Hope for R users after all...

<p>John Kwok,<br>

Recent information would lead me to believe that Zeiss is no longer offering/manufacturing ZE Canon EOS Mount lenses.</p>

<p>Does anyone have further information in this regard?</p>

<p>Colin,<br>

Not true, since Zeiss has recently announced EOS mount versions of its 50mm and 100mm f2 Makro Planar lenses. Moreover, I spoke to several Zeiss representatives at the Photo Plus East trade show in New York City last October, and they told me that they are working on expanding the SLR lines with new lenses, including an updated 25 Distagon.<br>

Here's the link to the announcement:<br>

<a href="http://www.zeiss.com/photo">http://www.zeiss.com/photo</a><br>

Regards,<br>

<br />John</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John, You are correct!<br>

I had just received my latest (Dec) Zeiss Newsletter announcing the new ZF. 2 lenses and was at that stage unable to find any reference in their Product link on Canon lenses. This must have been some computer glitch, because later, I was able to access it.<br>

Sorry for any confusion<br>

Colin</p>

 

<p>Then, how about Nikon D3X - 24mp. Best high ISO performance. As per Erwin Puts, it is even better than Canon 1Ds III or Leica M9 with top-notch optics.<br>

So, how about using Leica R lenses on Nikon D3X - would it be the top of the 135-format digital world?<br>

My dream set with Nikon D3X is:<br>

(1) Nikon 14-24/2.8<br />(2) Leica R 21-35/3.4-4 Asph<br />(3) Leica R 50/1.4 Rom E60<br />(4) Leica R 70-180/2.8APO<br />(5) Leica R 180/2.8 APO<br />(6) Leica R 100/2.8 APO Macro<br />(7) Leica R 280/4 APO<br />(8) Leica R 400/4 APO<br />(9) Kinoptik 150/2.5 Apochromat<br />(10)Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR II<br />(11)Nikon 50/1.4 G<br>

:)</p>

<p>Jim Powers-Sony bought Minolta-lock,stock,and barrell,as they say. All of it. So all of those Sony dslr's are really Minolta's in disguise. Which is what makes me think Leica will chose Sony,and not Nikon,to make the R10 for them. And Nikon uses a Sony sensor in the top of the line Nikon.</p>

<p>I have used the Leica R series and Canon's for years. I recently divested myself of Leica in favor of Canon. The decision was made after extensive, controlled testing of Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad, Ziess and Leica.</p>

<p>The are many reasons I left Leica, but in the end it came down to an issue of trust. I just felt that any company that can develop 3 entirely new digital systems while, at the same time, leaving owners of one of their 2 existing film systems with no real digital solution (the back for the r8 was not a solution) can not be trusted to make sound, customer oriented decisions. I felt that there are too many question marks around Leica to trust them with such a large investment.</p>

<p>On that note, I have simply stopped trying to predict what Leica will do. They seem to live in their own world with their own rules. That's fine but I need a bit more predictability than that.</p>

<p>Cheers, JJ </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would like to use my 280/4 on my D700 without using the Leitax option. What is available? I did not see an adaptor on the Cameraquest website. Am I missing something? Thanks</p>

<p>I think in terms of DSLR, Leica should follow Carl Zeiss/Cosina strategy - issue Leica R manual lenses for other mounts/brands.<br>

R 50/1.4 ROM E60 is the best in terms of optical quality/wide aperture<br>

R 35/1.4 - no competition from CZ<br>

R 21-35/3.5-4 Asph, R 28-90/2.8-4.5 Asph are still ones of the bests. They are manual yes...but no competition from Carl Zeiss<br>

R 70 - 180/2.8 APO is still unique in the market - no competition from CZ<br>

R 180/2.8 APO, R 280/4 APO are no competition from CZ<br>

R 19/2.8 still very competitive - not direct competitor with CZ 21/2.8 (which is very strong)<br>

R 15/2.8 Asph strong and very small in terms of size.</p>

 

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5796488">Jeremy Jackson</a> wrote: <em>"(the back for the r8 was not a solution)"</em></p>

<p>It seems to work for me: http://www.wildlightphoto.com/DMR.html</p>

<p> </p>

 

 

 

 

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=821675">Pierre Claquin</a> wrote: <em>"I would like to use my 280/4 on my D700 without using the Leitax option."</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >The Leitax (or Leitax clone) option is the only readily-available way to use the 280/4 on a D700. Any other way involves either custom modification of the lens or camera, or a loss of infinity focus.</p>

 

<p > </p>

 

<p > </p>

 

 

<p>Mark,<br>

Given Leica's extensive cooperation now with Panasonic, it would make a lot more sense that a potential R10 would be made with Panasonic's, not Sony's assistance. Why? Sony has extensive ties with Carl Zeiss now with regards to putting Zeiss lenses into its digital compact cameras and camcorders, as well as in the Sony (formerly Minolta) digital SLR system.<br>

Cheers.<br>

John</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Douglas, the back does work fine, as your photography shows. But compare the back to the offerings we now have from Canon and Nikon. One 1.3 back is not what I consider a real-world, serious attempt to address the r-series digital issue. Sales of the back seem to indicate that most other Leica owners didn't think so as well. In your case though, I can see that the back did make sense. But I'm not a wildlife photographer, so for me it was useless I'm afraid.</p>

<p>Cheers, JJ</p>

<p>Jeremy, the DMR was 4 year ago. Your words: <em>"the back for the r8 was not a solution"</em>. Are you discussing "now" or "was"?</p>

<p><em>"Sales of the back seem to indicate that most other Leica owners didn't think so as well"</em> The DMR was killed by Imacon when Hasselblad bought Imacon. The DMR's market price now, for a 4-year-old digital camera for a discontinued product line suggests that many Leica owners disagree with you.</p>

<p>Just asking...<br>

How did Hasselblad kill off the DMR when they bought Imacon? </p>

<p>Barney,</p>

<p>At that time, Leica was buying a share in Sinar (who made MF backs). Imacon made the DMR back for Leica. When Hasselblad bought Imacon, there was conflict of interest and the DMR was no more. Even though the DMR is now 4 years old, used samples are fetching up to 75% of its original cost - amazing for a digital product.</p>

<p>Charlie<br>

www.charlie-chan.co.uk</p>

<p>I know it's irrelevant to Graeme's question, and of course your answer, but Charlie, when you say "When Hasselblad bought Imacon", I sit back in my chair and murmur " No, it was Shriro, dressed in their acquired Hasselblad wardrobe, who bought Imacon". It was their grand plan realized. A plan that from it's conception included the slaughter the now, so-called V-System.<br>

Ah well ... yes I know it's history now ....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just for the record: As far as I am informed, it was actually Imacon that bought Hasselblad - and then decided that Hasselblad was the better brand and therefore Hasselblad is the name of the company that is operating...</p>

<p>Douglas<br>

After seeing and reading your photos/comments about the DMR, I found I'm inextricably drawn towards acquiring one myself. I divested the R line years ago and there is nothing left! If I do I'll have to start all over. Anyway I've already asked my long-time dealer to look for a DMR. When he does, I'll think about buying an R9 and lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Robin - do you use your old R lenses or Canon lenses? What are your impressions?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ken,</p>

<p>I did use them for a while, but found that focussing was an issue. The focus confirmation was not accurate enough and even with the Eg-S screen I found it problematic and not sufficiently precise compared to the SL/R6.2 I had before. Live-view is great but not a solution for any kind of rapid photography. As a result I sold them all and got equivalent Canon (mainly L) lenses. I have not been disappointed with the Canons, in fact I have been very, very pleased with the results. The 70-200mm f4IS, in particular has astonished me with its fine performance-very up to Leica R standards as is the 135mm f2 and the 35mm f1.4. The 85mm f1.8 is OK as is the 24mm f2.8 - satisfactory, but not thrilling. The 50mm f1.4 is a good performer above f2.8, but has nice bokeh wide open but not Summilux-R/Summicron quality resolution-wise. Build quality of the 85/50/24 is not up to Leica standards. The Ls are up to Leica standards - but of course very different. One lens I do regret selling is my 21mm Super-Angulon. There is not a good Canon equivalent unless I want to get the 24mm TS-E or the 24mm Lf1.4, neither which I particularly want as both are large heavy lenses. I am however having to consider the relative merits of the 18m/21mm Distagons and the new 20mm VC and (reluctantly) the Canon 24 L. Only the VC is really affordable. I hope that the 25mm Distagon makes its appearance too in the EOS line as that would be perfect - although I hear it is not a great performer.</p>

<p>I also have the Canon 24-70mm zoom - its a little too early to say how much I like it, but image quality seems excellent. For general walking around/landscape work I think I prefer the primes in this range rather than the massive zoom, which I use for event-type photography for which it is great.</p>

<p>I can't fault the Canon for image quality at all, in fact it is superb. I am pleased with the change simply because Leica has given up on the R line despite what they say (they obviously don't want to come out and say it: I understand that), so there was no way of getting a good non-clunky Leica digital reflex solution. Much as I like Leica - it is much more important for me to have a smooth working solution for photography with as little mental clutter and adaptation required in order for the equipment to become "transparent" to me. Uncoupled lenses and different lens ergonomics between lenses interfere with my photographic habits, so I would rather change the system than put up with it.</p>

<p>Inevitably, I miss the robust, small size and built-in hoods of the Leica lenses and R-bodies, but my results from the Canon have definitely made up for the wrench after 25 years of Leica R photography. </p>

<p>My daughter gives me a brand new Canon 5DMKii body as my birthday present. This is my digital full camera camera to replace my R4,R5,RE. </p>

<p>I tried out Rayqual REOS adapter sold by Cameraquest, Fotodiox sold by Amazon and Pixco REOS sold on ebay. Only Rayqual works with my R lenses ; Fotodiox and Pixco reos are too thick to achieve infinity focus, fotodiox deviation is the worst.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10512613-md.jpg" alt="" /><br>

5dmk2 with Elmarit R19 1ver on Rayqual REOS adapter. Fit nicely into my Leica R 14502 leather case. This will be one of my travel outfit for wide angle and low barrel distortion capture of classical buildings in China ( one of my main area of contribution of photos and articles to wikipedia )</p>

<p>No mirror clearance problem, no infinity problem, with Elmarit R19 1ver. Focusing is harder with wide angle lens on 5dmk2 groundglass, however using live view of 5dmk2 at 5x or 10x, it is easy to focus accuratedly.<br>

Put the mode dial of 5dmk2 on Av, lens aperture at any stop, metering works automatically ,this 5DMK2 works like a charm as easy as on Leica R, perfect replacement.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10548790-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="510" /><br>

5DMK2+RAYQUAL REOS +VARIO ELMAR R28-70. This combo cannot fit into my original Leica R14520 leather case, I bought a Lowepro.</p>

<p>Focus no easy at 28mm end, I focus at 70 end, then zoom to 28mm. This will be my day to day outfit, not for travel, 28mm not wide enough.</p>

<p>I have tested Elmarit R19, Summicron R90, VE2870, APO TELYT R180/3.4 all works, haven't try out Macro-Elmarit R60, Elmarit R90 and Telyt R 400/6.8, Summicron R50. I don't foresee any problem.</p>