Leica R lens system

<p>I don't have a very concrete question, and I'm mostly looking for personal opinions from long-time users. I don't care about test chrats either. I recently bought a 135 F2.8 CAM 1, and fell in love with this lens in particular and the way of drawing an image: smoth, beautiful background, not too sharp but clear and not muddy (I'll try to upload example images at the end). If people know what I mean, I'm after this type of quality in a lens. I'd like to buy a 24/28, 35, and 50. Are there any recommendations, pros and cons, etc. My understanding is that older Leica R lenses, definitely pre-ASPH, have this smoothness and a beautiful background drawing. Is this the case? On a separate note, I do want a set of lenses with a different mood: sharp and contrasty, with a modern look (something along the lines of the many modern lanses, but for eample the new Zeiss ZF lenses for Nikon). The way I understand it, this is what the new Leica R ASPH lenses are good for. Since I want these lenses with large apertures (F2, 1.4) and I will use them at these apertures, I care about how they draw the background. I remember seeing soemwhere that the ASPHs are very sharp and contrasty, but produce harsh backgrounds. Is this the case? Do different lenses fare better or worse in this regard? But even for this category of lenses, I don't care about the absolutely top, sirgical sharpness; just a reasonable sharpness, but high contrast and clarity. In general, I'm using Leica R, Nikon F MF, and Canon EOS film systems. So, any recommendations from those systems along the lines I described above would be great as well. I have decent lenses for Nikon and Canon but they lack character for the most part. So, I'd like to replace them.</p>

<p>Thank you,<br>

Igor.</p><div></div>

<p>Two lenses I would recommend, both are 3 cam:90 summicron because it is so darn sharp, and 180/2.8 because of its 3D look.</p>

<p>I'd second Michael's picks, as well as the 50 2.0 and 35 2.0 [second version esp.], both Summicron lenses.<br>

Also, the 60 2.8 Macro, the second or third version of the 50 1.4 Summilux, and one I've never used but seen great results from is the 80 1.4 Summilux.<br>

Have fun, all are great lenses in my book.<br>

Gary</p>

<p>The 3-cam 135 Elmarit R is an excellent lens as is the 35 2.8 Elmarit R. While I have not used the 35 Summicron R I have had excellent results with the Elmarit. Most, if not all, of the Leitz or Leica R lenses will give you good results. If you use filters very much you may want to stick to those lenses that use the E55 filters. It's the most popular size and fits a wide range of lenses.</p>

<p>The all-time champion of the kind of image you are describing is the 35mm Summicron-R, especially when used wide open at f2 or stopped down to f2.8. This lens is legendary for its smooth out of focus backgrounds.</p>

<p>You should have the wide, "normal" and tele bases covered. The 28 f2.8, even the older one, is truly excellent, and has no barrel distortion, unusual for any wide angle. The oldie, in 3-cam, can be had for $400 or less. If you do any macro at all, you can let the 60mm f2.8 serve also as your "normal" lens. One went for $350 at KEH.com last week. For close-ups, you can also get the Elpro screw-in adapter to fit the 50 you already have. For tele, your 135 will do, unless you decide you want a 90 for portraits. I've used a 135 for picking people out of crowds.</p>

<p>Thanks, guys. Does anybody have an experience with 35-70 F4 and 21-35 ASPH zooms? I llike the ideas of these lense. They are not primes, but they don't mix up the ranges either. Instead of the working with a normal or wide lens (say, 50 or 24 mm) one works with the normal or wide range. I like how Leica parsed the focal range spectrum. Something like 24-105 is convenient, but it is a total kasha from a photographic perspecive, IMHO. On the other hand, 21-35 works for me as a wide range, and 35-70 does as the normal one. Any comments from users abouut how these lenses perform and comapre to the respective primes? Again, I don't so much care about the sharpness as I do about OOF rendition, INF to OOF transition, and clarity.</p>

<p>Thank you,<br>

Igor.</p>

<p>I have used the 35-70/4 Vario-Elmar-R for several years, and it is, quite simply, the best zoom lens I've ever used and one of the best lenses of any kind I've ever used. Especially wonderful is its physical design and build: the lenshood varies its depth to match the focal length you've zoomed to. And it does this without moving! And zoom and focus are extremely smooth and predictable. The optical quality is stunning -- every bit as good as the Leica primes.</p>

<p>Igor, if you're interested, email me at: pdn42@optonline.net for great deals on these R lenses -- 50 Summicron (2-cam); 60 Macro-Elmarit (2-cam); 90 Summicron (2-cam); 180 Elmar (3-cam); 28 Elmarit (3-cam) Lightly used & georgous. Also, extension tubes; extenders; filters; etc. Need to raise $</p>

 

<p>Igor, if you're interested, email me at: pdn42@optonline.net for great deals on these R lenses -- 50 Summicron (2-cam); 60 Macro-Elmarit (2-cam); 90 Summicron (2-cam); 180 Elmar (3-cam); 28 Elmarit (3-cam) Lightly used & georgous. Also, extension tubes; extenders; filters; etc. Need to raise $</p>

 

<p>The 2/35 Summicron R is a wonderful lens, my personal favourite of the R line. I would say it has the character you are talking about. I owned the 2.8/135 for a short time (returned due to having a damaged cam), and I thought it complimented the 35mm. I never replaced it as I rarely use teles.<br>

The 2/50 Summicron is great too, though I prefer the 2.8/60 Macro Elmarit. It is bigger, heavier, has a longer focus through, and of course slower, but has a beautiful character, I eventually sold my 50mm.<br>

The older 2.8/28 Elmarit is good, though I found it to be not quite as good as other R lenses, apparently the second version is substantially improved, but is also more expensive. I ended up selling my 28mm, but this had a lot to do with picking up a 2.8/19, and finding the 28 had little use after this, using a 35mm as a normal lens, and reaching for the 19mm for the wide perspective.</p>

<p>I'd second Gary's recommendation for 2nd version Elmarit 180. Great, solid lens, delivering on all apertures. The 60mm macro is also excellent, I think it's at least on par with any modern normal lens of any manufacturer.</p>

<p>For what this is worth, I have been using a variety of Leica-R lenses on Nikon bodies (film, as well as both DX and FX digital), along with my many Nikon AIS era lenses. Specifically, I have owned and used Elmarit-R 35 and 90 and Summicron-R 35 and 50, all the last/latest 3/R-cam versions with E55 filter and built-in hood. All of these have used the Leitax mount. I have been surprised by a number of direct comparisons I have made, but not it the way I expected to be. </p>

<p>The Summicron-R 35 and 50, as well as the Elmarit-R 90 have such sterling reputations, I really expected to be in for a treat. They do, indeed, have some very nice characteristics. But, I cannot say that any one of them is better in any objective sense than the corresponding high-quality prime lenses of Nikon (e.g., 35/1.4, 50/1.2 and 1.8, 85/2.0, 105/1.8 and 2.5, all AIS) or Zeiss (specifically, the Contax-G and ZM lines). In fact, I found that the Elmarits, reputation aside, were simply not acceptable for my purposes. It may be the the 90 makes a good portrait lens, but I saw nothing about its qualities even in the center of the frame that would make it superior to, say the Nikon 105s. In the corners, it is noticeably weaker than ALL the Nikons. Not everyone may care about corner performance, but I tend to do a fair amount of architectural work, and I usually found that the 90-R needed to be at 5.6-8 for acceptable performance across the whole frame, on both film and digital, even DX. This really surprised me, but it seems to be a consistent observation that I have made with all R-lenses I have tried. Leica may just be less interested in correcting curvature of field as much as others (?). I note that this crops up in various comparisons of Leica to Zeiss rangefinder lenses (see even some of Erwin Puts comments on this). I can only assume this is somewhat of a 'family' characteristic. For me, at least, it means I have to be rather more careful in my use of the R-lenses on Nikon bodies. </p>

<p>I have ultimately concluded (and am disappointed) that the Elmarit-R 90 was rather limiting, in that I needed to be careful using it below 5.6-8.0. By that point, any one of many decent lenses will perform well. It is true that the Leica provides some differences in contrast, color and OOF characteristics, but not clearly better or worse. One of my favorite Nikons, the 105/1.8, appears just as contrasty and able to resolve fine/subtle detail. It also has a great 3D look, even though that is a characteristic usually attributed to Zeiss. The 1.8 is able to do this consistently across the frame at 2.8, which the 90-R cannot. Interestingly, another favorite lens of mine, the Zeiss 90 on the Contax-G2, is able to do this already wide open at 2.8, a testament to that amazing little lens! I even found that my humble 85/2.0AIS was able to consistently equal or better the 90-R in most ways at 2.8-5.6. So, I sold the 90. I might try the 90 summicron (pre ASPH), but I will be wary of any expectations that it outperforms the Nikons, given that the telephoto range is one Nikon generally does well. </p>

<p>I have decided to keep the Summicron-R 35 and 50, mostly for variety and experimentation. They are very good lenses and again have somewhat different characteristics, though not 'better' per se, than the corresponding Nikons (35/1.4AIS, 50/1.2 and 1.8AIS) or Zeiss (35 and 45/2.0 Contax-G, and 35 and 50/2.0 ZM on Leica). All these lenses are all in the same league. (The Elmarit-R 35, sadly was not even close to its bigger brother, the 'chron, or the other 35s, so I sold it.) I do love the design of the last Leica Rs, with their built-in hoods.</p>

<p>Among the 50s (including the 45G, which is really more like 47, I think), they are all superb lenses in their own ways. In fact, apart from the range f/2.0-4.0, there is little reason to pick one over the other. At wider apertures they begin to have some 'character' that sets them apart. But, technically, none is clearly superior, considering its limitations (the 50/1.2 is clearly superior to the others at 2.0, but that is not a fair comparison). I would say that the 'chron and 50/1.8 can be used cautiously wide open, with the former is a little better for flare and in the corners. By, 2.8 they are both very good, but the little Nikon may still suffer a bit more from flare. It does, however, still have a very nice and subtle color rendition, about equal to the more expensive 'chron. But, the little 45-G has to be said to be significantly better in technical terms. Of course, it has the advantage of not needing to clear the SLR mirror! If I really need top performance at 2.0-2.8, however, I would probably pick the 50/1.2AIS, even over the rangefinder lenses. </p>

<p>The 'chron-R 35 is probably my favorite of the Leicas I have used, but it is not without its flaws and limitations. I can only be used in the 2.0-2.8 (even sometimes 4.0) range when border and corner performance is not needed. It seems to suffer much more from curvature of field than the Nikon and Zeiss lenses. I have had somewhat of a love-hate (mostly the former!) relationship with my Nikon 35/1.4. It sometimes seems utterly useless wide open, until you find one of those times when it can do what no other lens (at leas that I have!) can do... it actually is very usable for some low light situations (e.g., when I also need the D700 light sensitivity), provided no strong light sources are in the frame! I recently used that combo to very good effect in Carlsbad Caverns. Even at 2.0 it can occasionally surprise due to flare. But, overall, sharpness and even curvature of field are not a problem. It usually outperforms the summicron-R in the 2.0-2.8 range for any practical situation. At 2.8 they are close in actual performance in the center of the frame, in resolution, contrast and color rendition. The 'chron may sometimes have more pleasing OOF, but not by much if any. Besides, at 35mm, this is less of an issue than at longer FLs. But, the 35-R is not usable across the full frame even at 2.8. It still has significant vignetting and strong loss of definition in the corners. </p>

<p>I have yet to experiment with other R-lenses, but my enthusiasm for the R-lenses has gone down overall. The 135mm may be an interesting case, in particular. The R-135 is readily available cheaply, although they are rather 'hefty'. This is not a particularly useful focal length for me (80% of my shooting is 35 or 85-105). It happens to be a case where the Leica may have advantages. I have a nice 135/2.8 AI, and find it surprisingly sharp, but a little dull. It mostly sits. If I want something longer, I'll grab my 180ED, which is great. </p>

<p>A little late, but I just wanted to the post in perspective for anybody researching this issue. Compared to, for example, Nikon lenses, Leica lenses are sharper wide open, have warmer colors, and smoother bokeh. In other words, they are optimized for the wide apertures, which makes them great for available light photography. It seems Fred above was disappointed because he wasn't playing to the strength of Leitz optics.</p>