Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/10/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 05:16 PM 10/27/96 -0800, you wrote: >Howdy: Any thought from the group as to the relative merits of the >two versions of the R 35-70 zoom besides the obvious cost difference. >Also anyone wanting to comment on the 60 mm Macro. TIA ernie nitka > I own the earlier (Minolta-made and designed) one, and I have always thought it was an excellent lens--I've made very large enlargements from slides taken with it. When Leica issued the second version, I called to ask whether it was improved, and a person I know in tech services said it was very little changed optically, and so not worth getting for optical improvement. However, it uses a bigger filter size (67 vs. 60), presumably to improve any tendency to vignette, and the mount doesn't rotate, so it's easier to use a polarizer. This second version says "Made in Germany" on it, but it is still basically a Minolta lens (like, say, the 24). It's cosmetically nicer, but vastly more expensive, even used. If money and optical quality are all that matter, I would look up a good used example of the first version. Charlie Charles E. Love, Jr. 517 Warren Place Ithaca, New York 14850 607-272-7338 CEL14@CORNELL.EDU