Leica R

<p>Sounds like a crazy question but I am thinking of buying a second hand leica R7 and adding some average leica lenses. How good would these be compared to say zeiss? Is there a different quality to these lenses? I Know they are less contrasty than zeiss but what about the image quality itself?</p>

<p>I cannot compare to Zeiss, and I only have two lenses for my Leica R - I cannot call them average, though. They were far too expensive for that ;-) The only comparison I can realistically make is on film as I never used the Leica R lenses on my digital camera. The other filmcameras (and the digital) is Nikon, with a set of ~1980s AiS primes as the 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2 and 105 f/2.5 - not the worst performers in their days by any means. The two Leica lenses I have are the Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm and Summicron-R 35mm (both reasonably aged R-only 3-cam lenses).</p>

<p>The Macro-Elmarit is an impeccable lens, sharp, contrasty, smooth out of focus. But against the Nikon 50mm f/1.2, I do not find it loads better, which is fair: both lenses cost about as much.<br>

The Summicron 35mm is spectacular; I really like the Nikon 35mm lens, but at wide apertures the Leica is just better. Smooth out of focus (not common for a wide-ish lens), sharp, incredible contrast. It's a gem. It's also far from cheap - again, comparable to the Nikon (which I still love, as it has its own outspoken character). I'd wish I could compare it to the Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF lens - it would probably be a better comparison, but I haven't given in yet to buying that lens....<br>

Build quality of the two Leica lenses I have is great. Part of the joy for me is using the lenses - you do feel it's quality work. The body (R6 in my case) is good, but frankly a Nikon F3 feels better.</p>

<p>The point remains, the lenses are relatively expensive - I compare them here to much faster lenses which do cost the same. There is a price premium; is it worth it? For me, ultimately yes. I like using the kit as I have it, it's simple, relatively light and performs admirably. But it is an utter luxury; the quality improvements are incremental, and other systems are really lots cheaper.<br>

I did not, and still do not, want to convert the Leica lenses with a Leitax adapter to the Nikon F mount. But if I was a sane person, I should - it would be the best of two worlds for me (Summicron on a FM2 - nice).</p>

<p>Having owned a variety of Leica R lenses in the past I can honestly say that many of them are excellent, some are better than average for the period. I used mine mostly on film, but when I owned them I also had a Sigma SD14 digital body with the mount changed to a Leica R mount. I ddin't understand your Zeiss comparison question....are you asking for a comparison with today's Zeiss lenses, or Zeiss SLR lenses of a contemperary period with the Leica lenses? The Leica R lenses I owned included the 35-70mm 3.5 Vario-Elmar, 80-200 4.0 Vario-Elmar, a 35, 90, 135 and 180 Elmarit, a 180 Elmar, 180 Telyt APO Elmar, 250 Telyt R, 400 Telyt/6.8 R, and a 50 Summicron, not all at the same time obviously. All were bought used, some in outstanding condition, some had rough cosmetics, and some were earlier versions I had converted to 3 cam. It is hard to make a generalization about the lenses except to say that all were big, heavy, buttery smooth in operation, and the optics seemed their best either wide open or closed down one stop (except the 400). Some of the Leica R lenses were Minolta designs finished by Leica. Personally, I wouldn't chase "average" Leica R lenses, but rather go for the truly outstanding ones...where the differences are more noticeable. Hope this helps.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I Know they are less contrasty than zeiss but what about the image quality itself?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think this is general knowledge, nor accepted - certainly not by me. Leica have an enviable reputation as a lens maker - in many ways better than Zeiss - although they have never been as prolific. So I think it is a reasonable to assert that Leica lenses will be among the top of any equivalent lenses made by other manufacturers of the same vintage. There are a few less highly regarded lenses - the refashioned Minolta and Sigma lenses in particular - generally these were zooms where Leica has always been weak (or rather uninterested). Leica excels at fixed focal length lenses, although the latest all-Leica 35-70 and 80-200mm zooms were excellent. As to being big and heavy, this is not really true, the later R lenses were not particularly big or heavy, although since Leica eschewed plastic they were heavier than their Japanese competitors. Certainly the current set of Zeiss ZF and ZEs are about the same size or heavier. The main problem with Leica will always be the high price - this is due to reputation and because there are not many of them around. You have to decide whether it is worth the extra expense. At one time, when I had more ready cash, I certainly thought so. But I have to say that I am much less ready to pay those prices today. The introduction of mirrorless cameras have stimulated the sales and the prices of all Leica lenses unfortunately. The only Leica lens that I have owned and was dissatisfied with was the original 35 f2.8 Elmarit-R. All the others have been excellent (M and R). </p>

<p>When I mentioned zeiss it was simply to have a comparison and not todays lenses but rather past SLR lenses for contax for example</p>

<p>Both lenses are top build and optical quality, there is no "best" just slight rendering differences that are important to almost on one. Use either set of optics with confidence. The camera body may be more of an important selection for individual user ergonomics.</p>

<p>Most R lenses are good or very good- except some of the zooms which were made by others.Of the standard zooms avoid the 28-70s and the F3.5 35-70. The F4 35 to 70 is very good (i use mine on my M240) as is the 28-90.</p>

<p>I don't think there's a magical quality to R lenses, though they do tend to be a bit warmer in color and not quite as contrasty a look as most others. Optically, those I've used are all excellent, probably even amazing. The 35mm Summicron (my standard lens) is remarkably sharp even wide open, and unusually flare-resistant. The 50mm Summicron is a fine lens too, and the 90mm Elmarit is also one of the best ever made. If you get into the faster lenses, results might vary more, though I'm sure they're still very good compared to other equivalents.<br>

<br /> The body matters too. I was never fond of R bodies, and if you don't really need auto exposure you might want to seriously consider an SL or SL2. Take a look through the viewfinder, and then try to put it down.</p>