Buying a 50mm when already owning a 28-70mm zoom?

RezaLoghme · Saturday at 9:51 AM

Thinking about adding a Leica Summicron-R 50mm (v.2) to my kit — thoughts?

I currently shoot with the 28-70mm Vario-Elmar, which covers a nice range and offers decent versatility. However, I’m wondering if it makes sense to add the Summicron-R 50mm (v.2) prime to the mix.

The 50mm Summicron is legendary for sharpness, contrast, and that classic Leica rendering. I’m considering it primarily for:

Better optical performance at 50mm versus the zoom
More precise manual focus
The unique “look” Leica primes deliver, especially in portrait and detail work

On the flip side, the Vario-Elmar is compact and flexible, so is the jump in image quality worth the extra weight, cost, and hassle of swapping lenses? Does the Summicron-R 50mm really offer enough of a step up to justify it?

If you’ve owned or used both, I’d appreciate your honest take. Is the Summicron-R 50mm (v.2) still worth carrying alongside a solid zoom like the 28-70 Vario-Elmar, or should I stick with the convenience of the zoom and skip the prime?

Thanks for your insights!

xkaes · Saturday at 12:49 PM

Only you can decide if a 50mm offers "better" results. I'd only add a 50mm if you shoot in available light regularly where you need to use the lens wide open.

RezaLoghme · Saturday at 1:00 PM

Thanks for the input so far.

Some of my additional thoughts: the Summicron-R 50mm is smaller, likely lighter, and definitely less obtrusive than the 28–70 Vario-Elmar. That appeals to me — especially for quieter, more deliberate shooting.

What I’m really wondering now: besides the wider aperture, does the Summicron actually outperform the Vario-Elmar at 50mm in terms of image quality?

Even stopped down, my Vario-Elmar shows some visible distortion at 50mm — straight lines bending slightly, which can get annoying in certain scenes. Has anyone done side-by-sides or just shot enough with both to comment on real-world differences in rendering, distortion, microcontrast?

RezaLoghme · Saturday at 1:08 PM

I’m still on the fence, and today’s shoot didn’t make it easier.

I went into downtown this afternoon to document the current protests. The 28–70mm Vario-Elmar came along — 28mm was useful to capture the overall scene, but I quickly ran into the limitation: 70mm simply wasn’t enough to isolate details, expressions, or interactions from a distance.

I found myself wishing for either something longer… or a faster 50mm with more pop and separation to work more subtly within the crowd.

So now I’m puzzled. On one hand, I’m considering adding the Summicron-R 50mm (v.2) for its compactness, speed, and optical character. On the other, this afternoon hinted that I might be better off complementing the zoom with something longer than 70mm, especially for reportage.

Anyone else been in this position? Would you go for the 50 Cron to improve the 50mm experience, or skip that step and look into a longer telephoto prime for these kinds of situations?

RezaLoghme · Saturday at 1:11 PM

This has me wondering: is the classic 80–200mm (or 80–210mm) the missing piece? It’s heavier, yes, but it feels like the right tool for documentary work with some distance — like those 1980s photojournalists, quietly observing from the edge, HB cigarette in one hand, Leica R in the other, Citroën CX parked illegally on the curb.

Would love to hear from anyone who’s actually shot the 80–200 in this kind of context. Does it hold up optically? Or would I be compromising too much compared to primes?

Paul Howell · Saturday at 3:08 PM

I have a number of short zooms, mostly in Minolta A mount, 35 to 70mm (which is designed borrowed from Leica as I understand it) 24 to 135 and later 28 to 100. I still prefer a prime 50mm. The prime is sharper wide open, faster, and lighter. I also have the Minolta A mount 80 to 210, first generation, at F4 it is fast enough and for 40 year old lens sharp. I imagine the Leica version to be sharper with better coatings. Between the 28 to 70 and a 80 to 200 you are covered, at that point a 50mm 1.4 is for low light or very critical sharpness. Other thought is a 70 to 150, not sure if Leica made a zoom in that range, and I don't think there are many 3rd party zooms made for R mount.

xkaes · Saturday at 3:38 PM

Minolta's 80-200mm f4.5, 75-200mm f4.5, and 70-210mm f4.0 were all used by Leica for their Vario-Elmars. Leica thought they are all stellar performers. Here are more details on each:

https://www.subclub.org/minman/8020045.htm

Lachlan Young · Saturday at 4:00 PM

The short answer is that the Summicron-R 50's (both variants) are some of the all-time great lenses and the (badge-engineered Sigma) 28-70 isn't. If the 28-70 had been a current-ish Sigma Art series lens (or the Kyocera made 35-70), then that would be a different matter. The 50 Summicron-R still beats those options on a number of other metrics - not least in speed and performance per kg.

If you're really that worried about having to walk a bit to get a better image then I'd suggest you might have issues that a lens won't fix.

xkaes · Saturday at 6:05 PM

I don't know anything about the 28-70mm, but the 35-70mm Vario-Elmar was another Minolta Rokkor-X lens that Leica liked & rebadged -- but that might not be wide enough for you.

RalphLambrecht · Saturday at 6:49 PM

RezaLoghme said:
Thinking about adding a Leica Summicron-R 50mm (v.2) to my kit — thoughts?

I currently shoot with the 28-70mm Vario-Elmar, which covers a nice range and offers decent versatility. However, I’m wondering if it makes sense to add the Summicron-R 50mm (v.2) prime to the mix.

The 50mm Summicron is legendary for sharpness, contrast, and that classic Leica rendering. I’m considering it primarily for:

Better optical performance at 50mm versus the zoom

More precise manual focus

The unique “look” Leica primes deliver, especially in portrait and detail work

On the flip side, the Vario-Elmar is compact and flexible, so is the jump in image quality worth the extra weight, cost, and hassle of swapping lenses? Does the Summicron-R 50mm really offer enough of a step up to justify it?

If you’ve owned or used both, I’d appreciate your honest take. Is the Summicron-R 50mm (v.2) still worth carrying alongside a solid zoom like the 28-70 Vario-Elmar, or should I stick with the convenience of the zoom and skip the prime?

Thanks for your insights!

What you have is a vario lens, not a zoom; the difference being that yours does not change focal length steplessly through the range but has several fixed settings within the range. Your lens is optimized for those settings similar to a fixed-focus lens, such as the Summicron. Consequently, you will probably see little to no difference in optical performance. A Summilux would have the advantage of the larger aperture. IMHO, it may still be worth getting a Summicron for its famous look (rendering), and no Leica should be without it. Forcing you to make your composition at 50mm may also be an advantage, but that's up to you. I think what you have is a rich man's problem, and our empathy stays within limits. Good luck and success to you. If I were you, I'd get the Summicron!

xkaes · Saturday at 7:27 PM

Like I said, I know nothing about the 28-70mm, but here's one opinion I found on the WEB:

The main problem for the 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 has always been that the 35-70 lenses (f/3.5, f/4, and f/2.8) exist and they outperform the 28-70. The 35-70s are sharper, lighter, lower distortion and fixed aperture. So in a head to head, the 28-70 is usually considered the "worse" option unless one absolutely needs to go wider to 28mm.

I have the original Minolta Rokkor-X 35-70mm f3.5 ZOOM, from where the Vario-Elmar comes, and it's superb.

GregY · Saturday at 7:57 PM

RezaLoghme said:
This has me wondering: is the classic 80–200mm (or 80–210mm) the missing piece? It’s heavier, yes, but it feels like the right tool for documentary work with some distance — like those 1980s photojournalists, quietly observing from the edge, HB cigarette in one hand, Leica R in the other, Citroën CX parked illegally on the curb.

Would love to hear from anyone who’s actually shot the 80–200 in this kind of context. Does it hold up optically? Or would I be compromising too much compared to primes?

I used an 80-200 a lot in my Nikon days, but I consider it too unwieldy a lens in an urban setting. I used it primarily for things/places i couldn't approach on foot....distant mountains, ski races etc. In addition it's hardly discreet in the city. Also in an urban environment there's typically a lot going on, & most people concentrate on what's close to them rather than what is distant enough for an 80-200
HBC used a 50mm more than anything...
(photo below Leica 40mm)

Paul Howell · Saturday at 7:58 PM

I agree, I have 28 to 80, 28 to 100 35 to 70 in MD and A mount along with a Nikon 35 to 70 first generation AF. The 35 to 70s are sharper, the only expectation is the Minolta A mount 24 to 85, a heavy lens but rather sharp at 24mm but has a fair amount of distortion at the long and short end. Given OP as the 28 to 70 which is by all accounts an excellent lens does he add a 50mm to his kit? I still vote yes, there are time the additional speed comes in handy. Then adds that at times he needs additional range, so a 70 to 210? For the money, I would sell the Leica gear and buy a Canon EOS 1V with a 28 to 70 and 70 to 210 L glass lens, or maybe a Sigma arts wide to normal.

Patrick Robert James · Saturday at 10:02 PM

I am not a Leica SLR shooter, but for my Contax ('bout the same difference) carrying a 28/50/100 makes things pretty simple. The longer I do this the less I want to carry.

The only way to know if something is for you is to do it. Pickup a telephoto zoom and give it a whack. You can always sell it. Same with the 50.

Don't forget that the best zoom is the foot zoom... In other words, move yourself closer and use what you already have.

RezaLoghme · Saturday at 11:04 PM

RalphLambrecht said:
What you have is a vario lens, not a zoom; the difference being that yours does not change focal length steplessly through the range but has several fixed settings within the range. Your lens is optimized for those settings similar to a fixed-focus lens, such as the Summicron. Consequently, you will probably see little to no difference in optical performance. A Summilux would have the advantage of the larger aperture. IMHO, it may still be worth getting a Summicron for its famous look (rendering), and no Leica should be without it. Forcing you to make your composition at 50mm may also be an advantage, but that's up to you. I think what you have is a rich man's problem, and our empathy stays within limits. Good luck and success to you. If I were you, I'd get the Summicron!

Hello Ralph! The 28-70mm Vario-Elmar-R is a stepless zoom, maybe you mean the nice but very expensive Tri-Elmar-M?

RezaLoghme · Saturday at 11:04 PM

Paul Howell said:
I agree, I have 28 to 80, 28 to 100 35 to 70 in MD and A mount along with a Nikon 35 to 70 first generation AF. The 35 to 70s are sharper, the only expectation is the Minolta A mount 24 to 85, a heavy lens but rather sharp at 24mm but has a fair amount of distortion at the long and short end. Given OP as the 28 to 70 which is by all accounts an excellent lens does he add a 50mm to his kit? I still vote yes, there are time the additional speed comes in handy. Then adds that at times he needs additional range, so a 70 to 210? For the money, I would sell the Leica gear and buy a Canon EOS 1V with a 28 to 70 and 70 to 210 L glass lens, or maybe a Sigma arts wide to normal.

Why should I sell my R cameras and lenses? I already own them.

Don_ih · Sunday at 6:01 AM

The likelihood is you will not be able to see any practical difference between the results from those two lenses.

I'd find a zoom lens annoying to use, though, and it would never be attached to a camera. I need to know what I'm going to see when I put the camera to my eye.

Sirius Glass · Sunday at 11:36 AM

Don_ih said:
The likelihood is you will not be able to see any practical difference between the results from those two lenses.

I'd find a zoom lens annoying to use, though, and it would never be attached to a camera. I need to know what I'm going to see when I put the camera to my eye.

Since I am unable to tell the difference, I use zoom lenses and buy only very wide angle lenses or fisheye lenses in fixed focal lengths.

xkaes · Sunday at 12:06 PM

RezaLoghme said:
Hello Ralph! The 28-70mm Vario-Elmar-R is a stepless zoom, maybe you mean the nice but very expensive Tri-Elmar-M?

"Vario" is Leitz's word for "Zoom".

btaylor · Sunday at 6:16 PM

xkaes said:
"Vario" is Leitz's word for "Zoom".

“Zoom” is for plebes.” “Vario“ is for The Leica Man.

Reza, I am not a zoom guy. Buy the Summicron and be happy.

Paul Howell · Sunday at 7:23 PM

RezaLoghme said:
Why should I sell my R cameras and lenses? I already own them.

The Canon EOS IV is more modern, very good auto focus, great metering, spot, matrix, average, interchangeable focusing screens, mirror lock up, on and on. The real advantage are the lens. Canon's 24 to 70 2.8 and 80 to 210 2.8 L are among the best zoom lens made, it is what other AF zooms are measured against. Modern coating, computer design, with matched 1.2 and 1.4 telecoverter more reach. Then there are the 3rd party lens, Sigma Art glass, even late modle Tamron and Tonika are really great lens. For documentar work, it is hard to beat a Canon 1V. I have Minolta AF, including a Minolta 9, but if I had to do it all over again, it would be Canon.

4season · Sunday at 7:49 PM

RezaLoghme said:
The unique “look” Leica primes deliver, especially in portrait and detail work

Sure, why not buy the 50/2. Have never used that particular R lens, but have certainly owned "a few" M lenses, and have fond memories of the Canadian 50/2 M lens: Perhaps not as flare-resistant as a multicoated 1970s Nikkor, but very nice overall. But I admit I have no idea what the "Leica look" is, and if my life depended on my being able to distinguish photos taken with Leica glass, I'd be in trouble

xkaes · Sunday at 9:25 PM

btaylor said:
“Zoom” is for plebes.” “Vario“ is for The Leica Man.

This plebe is happy with my very reasonably-priced Minolta Zooms, that are AKA otherwise-priced Leica Varios.

A rose by any other name....

1957ExaktaVarexIIa · Monday at 11:18 AM

btaylor said:
“Zoom” is for plebes.” “Vario“ is for The Leica Man.

... and for The Zeiss Man also .

Paul Howell · Monday at 12:04 PM

Konica also made 2 vario type variable focus lens, the 70 to 150 is very sharp, just a pain to use if in a hurry.

Buying a 50mm when already owning a 28-70mm zoom?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency