R vs. M lens Quality

I am thinking of switching from my current SLR to a Leica system with a 35/50/90 kit. Disregarding the rangefinder/SLR differences, do meaningful image quality differences exist between late 80s/early 1990s M/R lenses in the focal lengths I wish to use?

Richard: The simple and straight answer is YES!! The lenses

have improved dramatically thanks to technology. I would

suggest that you purchase Erwin Put's Leica Lens Compendium

that was recently published. Erwin's analysis is thorough and

first rate.

if I understand your quesiotn, it is, is there an M vs R diferene you

should consider?

 

<p>

 

depends on lens and use. the newest 90 apo (both lines, I assume) is

btter than the 90 summciron (which was a vrey good lens). The 80 1.4

is consdired comparable to the 75 1.4 (some folks give a margin here

and there). The 90 2.8 of similar vintage (assumeing you can find the

last version R) is more or less identical, and wonderful. The 35

summicrons -- harder to tell, possibly the M series a slight edge.

The wider angles, I do;t have personal experience -- there is less

need for retrofocus design with the M, and theoretically the older

designs should give an M edge (which has all but disappeared by the

generations you refer to). You can read Puts (or anyone's) book, but

issues of Zoom, macro, and telephoto (the R 180s are special, and the

100 apo 2.8 is hard to beat) are in the realm of M can't/doesn't

compete. In short, specific lenses in each line are superb, very few

are in the avoid arena, bt a lens comaprision should be lens by lens.

As an predominant M user, I am very impressed by the R's. Cursiously,

you mnetioned the 80 and early 90s -- a time i which R development was

peak, new lenses, new features, and the M was just in resurgence --

with almost no new lenses (minor changes) until the late 90's (I think

the first asph summkicorn 35 was 1997 or theraebouts, and then they

have really come --the new crop are all new within the past 5 years or

less. I think the 90 2.8 changed 1990, the 75 1.4 came out 1980, the

50s had largely cosmetic changes, the first (small producition) 1.4 35

asph came out 1990). So, compare individual lenses, but be aware that

a 1985-95 lens may be a very old dsign, or rather new design,

depending on specifics. And, even so, some folks like the older

designs, especially for some people photography.

I had a 35, 50, 90 outfit with a R7 and before that an R4. My lenses

were "Late" 55mm filter R lenses. The glass was as good as the

lenses on my M cameras, but I still got sharper pictures with the M

for some reason (lack of vibration, more accurate focus?). Other

considerations: The Leica SLR's are big and heavy,(put a motor on

them and they weight as much as a 645 medium format SLR) and so are

the lenses. The lenses are twice the size of their M counterparts.

while every one has an opinion on various lenses, I believe that most

would agree, that their own skill as a photographer and not the

quality of the leica glass is the limiting factor. many leica

lenses, especially the older M lenses have their own signature, and

their own advocates. both the M 90 f2 APO and R 100 f2.8 are genrally

considered to be too sharp for portrait work of any thing other than

a young child with perfect skin. in my opinion the arguments for M

glass are slower shutter speeds and more discreet photography. the

arguments for R glass are generally lower used prices and some

wonderfull long glass especially the 400 f6.8 telyt. personally I

prefer to shoot a 90 on my r6.2 than a 90 on my m3. at 50mm, I

prefer the m3.

Richard,

 

<p>

 

It has already been said but let me renew it, the R system comes

affordable as second hand.

Of course, the newer lens (serial number over 3 millions) are of

better quality (and son't show too much signs of use).

 

<p>

 

A good 35mm is difficult to find cheap. But the R lens are of superb

quality, some missing paint should not put you off.

Cheers.

X.

I think Richard is asking about early 90's lenses in both lineups,

which would make my observation here pretty irrelevant, but I have to

say that when I transferred from R to M (latest asphs) I saw a very

evident difference in the technical parameters of my snaps. Whether

you like the special quality of the M asphs or not, they are very

different in look from other lenses in the same focal lengths. Just

my opinion, and frankly I don't think the technical aspect is so very

important, but the M asph lenses give you something other lenses

cannot.

Just my opinion, and frankly I don't think the technical aspect is so

very important, but the M asph lenses give you something other lenses

cannot

 

<p>

 

 

What? Like under-EXPOSED-by-a-mile pics of a truck?

Thanks for your answers. A used R system offers a nice meter system,

ergonomics, and increasingly lower entry prices for mint bodies.

Glass one generation behind the current designs should be a good

value. I suspect any difference between similar R/M mounts is

marginal. The decision comes down to cost and which platform

supports your requirements best.

Richard

 

<p>

 

The 35mm ASPH M lenses are sharper into the corners at wide

apertures than the 35mm R lenses, but the Rs are no slouch and the R

'cron is roughly equivalent to the famous preASPH 35mm-M. The 35/1.4 R

is "better" than the old 'lux 35mm, but is not as good as the current

35mm M 'lux. 50mm's are equivalent ('cron and older 'lux) or better

(new R 'lux). The only 90s you can get are now s/h. The later Elmarit

is equivalent to the current Elmarit-M (it is the same lens). The

Summicron-ASPH is superior to the Summicron-R in raw performance at

wide apertures, but again about equivalent to the earlier M version.

The Apo Macro Elmarit 100mm is equivalent to the APO ASPH 90mm-M.

Don't forget my current favorite - the 80mm Summilux - beautiful

imaging characteristics - much the same as the 75mm 'lux for the M.