One version of a "standard" zoom lens. Why do people like these?

 

This is the zoom lens I wrote about yesterday. It was made by Leica for their R system film cameras starting in 1997. Its specs are pretty meager by current standards. The zoom range is anything but wide-ranging, going from "only" 35 millimeters to 70 millimeters. The fastest aperture is f4.0. It can only be focused manually. When using an adapter to mount the lens on anything but an R series film camera you'll need to do your focusing in the stop down mode. I'd make a case that it's smaller and lighter than current lenses but it's really not. Not when you add the lens adapter to the mix. If none of that appeals to you and you shoot with any number of other cameras there are plenty of current, modern lenses that weigh less, cost less and give you a lot more features. An example would be the Sigma 28-70mm DG DN f2.8 lens. Wider range, all the features, and a full stop faster into the bargain. 

When this lens was introduced I think the prevailing sentiment was that you could replace three individual, single focal length lenses with only this one zoom. In fact, reviews and legend suggests that when comparing a Leica 35mm, 50mm and 80mm lens, used at the same aperture as this one's fully open aperture (f4.0), this lens was actually a better overall performer. If you like wider angles of view you would be out of luck. If you needed longer focal lengths....well.... you could crop the frame or you'd just have to choose a different lens. But for people who like to shoot in the neighborhood of 50mm "normal" lenses this was a sensible choice for those wanting only one lens to carry around. 

It's no secret that I like the 50mm focal length. Lately, I've gotten more and more comfortable with 35mm focal lengths as well, and I'd never say "no" to focal lengths a little longer than 50mm. I think of this lens as a standard 50mm with the option to add a bit more or get just little tighter. It's more of a "frame adjustable" lens that a real 21st century zoom...

The advantage that Leica fans will trot out is that the optical performance is quite good. And in its heyday I'm reasonably sure it was a top of the line solution in a short range zoom. Now? There are plenty of good zooms on the market that are cheaper, faster and easier to use. But those of us who seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid from Leica persist in thinking that these lenses maintain their value because they offer some secret sauce of imaging that makes photographs taken with them different and, subjectively, better. 

In the 1990s I used a Nikon N90s and a Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 lens to photograph many events. It felt like a good range to me then. The 35mm "short" end of the lens kept me from composing group shots in which the people on the edges of the frame seemed to gain 50 pounds and grow heads the size of melons. At the same time the longest focal length of 70mm pushed me to get in closer to people and actually have human contact instead of standing back and sniping. It was a good solution for my way of shooting. 

That lens got replaced by the Nikon 28-70mm f2.8 which seemed very large at the time. Now it's been eclipsed in size and weight by any number of new 24-70mm zooms. 

At the time of its introduction the biggest complaint about the lens was the "slow" maximum aperture. And with early digital cameras I can see this would have been less than optimal. The early sensors needed lots of light and everything got dicey when ISOs topped 200 or 400. Now though an aperture of f4.0 can be seen in a different light. Would you be willing, in a time of clean and fairly noise free ISO 6400 camera sensors, to trade off one stop of light gathering for better overall optical performance? Seems like a reasonable question, especially if you are a "street photographer" and normally work by zone focusing to a hyperfocal setting and using f8.0 or f11 to provide greater depth of field. Then the f4.0 versus f2.8 argument becomes largely irrelevant. 

My interest in this lens falls into the category of, "could this be a really nicely corrected 50mm that provides the option to go slightly wider or slightly tighter as a situation suggests?"

The 35-70mm would make a nice travel lens when paired with either a Leica SL2 or a Panasonic S5. In the case of the SL2 one could also use the APS-C crop mode to boost the longer end of the focal length range. One menu change and you'd switch from 35-70 to something like 52.5mm to 105mm. Alternatively you could use this lens on a Leica CL and also get that longer range. But you'd have to be comfortable either foregoing wider angles or acquiesce to carrying along an extra lens; something like a 24mm.

Around the same time Leica also made a much larger (2x) 35-70mm f2.8 ASPH lens which was said to be an outstanding optical performer. It quickly became quite rare as collectors snapped up nearly all of them. If you want that extra stop of aperture and would like to own this completely manual, short zoom lens you'll find prices for mint copies start around $12,000. That's beyond my ability to rationalize burning money. 

I've been told by people who have had the pleasure of photographing with both the 2.8 and the 4.0 versions that from f4.0 on down the lenses are similar. The f2.8 is better but not by a huge margin. Ostensibly, by f5.6 they both tend to deliver both high contrast and high resolution. So, if you can find very nice copies of the f4.0 for around $850-$1,000 is it really worth it to you to spend the extra eleven thousand dollars to gain one stop? While doubling the weight?  Or, as one friend speculated, one might be able to do just as well with the f4.0 lens if one was willing to nudge that sharpness slider over a bit further to the right in post.....

If I buy the lens it will definitely be for the smaller profile and lower weight when compared to the two different native L mount zooms I currently own. One is the Leica 24-90mm f2.8 to f4.0. I love that lens for work but it's large and it weighs a ton. Its optical performance is better by far than many expensive prime lenses I've used from other camera makers. I use it on nearly every commercial project. But on those projects I don't need to carry it around for hours and hours as I would if I were taking a lens on vacation. Or for travel projects. 

I'm also quite comfortable with manual focusing, manual operating lenses because that's what I grew up with and I've never veered too far from those practices, and the acquisition and use of older MF lenses. 

So far I'm pleased with the lens and have done some research. The lens achieves its highest performance at f5.6. At that setting and with all focal lengths it's said to have great micro-contrast and the appearance of snap and three dimensional representation. I won't mind shooting travel stuff at f5.6 all day long. In fact, after reading Erwin Puts's assessment of lenses in general having high performance and diffraction limiting at f5.6 seems potentially superb. I also note that 35mm is the sharpest setting. 50mm is just a little behind that but brings "no distortions" to the mix. The 70mm setting is just a hair behind the 50mm but is crisp by f5.6.

It's sunny and nice out today. I'm waiting for a tree service to drop by at noon to cut up and haul off all of the branches scattered across our property. If they are on time and fairly quick I'm going to head out and shoot photographs for the rest of the day to see if the lens is as super and comfortable as many think. 

One more note: Having a lens that was built to a very high level of mechanical and optical tolerances while not having the complications of auto focusing or in lens image stabilization, or plastic gears and other internals, should mean that the lens will have a much longer life, is adaptable across any number of mirrorless lens systems, and should be much more reliable. If you are using the lens predominantly for travel then these considerations should be given their due. 

Technical consideration:

Leica focused writer and researcher Erwin Puts wrote about getting the best out of a lens and camera system. He suggested that having a high enough shutter speed is critical for handheld photographs in systems that eschew mechanical image stabilization. And even in conjunction with them.  I like to think I can handhold a 50mm at around 1/125th of a second with minimal camera shake. He disagreed and felt that 1/250th should be considered an absolute minimum and that 1/1,000th+ was demonstrably better. 

That's prodded me to experiment a bit more. I'm setting my camera to Manual. I'm putting the 35-70mm lens to its optimum aperture of f5.6 and setting my minimum shutter speed to 1/500th of a second. I'll let Auto ISO take care of the exposure and we'll see if it makes an observable difference in the rendering of fine details. Always good to find different ways to achieve higher image quality. We'll see how it pans out in the real world. 

Comment on whatever you want but let's stay away from overall Leica bashing and the idea of Veblen products. I know this stuff costs money. I know other stuff is cheaper. I don't really care. None of this is even a tiny down payment on an Aston Martin. And far cheaper to maintain than a backyard pool...