3570 mm f 4 any experiences

[Guest]

Yesterday i saw a used 35-70 / 4
for 650 Euros in a shop. It seemed to bee in a good condition. I m thinking about buying it.
Is the quality similar to lenses like the 35/2 or 50/2 ?? Has anybody these lenses at home and checked it out ?

 

[Guest]

>This is a very good lens. Much better than the 28-70. The 35-70 is fully usuable at full aperture. I don't have the prime lenses but according to Erwin Puts this lens at full aperture is as good as the prime lenses at 4.0

 

[Guest]

Dear Martin,

I have all three lenses and only use the prime focal lengths in preference to the 1:4/35-70 Vario-Elmar-R when I need the speed.

At f/5,6 the Vario-Elmar-R is stunning, I suspect Apo quality.

The only concern I have had, and I would have this check being a second-hand lens, is the lens centreing. It was sent back to Solms and fixed under warranty.

Other wise a fantastice lens.

All the best.

Justin

 

[Guest]

Dears, it's my most favourite leica lens, excellent optical quality w/ macro feature. Frankly speaking, the color tone is quite different from my prime lens, more satuated like those from contax or olympus. Everyone won't be disappointed ...

 

[Guest]

Hello friends, just got on this forum for the first time. I recently traded my M equipment (too much difficulty focusing because of aging eyesight) for a R6, with 50 'Cron and older 28 Elmarit. My questions concern the focusing screen:

1) - It looks a bit dark to me. It's the matte (I think) with grid lines. How can I remove it, and then clean it? Do I need special tweezers?
2) - What would be the clearer screen you would recommend? I don't like the microprism-split-image kind.
3) - What about Beattie screens? Would I have to recalibrate the meter?

Thank you.

 

[Guest]

Sorry, people, I posted this on the wrong thread. Newbie...

 

[Guest]

I have used the 35-70/4 since it was released, and it is a very good lens. I sold an Angenieux 2.5/35-70 when I bought the Leica lens, and the Leica is clearly superior. I doubt one will notice any difference to the prime lenses, in fact the 35-70 zoom is probably better at 35 mm than the 35/2. I have recently bought a 35-70/2.8 which is absolutely stunning, but it is twice the weight and the volume of the f4, and I have not yet quite made up my mind if I will sell that one or not.

 

[Guest]

> I switched from the latest 28-70 to the 35-70. The 28-70 is not Leica quality in my opinion. Especially distortion at 28 is too high. Also the full opening is not very usable. The 35-70 however is very good. also the full opening is totaly usable. To compensate for the 28 I aquired a 24 which is also very good.

Best regards,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[Guest]

Although I don't know the exact prices, the 35 - 70 probably costs considerably less than 35, 50 75 primes. Would the differences in slides be discernible to my amatuer eye? Should I save until I can afford the three primes? Or will I be reasonably happy with the shots produced bythis zoom?

All advice appreciated. As I stated, I'm an amateur.

 

[Guest]

Dear William,

I have the 1:4/35-70 Vario-Elmar-R as well as the 1:2/35 Summicron-R and 1:2/50 Summicron-R.

In practice with projection of 80X magnification and prints of 15X magnification I cannot detect and difference.

I keep the prime lenses in reserve when the wider apertures are needed.

My suggestion is buy the Vario-Elmar-R and only consider the primes if necessary. Recently my family and I spent six weeks in Europe and shot nearly fifty rolls of Provia 100 with the Vario lens. In my pocket I had the Minilux with Provia 400 for low light situations. For once I never felt the need for anything else.

Best of luck.

Justin