Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
MrChapp@aol.com wrote:
>
> Is it he equal of the 35 and 50 mm principal lenses at their
> respective focal lengths? Is it too heavy and/or bulky to be the first choice
> for an R system? Other observations from actual usage?
I have no personal experience with the Vario-Elmarit but I would suggest
to buy a Summilux 35 and a Summicron 50 instead ('cron or 'lux doesn't
really matter, but one 'lux would be nice for low light situations). If
you want to save some money buy one or both of them used. The 'crons are
easier to find on the used market.
Standard zooms always are a serious compromise in their optical
performance. To cover the short end (<50mm, usually down to 28 or 35mm)
they require a retrofocus group at the front of the lens. This group is
of no use from 50m to the longer end (75mm) but obviouslay stays in the
lens if you zoom to 75mm. So the other lenses have to reverse the effect
of the front elements. All this leads to a very heavy lens with many
elements. Besides from the weight a lens with many elements tends to
exhibit flare a lot faster. Another disadvantage of standard zooms is
that they _always_ show distortion at the short end (here: 35mm). I find
this particularly annoying as the shorter length is the focal length you
usually shoot buildings with, a subject where distortion shows up
clearly and quickly.
These disadvantages can be lowered if the lens designer has done a good
job, a thing you would expect from Leica. But they can never be
completely eliminated. This is in the physics. Telezooms however are a
different game. They are usually of a higher quality than standard zooms
because they don't suffer from the retrofocus problem.
Regards, Axel