try to find R 50/1.4 or R 35-70/3.5 E67 (very close up like macro), no regret:thumbsup:
I use latest F1.4 chip on 1DSMK3, very accurate, if focus not match, it will stop the shuttle to work until focus reach target
for R , best IQ come from its biggest aperture (contax lens wide open not sharp at all)which make view finder clear and clean, so stop down does not give too sharp image than its wide open
after tests, R 28-70 E60 (sigma) R 35-70 E60 (minolta), R35-70/4 ROM (keyocera, IQ quite silimar with zeiss 35-70/3.4) these 3 not worthy at all
the rare 28-90 ASPH not bad, but 90mm only have F4.5
shave ASS is about t6o use them in FF, not 1.3X
35-70/3.5 E67 is rare. ... 35-70/28 E77 more rare,,, both are costy, the 35-70/3.5 E67 cost me about 3K and F2.8 cost me 7K USD...this is why people seldom use them in the forum
35-70/4 ROM are very common, it is made by Keyocera, you think it can beat keyocera itsself contax 35-70/3.4? no lah, JAP are smart.
Bro, don't mean to start a debate here because you obviously know your stuff, but reading all that I can't help but wonder if we are talking about different lenses here.
Either you got yourself a prototype 35-70/3.5 E67 which is really the f/4 or f/2.8 design, or you have a very good sample of the E67 and compared it with a faulty sample of the f/4. From what I've read the E67, like the E60 will focus down to a meter, which is hardly 'macro-like' performance. The f/4 version on the other hand will focus down to 60cm in non-'macro' mode. Zoom past the 70mm end, push the macro release button and it will focus down to to 26cm for a reproduction ratio of 1:2.8. Now
that is 'macro-like' performance...not to mention it holds its performance from infinity down to minimum focusing distance.
Every other lens I've tried performs best at infinity and loses performance towards MFD. Erwin Puts himself, respected reviewer and critic of many Leica lenses out there mentions this himself in his Leica Lens Compendium. He heaps praise on the latest f/4 version and from my use of the lens see no reason to disagree. The E60 and E67 versions of the 35-70/3.5 have the same Minolta optical cell. There is pretty much no reason for a perfectly working specimen of the E67 to edge out the E60, unless the E60 version has fallen victim to its poorer build quality and the lens elements are out of alignment.
Furthermore based on what is written there the f/4 easily edges out the f/3.5 E67 with less vignetting, less distortion at either end and better performance wide open. As a bonus, when stopping down the f/4 is still capable of improving its image quality and then holding it to smaller aperture settings like f/11 or f/16. This means the lens is awesome wide open and can be used for still-life photography at small apertures and still yield dividends with IQ.
$3K for the 35-70/3.5 E67 sounds like a lot of money, especially when this lens, and the newer f/4 version routinely trade for around the same amount of money online (eg. Ebay) at US$500/600 and upwards (depending on condition and included accessories). In the days when both were available new on the shelves they were of course trading in excess of a couple of thousand US$, but those who bought the E67 later lamented they should have picked the f/4.
The clear disadvantages of the f/4 vs the f/3.5 E67 are significant. The f/4's front element rotates and at some settings actually retracts beyond the lens hood, so using a circular polarizer is near-impossible. The E67 on the other hand, being a mechanical improvement over the f/3.5 E60, works flawlessly with a cir-pol.
As for the Leica f/4 vs the Contax 35-70/3.4 I've read several conflicting comments. Some people clearly prefer either one while others say the Leica is better wide open especially in the corners while the Contax (while being significantly cheaper) is better than the Leica stopped down, which means it's awesome value for money. Frankly in use of the Leica f/4 I've found it to be an incredibly good lens if you get your focus right.
Once again I'm not bagging any lens here, but even based on what Erwin Puts alone says, there's obviously some confusion here as to which lens we're referring to.
60mm vs 67mm hehe..
