Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/06/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Am I the only one who never even 'think' to buy the 35-70/4 because of the lack of polarizing possibility, the f/4 and the separate lens hood ? IMO, the ergonomy and capabilities of that lens are not worthy of Leica. The company capable of the integration of a sliding lens hood in a R-28/2,8 and in a M-50/2, capable of the complete redisign of the 35-70/3,5 (E67) in order to give it polarizing capability, capable of the production of a polarizer for M lenses and capable of the making of a 70-180/2,8 as good as the 100/2,8 Apo, shouldn't come with that "N.design like" lens. It's not a good partner for the new 80-200/4 for travel. I have no doubt it give great results, but IMHO ergonomy and capabilities are also important parts of the Leica lens reputation (and price), together with the lens quality. What is excusable with the Tri-Elmar is not with a R zoom. The same apply IMO to both the 28-70/3,5. (And to the first 35-70/3,5 (E60).) Until the release of the guessed 'Apo-Asph.35-90/2,8, or 35-100/2,8', (I hope it will not be a 35-70/2,8) I will continue to use my good old 50/2. IMHO, it's much more an universal lens. ;-) Maybe that's where I'm wrong: Leica never intend to sell those zooms as universal lenses. ;-) Lucien