[Leica] Using f 4 35-70, f 4 80-200 zooms

["gbicket" <gbicket@email.msn.com>]

George Kase,

I enjoy both of these lenses, and find them worthy of the name.  Both were
manufactured by Kyocera of Japan for Leica.  Perhaps the most important
similarity for me is the robust Leica color transmission.  They are sharp,
and do a fine job--for zooms, and there are times when their architecture
can be noticed.  There are times the compromise is apparent, certainly
between prime lenses and these two.  More fairly compared, I expect there
are times the excellent f 2.8 35-70 and the fine 70-180 APO outdo these, but
I have no experience with them.

I question the cost-value differences in comparing these four, but own the R
100 APO, as well as the R 280 APO, so I guilty of the same excess.  It's not
that I don't think the two much more expensive lenses are not wonderful,
based on what I've heard, it's just hard for me to imagine that they merit
the premium, based on the very good performance of these lesser variants.
Too, I guess I just have reservations about how good a zoom can be;
however, LUGgers whose opinions I respect indicate in the cases of the f 2.8
35-70, and the 70-180, zooms can be excellent.

I enjoy using the two f 4 zooms, they're both light, and relatively small,
lending themselves easily to walking and carrying.  In photo situations
where I am using primarily prime lenses, I tend to be bringing along the
three legged beast.  For the most critical photographs of less dynamic
subjects, I prefer prime lenses.  For fast-changing action, prime lenses
just don't match the utility of zooms, IMAO.  [In My Amateur Opinion]

The f4 35-70 has served me well as the primary lens on days when I am
walking and making photos with plenty of light.  It has a macro function
that I have used to good result.  The only thing quirky about it is the
front element rotates, so use with a polarizer requires readjustment--this
lens has been declared less than a professional's choice because of this.  I
agree, but this makes little difference to me--I use a polarizer on this
lens so seldom that I have been able to remember to make the change--or
noticed the change of the polarizer's effect!.

Our esteemed participant, Erwin Puts has written on the f4 35-70.  Respected
professional Ted Grant has had plenty to good to say about the 80-200, and
recently lamented the death in action of one of these.  The archives contain
a good deal on both.  As a user, I can report satisfaction with both as
day-to-day users.

My only complaint is their speed can be limiting, as I tend towards ASA100
as "fast film."  Hope this is useful.

Enjoy the light.

Greg