Leica R series

I know the rangefinders are king in this forum but does anyone still use a R series? I always seem to get the impression that the M glass is better, for example is the 90mm f2.8 Elmarit really that much better in the M series or is that just boasting?

Rangefinders are just not my style, I've shot with SLR's for 50 years.

Just curious.

I had a couple Leica R3 cameras and a bunch of R 3-cam lenses (I worked as a salesman for Alfredo's Camera Store in New Orleans, a famous Leica dealer, and got the equipment cheap from Leitz in the late 1970s).

 

The R3 was a nice camera, and the R lenses were fantastic. I remember taking a photo of some cars 2 or more blocks away with the 180MM f/2.8 lens with Tri-X, and the license plate on one car (depth of field limit) was legible. And the R series lenses were the best I've ever seen for color rendition. I'm using Nikon 1970s-80s AI and AIS lenses and F2A cameras now, and I love how great the Nikkors are. But you can see the difference between the Nikkors and the R lenses. The only reason I sold my Leica gear and changed to Nikon was the cost of getting the Leica gear repaired and CLA'd (ouch!) I've toyed with buying a couple R3s and assorted R lenses, but repairs now are really out of sight. Note - I've needed repairs on my Leica gear more frequently than on my Nikon gear.

The Leica R series cameras are the very best of 80's technology. I had R4 and R4s bodies that I used for a long time and found them delicate and needing occasional maintenance. It happens that for me the latest version of the 90mm 2.8 Elmarit was a very sharp, contrasty lens equivalent to the RF version. I had them both the R version and the M version. Fortunately or unfortunately I sold both several years back along with nearly all the Leica equipment. I'm totally Canon DSLR now except my Leica RF replacement, a little Sony a6000 with a very fine Sony 35mm 1.8 lens. The only Leica lens I kept was the 135mm 2.8 R lens that I occasionally use on my Canon

DSLR via adapter. I should sell it. Good luck!

If you wanted to own that once in a lifetime Leica SLR, wouldn't the Leicaflex SL be the one to get?

If you wanted to own that once in a lifetime Leica SLR, wouldn't the Leicaflex SL be the one to get?

 

I don't know about that. The SL originally took a mercury battery, which are no longer made. You'd need to use Wein cells (don't last too long), or get the camera converted to use 1.5V silver oxide batteries from what I've read.

Actually the SL2 had the SL beat. I had the good fortune to own the Leicafles, SL, SL2, R3 Mot and R8. My favorite was the SL2. As far as Leica R lenses go, until about 2 years ago they were quite a bargain, but as m4/3 bodies became increasingly popular and people discovered they could use Leica R lenses on them, they have significantly driven up prices. Also since Leica has developed digital RF bodies with screens on the bacck, some people have gone down the path of using R lenses with r-> adapters, since they can focus them very easily.The key characteristic of the R series of lenses, IMHO, was the micro contrast at edges when shooting wide open, giving the impression of subjects almost jumping out of photos. Unfortunately, due to age, often the R lenses may need a little professional TLC, commonly known as a CLA, and it is increasingly difficult to find the skilled persons to correctly do the job at a reasonable cost.

The 100mm macro Elmarit is a manual SLR lens I'd be still drooling over. But I went digital. If R stuff comes your way and you can afford usage and maintenance, enjoy!

I'm using my R cameras frequently; I bought the first pieces a few years ago to test the waters with Leica lenses without spending the big money on the M gear. In the meantime, I found out that I don't much like rangefinder focussing, but that I do like the way the Leica lenses render, so my R kit grew quite a fair bit and it's now my default go-to film kit.

 

I have a R6 and R7; prefer the R6 because it's simpler. Compared to my Nikon film bodies (F3 and FM2), these bodies sure do not impress a lot, and I don't quite like the way the shutter release feels sluggish. But the lenses make up for it big time.

Absolutely love the Leicaflex SL and the (older) lenses I have for it, especially the 28/2.8, the 35/2 and the 90/2. Never tried a R4 or later models. I switch between M and Leicaflex depending on my current mood. I don't need the maximum sharpness for the kind of stuff I shoot with film-based cameras, that's why I don't care about resolution-tests anymore.

I use R4, R5 and RE, with Elmarit R19/2.8, Summicron R50, Elmarit R90, Macro-Elmarit R60, APO Telyt 180/3.4 , Telyt R400/6.8 and Vario Elmar 28-70.

Absolutely love the Leicaflex SL and the (older) lenses I have for it, especially the 28/2.8, the 35/2 and the 90/2. Never tried a R4 or later models. I switch between M and Leicaflex depending on my current mood. I don't need the maximum sharpness for the kind of stuff I shoot with film-based cameras, that's why I don't care about resolution-tests anymore.

I recently acquired an SL and I like it all over again. I have had them years ago. This one was sent to Don Goldberg and he went through it. As someone else has posted, used Leitz slr glass is expensive once again. I also bought a nice R4 for not much money - $125 from George Ury. I have found that I can get Tamron Adaptall 2 mounts for the R4 so I can at least use a Tamron lens if needed. Better than nothing and some of what they made was quite good. I bought their 24-48 f3.5 and so far I like it. I bought a good user 50 f2 2 cam for the SL as well as a 3 cam 35-70 Elmar

Just this past Friday I used my Leicaflex Standard with the 21 f3.4 Super-Angulon lens for a photography tour of NY's Finger Lake region. This is an orphan set up as the lens will only mount on the Leicaflex Standard and then only with the mirror locked up. The body is heavy, and I have to use a hand held light meter and use a Zeiss external shoe mounted 21 viewfinder, but it takes unique pictures. As for the battery issue, I bought the 1.5 silver oxide converter that is made in Thailand and gives a very accurate reading. You won't find a brighter SLR viewfinder than on the Leicaflex. The shutter release is smooth and you have the additional 1/2000 shutter speed. The weight is not an issue as the body has a great feel in the hand. As a system I use the 21, a 35 f2.8, the Summicron 50 and the 135 f2.8. Not the fastest series of lenses, but they are all capable of producing great images. I'm looking forward to seeing the comparison output from the 21 and the same shot on a Panasonic digital using the Leica zoom lens. There is also a converter R to M that allows you to mount these lenses on M bodies. As for digital cameras, I'm glad to see people are mounting then and reviving interest in a great series of lenses. Like Wouter, the R is now my outdoor backup camera system.

People who use the digital M's that can take the accessory EVF are using R lenses on their M240's and M10's via the R to M adapter. I've been seeing some images captured with the 19mm R lens recently in a post over in the Leica International forum.

The price levels of the R lenses sure wasn't helped by the M-to-R adapter, and more and better mirrorless options for which adapters to the R-mount exist. That said, with patience there are still R lenses to be found at reasonable prices - not cheap, but not completely premium either. The upside to the situation is also that reselling them in case is also not too difficult, and you probably won't loose much or any money in the process.

Thanks for all the great replies. I own a R6 and a few lenses but have rarely used them. Fault of my own, combination of lazy and time. I bought it when prices dropped but use Nikon DSLR's professionally, nothing mounts on a Nikon, not like Canon. Your posts have inspired me to put some Velvia in it and take it along on my next trip.

Best regards,

Rick

You can adapt R lenses to Nikon F actually, check Leitax. It's certainly not as easy as an adapter like with Canon, but it's not impossible. Personally I prefer keeping things original, but I could fully understand adapting them to use those lenses on digital Nikons. Edited July 6, 2017 by Wouter Willemse

The 90/2 R I have preforms very well , as does the 35/2 and 28/2.8 R versions II. I think generally the R lenses were among the best SLR lenses available in their time, and the physical construction is as good as or better than M lenses in my experience. The M system shorter flange to film distance was an advantage for optical design of wider lenses, of course.

 

I enjoyed the early Leicaflex bodies for their uniqueness, but wound up using a pair of R3 bodies most of the time when using the R system back in the film days. Still have them.

Actually the SL2 had the SL beat" SCL aka Stephen Lewis

Though not well written, here's my first post back in 2005. Even Stephen Lewis chimed in on this one...

I shared my opinion of the Leicaflex SL2

Leicaflex SL's vs R's debate <<< click

On a side note, I got a kick out of Pnet member Jerry Lehrer's 2005 comment:

"A johnny-come-lately really comes in pontificating as if he really knows it all.

It is obvious that he does not. What are his credentials? FRANKly, who is he really?"

Edited July 6, 2017 by Gus Lazzari

I've looked into the Nikon conversions and it involves swapping the rear lens mount, I can handle that but swapping back and forth is impracticable. Since I own over 40 Nikkors there is no advantage in doing so just to please my curiosity. I prefer to use my 35mm SLR's as intended to be used, with film, then scanning. I also have the option of a Sony A7r and adapter. I'd still like to own a M6 someday.

I bought my sl new way back when. I then acquired an sl2 as well as a standard. For smoothness the standard cannot be beat. If the Nikon F was a Nikon s with a mirror box the Leicaflex standard was an M3 with a mirror box. I was given an R4 and an R5 but having experienced battery failure with inoperable R camera for two days far from home I prefer using battery independent Leicaflexes. Recently had all of my Leicaflex cameras cla-ed. Less clutter in viewfinder, more comfortable to hold and, for what it's worth, a more aesthetic design. From my experience the mass of these cameras permits using slower shutter speeds.

I've used and owned a lot of Leica SLRs over the years, including all 3 of the Leicaflex, and also an R6, 6.2 and R7. My vote for "best" goes to the Leicaflex SL. Sherry Krauter (or Gus) can get these cameras in working order and many of the spare parts are still available. The SL has this incredible 0.90 viewfinder where things just pop into focus in a dramatic way. It's a unique combination of fine and bigger micro prisms. Taking the picture is as fun as getting the image. And all the Leicaflex series has this effective braking system that allows taking shotes a stop or two slower then other manufactures. I agree with the poster above that the original Leicaflex is the smoothest. Never was a big fan of the SL2, although I've owned the camera twice. Fiddled with an R9 in a store when they were being sold and that hunchback was surprisingly ergonomic with a nice viewfinder. The R6/6.2 have this crazy shutter travel but they are smaller.