Nothing makes gaming look very appealing to me.
I like older gear. I like gear that I've mastered over the years instead of kinda got functional with in a couple of weeks. And I like lenses that were not optically compromised by lens designers hellbent on answering market demands for outrageous ranges of focal lengths and ultra high speed apertures. I've always understood that slower lenses from premium makers can be superior at their working apertures because it's easier to hit manufacturing tolerances with more modest specifications and it's easier to design for quality if you aren't brushing up against the very edge of what might be possible. Physics wise.
Given the choice I'll always take an f4 zoom over an f2.8 zoom if both are made to high standards by top makers. Why? Well cameras with BSI sensors have almost unlimited ISO ranges now so I don't need the one stop more light gathering power for any real reason. But by choosing the slower lens I get a package that's smaller, lighter and can be made to more stringent tolerances ---- which leads to better performance at critical (open) apertures. The brilliant Leica lens expert, Erwin Puts, wrote that optical engineers told him that it takes a 4X increase in manufacturing precision for each doubling of a lens element diameter. Let that sink in. If a manufacturer uses the same process for fast lens elements as they do with slower (smaller diameter) lens elements the win goes to the slower product. If they are already working at the maximum precision the slower lens has the potential to be 4X more precise. And that plays out with macro lens designs across all camera and lens makers, as well as in microscope lenses and enlarging lenses. This is probably why you don't see f1.2 enlarger lenses in catalogs --- or in real life.
So, at least as sharp and potentially better optically corrected, smaller, lighter, less cost to purchase. All wins for the slower zoom lens, for sure. What do you give up? One stop of light gathering potential.
When Leica made lenses for the R mount they made a progressive series of 35-70mm lenses. Each generation improved over the one before it. Near the end of the run of Leica R SLR systems they made two different versions of the traditional 35-70mm lens. One is the 35-70mm f4 ROM lens that I recently bought and the other is a 35-70mm f2.8, constant aperture zoom, which I could never justify buying.
I got a screaming deal on the mint condition 35-70mm f4 version that I bought. Coupled with a Novoflex adapter I can use the lens on all my L mount equipment. I'm reasonably sure Leica also made an R to M mount adapter as well which means I could use the lens on an M camera if I'm willing to use it in a "live view" mode. I paid well under $1K for both the lens and the adapter.
The lens isn't perfect. It has a bit of distortion at both extremes of the focal length range. But I hesitate to even use the word "extremes" since we're talking a very small range of focal lengths compared to many modern zooms. The distortion can be easily corrected in post and the distortion isn't complex or ample so you won't lose much of your file should you decide you need to correct. The tonality and sharpness is good and the lens is charming to use. All metal. Smooth focus and zoom rings. A nicely clicked aperture ring, etc.
The f2.8 ROM version of the lens is nearly twice as heavy, bigger by about 50% and currently sells, used, for anywhere from $8500 to $12000, currently. I haven't used the lens personally but I've read so many reviews comparing the two as well as comparing MTF charts from Leica which show very small differences in overall performance. That's a huge cost difference if, in effect, one is only really getting one stop more light gathering --- or a modest decrease in depth of field when used wide open.
I've used the 35-70mm f4 a lot recently and have become attached to it. But I've also been right sizing my lens inventory in other ways. I found that I had three very competitive version of both the 35mm M lenses and the 50mm M lenses. I traded them in a partial trade deal with a photographer friend who made a compelling case for needing M lenses for his SL2 cameras. Part of our trade deal was me receiving a "like new" Panasonic 24-105mm f4 S lens. I owned one previously; bought it back in 2019 for the Panasonic S1 cameras I was using at the time.
It got replaced by the Leica SL 24-90mm lens when I traded off the Panasonic bodies for the Leica bodies. But it was, in retrospect, a mistake to let that first 24-105mm lens go. It was a very nicely done lens albeit in a polymer compound body. The benefit over the Leica zoom is in weight and size. And also the incorporated in lens image stabilization which works well enough. In conjunction with the newest Panasonic bodies it can give a photographer up to 7 stops of image stabilization because it works with the IBIS of the bodies.
Compared to the Leica, price wise, it's almost in the category of a "crash" lens. So when it's pouring rain outside or there is a risk of damage or loss involved on a shoot the Panasonic is an easy choice. I'm sure the Leica out performs the Pana but certainly not by much and not enough to move the needle if you don't have clients to impress. I wanted one back for the extra focal length at the long end and, well, if I drop it and destroy it I won't cry as hard. Or much at all.
The Panasonic lens is not all that much smaller than the Leica and while they are slightly different in weight the Leica feels heavier in the hand because it's more dense. I wish both lenses had been designed with integral tripod mounts because using them in vertical orientations on tripods is --- daunting and frustrating. That nose tips down quickly. A quarter inch tripod screw just isn't enough. I have since gotten a Novoflex tripod mount attachment for the Leica lens and it works quick well. Having both lenses gives me the option of using the Leica when verticals are mandatory.
And, just a note, for some reason I like the older SL version of Leica mirrorless cameras better than the newer models. Don't know why and I don't care. Love that I have the choice.
On Topic for VSL: Tomorrow will be the first day back to swim workout in over two weeks. I'm watching swim races from previous championships and Olympic games on Youtube to try to remind myself about how to swim. The swim bag is already packed and in the trunk of the car. I can't adequately express just how damn happy I am to be going back. I'm starting to think that daily swims are like crack cocaine...
Tangential targeted news for the blog in general: When I drove to Fredericksburg, Texas a couple of weeks ago my windshield got smacked by an errant roadway pebble. It left a tiny 2mm divot on the lower right side of the glass. Yesterday I drove to San Antonio on the scariest interstate highway ever (IH35) and had a second roadway meteorite hit near the center of the windshield. I bought a kit to repair the divots. It worked just fine on the first, smaller one. I'm waiting till morning to see how the other repair pans out. I was miffed. B. pointed out that I can afford to replace the entire windshield if I need to. That doesn't really help my mood. And points to the need for trashy back-up cars for traveling to and from areas of high construction and highway mess. Maybe an older Ford F150 pick-up truck with an anti-gravel, high pressure wind jet that plays across the windshield and keeps windshields safe. If that's not already an invention someone needs to get on that right away. It would also do away with the need for windshield wipers.
Currently celebrating our Purple Jubilee here in VSL. That's the 16th Anniversary of writing nearly all the time about PHOTOGRAHY. Send me any excess money you have lying around and I'll write some more. But by saying that we are not entering into a legally binding contract and I reserve the right to take your excess money and use it on either a new windshield or a case of really nice wine.
Triggered much? Naw.
More fun stuff in Hyde Park.
-2.jpg)
