thinking of buying a Leica R.

One hears about the legendary quality of Leica lenses and build quality, so I

am thinking about buying a Leica R, to be used strictly for portraits, probably

B&W.

Right now for that purpose I use a Nikon with a 105f2.5, which is a legendary

lens in itself.

If I do take this plunge, which camera/lens do you recommend for a SOMEWHAT

limited budget??? And, will I see a difference???

The sharpest lens, especially for portraits, I've ever seen was a friends 90 f2.8, much better than the f2 and even better than the M 90. Don't know which version it was, though. And supposedly the best, and probably most sought after, Leica R body is the SL2.

On a somewhat limited budget I'd get the Leicaflex SL and a 2-cam 90mm Summicron-R.

The SL is built like a tank, has an outstanding viewfinder, and is the favorite Leica reflex of

several of the top repair technicians. The 90 'cron is a classical portrait lens. Gentle on

older skin at full aperture, very sharp stopped down a bit, great bokeh and flare

resistance.

<P>

On a less limited budget I'd probably recommend the same camera and the 3-cam version

of the same lens.

Keep your Nikon and f:2.5/105mm, and save your money.

I own several R's now, though my favorite is the R5. The Elmarit 90 is indeed sharper than the Summicron 90, but that's not a factor for portraits. The extra stop on the Summicron is better for isolating areas of interest.

 

R's are great cameras, but so are Nikons. I agree with Bill Mitchell, you won't notice improvement over the great 105, if that's what you're expecting. It's the person behind the eyepiece that counts!

Check out the Zeiss ZF 100mm f2.0 makro, in Nikon mount. If you only buy the lens and use it with your present Nikon slr it might fall inside your budget. It has great OOF, contrast and high resolution.

I have to second Bill M. - bench your 105/2.5 against the lens you're thinking of purchasing. I absolutely love that lens, you could just take a Sharpie and write "Leica" on it. If anything I find the Nikon 105 too sharp for portraits. Save your money for an M system ;)

I just bought a R4, cheapest R you can get. Mine was $170 for mint body. It's a pretty nice camera, looks very nice and has a nice feature set, especially for the price. I'm thinking 90 Summicron, maybe for my bday... but I'm mainly a classic 50 guy. I'm thinking a R6/.2 next. I'd look at those two bodies. I like the look. Rangefinders don't really work well for me...

What Nikon are you using now? The Nikkor 105/f 2.5 can stand up to any Leica lens of similar

focal length. Unless you're using a Nikon EM I'd say keep your Nikon.

I compared a 105 AF D against my 100 APO. Sharpness wise they are the same or so

close it does not matter. Older versions are not as good, but still decent.

 

Unless you do your own darkroom and are able to work to top standards, you will not see

a difference.

 

There are many different 90`s for Leica R. The biggest bang for the buck is the original

90 2.8. The original 90 2.0 is very good. The later versions are better/sharper but under

6 feet go a little soft and stopping down does not help. The 100 APO works perfectly at

any distance, but can be way too sharp for beauty portraits. I use the original 90 2.0 for

that. Photoshop can fix an oversharp lens easily.

What about the 105/2 DC Nikkor? It's my portrait "go to" for my Nikon SLR/DLSR work.

 

OTOH, I too have the itch for replacing my R system (that was sold years ago). If you have the itch, itch it. Compared to the M used market, I find the R almost to the point of a bargain. (This does not bode well if you wish to resell it, however.)

 

While it's true (and typical) to say things like it's not the brand, it's the final image - I, as a hobbyist, also put value on the tactile, emotional process of shooting - and for that, I too want to get back, albeit in a much more limited way than before, into the R system.

Ronald Moravec wrote:

 

> I compared a 105 AF D against my 100 APO. Sharpness wise they are the same or so close it does not matter. Older versions are not as good, but still decent.

 

 

Ronald, you are confusing two very different lenses.

 

The AF Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D is a specialised macro lens with extreme sharpness but harsh bokeh. In my opinion, it is probably the least suitable lens for portraiture in the whole of the Nikon range because of its clinically precise rendition of every blemish and wrinkle. The quality of rendition is valued for macro work but not for portraiture.

 

The 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor (in F (pre-AI), AI and AIS versions only) is a classic portrait lens with good sharpness but especially good, creamy smooth bokeh. It is a very flattering portrait lens while still giving good, sharp results.

 

To Bill Keaton - you will gain little or nothing by replacing your superb 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor with a Leica lens. Your Nikkor is up there with the best of them.

 

As Steve Larese said, save your money for a Leica M system.

I think what you'd gain with the SL and 90 'cron are 2/3 of a stop, the SL viewfinder, and

depending on which Nikon you're using, a smoother mirror action. The advantage of the SL

viewfinder is not to be taken lightly, and it's not something you'd get with an R body.

Likewise the smooth mirror action.

An SL, even with a slightly desilvered mirror typical of these oldies, will give you a very bright screen with excellent focusing accuracy and a silky smooth shutter, as Doug Herr says. Any Leica R 90mm should do, unless there are some big differences in bokeh. The total outlay may come to about $400 for a Bargain grade SL at KEH and an older 2-cam 90mm. Since you already have Nikon stuff, why not try a Nikkor 85mm, or borrow one and see whether you like it over the 105.

Keep using the Nikkor 105mm 2.5. No reason to change.

I even have TWO 105/2.5 Nikkors - one in F mount (for my F) and one which has been AI converted to be used on an FE and D70. I have taken some of my all time favourite shots with this lens (not just because of the subject, but also for sharpness and Bokeh) and recommend you stick with the Nikon system. Unless you want to build a second SLR system along with your Nikon one, of course... But that might soon become expensive, of course :-)

 

Cheers,

 

Soeren<div></div>

That is a great timeless shot, Soeren. I have the pre-ai gauss 105 2.5 that I use on my F, and I have gotten some wonderful portraits from it, but it has been about 6 years. Your shot reminds me that I need to put that glass back in service.

I have used all kinds of Leica cameras for many decades, and have many tens of thousands of negatives and slides. It seems kind of a waste of time to be "testing" cameras and lenses all the time. Just get a camera and a lens that you find comfortable, and use it. I use Leicas for two reasons: They are reliable, and they do what I want them to do. If other cameras do the same for you, then you have the perfect camera. Regardless of the camera and lens, it is unlikely you will ever exhaust its capabilities. The same criteria exist for darkroom work. Select a couple of printing papers, and give each a try, and then settle on one or two papers. It will take years to learn all the capabilities of papers, and just like cameras, you will never exhaust all the possibilities. Just get started. If you are happy with Leica, fine. If another camera is more pleasing to you, that's also fine. Just get started, and forget relentless testing. Finally, the big question that you have to answer is: Do you want to do photography, or do you want a job as a camera tester?

 

Best wishes George Butler minerals@att.net