Dear guys
I don't know much about the following lens. But I am willing to get one.
Which one has the best performance/price rate?
Leica 35-70/3.5 E67
Leica 35-70/3.5 E60
Contax 35-70/3.4
Contax 28-85
Leica 35-70/4
however the contax is cheaper
The contax 35-70. This lens is small, light cheap and good performer. However, there is a 'look' produced by leica and contax lenses so you might prefer the leica. The 28-85 is optically ok but has more laca; is large and heavy; suffers from zoom creep and is a bit more expensive. However, if you want the increase focal range it is well respected (the weight and zoom creep are big negatives for myself).
-
I have no personal experience with the leica so take these comments with a grain of salt.
[quote name='you2' timestamp='1282565455' post='2038']
The contax 35-70. This lens is small, light cheap and good performer. However, there is a 'look' produced by leica and contax lenses so you might prefer the leica. The 28-85 is optically ok but has more laca; is large and heavy; suffers from zoom creep and is a bit more expensive. However, if you want the increase focal range it is well respected (the weight and zoom creep are big negatives for myself).
-
I have no personal experience with the leica so take these comments with a grain of salt.
[/quote]
what does "more laca" mean?
[quote name='rhna' timestamp='1282644596' post='2097']
what does "more laca" mean?
[/quote]
Lateral CAs? Or a typo for loca, Longitudinal CAs.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
Generally the 28-85 has more CA than the 35-70 from the sample images I've seen. I have the 35-70 for about 8 years but have not yet used it with digital (I did recently pick up an adapter so should use it soon). The 28-85 I owned briefly and while it was rather sharp and had nice contrast (perhaps a bit more than the 35-70) it was very heavy and the zoom creep drove me batty. Anyways there are tons of sample images @ http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55.
I will say that some of what makes a lens 'good' is the if you like the 'look' it produces. Unfortunately analysis of what causes a specific look is a bit of an art. There are certain lenses that are clinically quite good but are not so great in other ways. Some of this is of course a bit mystical. One has to always ask the question if you don't know which lens produce a specific picture would you feel the same way about the look?
Oh well back to the topic I personally was very happy with the 35-70 with film and have seen 100s of digital pictures (per above link). I have never used any of the Leica lenses but have seen a few images with them and they do have a very different look (not better or worse). Fredmiranda (above link) is probably a better place for this question as you will find folks with first hand experience but take some of what they say (and myself for that matter) with a grain of salt as there is often not a correct or even best answer for questions of this nature.
