Minolta lens, the late 35-70 f/3.5 is a Minolta design & optical cell with a Leitz barrel, and the 35-70 f/4 is a Leica design made for Leica by Kyocera.
Waded through EP Levine's used section today (very bad organization on that site) and came across this... Leica 280/2.8 APO for $1999. That's a couple hundred less than I paid for mine in like condition. Excellent lens, and price difference between it and the 280/4 is much larger than the performance delta.
freaklikeme wrote:
Waded through EP Levine's used section today (very bad organization on that site) and came across this... Leica 280/2.8 APO for $1999. That's a couple hundred less than I paid for mine in like condition. Excellent lens, and price difference between it and the 280/4 is much larger than the performance delta.
How did you assign a dollar value to the performance delta?
freaklikeme wrote:
Waded through EP Levine's used section today (very bad organization on that site) and came across this... Leica 280/2.8 APO for $1999. That's a couple hundred less than I paid for mine in like condition. Excellent lens, and price difference between it and the 280/4 is much larger than the performance delta.
telyt wrote:
How did you assign a dollar value to the performance delta?
I didn't have to assign a dollar value. The price is roughly half that of a used 280/4. Having used both, I know you don't get twice the performance out of the newer, slower lens.
Do you mean the 35-70/4?
alas, all good thing come at costs.