'R' lens vs. 'M'

Well I still haven't made the jump to Leica. I read, go to the dealer, ponder... I'm thinking about an R6.2 and 35 and 80 lenses.

<p>

Those R lenses are even more expensive than the M's. What accounts for these prices? Are they better optically or mechanically? Or will I just be paying for an even smaller market?

<p>

I don't see much on this site regarding the 6.2 or the R lenses. Any comments about these would be much appreciated.

The new series of R lenses sure are expensive, and they have

discontinued some of the great affordable lenses like the 90 f2.8

Elmarit, and the 35 f2.8 Elmarit, two of my favorites and superb

lenses in every way. Because of the high cost of many of the R

lenses, I only have the 35 f2.8, 50 f2.0, and 90 f2.8, which are all

still readily available for reasonable prices on the used markets. The

price of the real Lieca made fast zooms is out of control. All the R

lenses have great mechanical construction and focus feel is really

nice, very smooth and no slop. When mounted to the camera, they feel

like they are welded in place. The coatings are superb. I don't like

the paint they use on them, and this is really my only complaint. The

black rubs off the edges quickly, and I swear they use the cheapest

paint made on the numbers! If you use the camera a lot, the lenses

look worn on the outside before their time. All three of my lenses

are 55mm filter size, and they all have handy built in hoods. These

three lenses perform as well as their equivalents that I use with an

M3, and all are totally useable wide open. I still can not match the

M3 in low light hand held stuff, however, as the SLR's mirror still

comes into play and reduces sharpness at speeds of 1/15, 1/30 and even

1/60 with the 90. At these same speeds, I can nail 5 times as many

sharp shots with the M camera. The M3 is more accurate with the focus

as well. I have heard that the plain screen works better on the R

cameras for many people, and I think I will eventually pick one up to

try it out.

I just picked up a winder R on e-bay, and I am surprised how much I

like it. It is very quiet for a winder, and a useful item. It makes

it easier to hand hold the camera, as you don't have to change your

grip and concenration through the finder to manually wind it after a

shot. I enjoy using the R camera, but I don't think I will be

investing any serious money in any of the more exotic lenses.

The R lenses probably represent the absolute peak of optical engineering and art.In short they are superb.

Are they worth the big money? I use colour neg film for prints,professional work,weddings and event with some photojournalism.I dont require the best....My wedding clients dont want the sharpest,clearest photos of themselves.I prefer a less expensive way of getting my results.I use a Pentax/Nikon/Canon Fd/System(not all mine !) as required with my very own Leica M3 and 50mm and 135mm Leica-M lenses.A professional friend of mine uses the R system and the results are spectacular.

A SLR is easier to use than a Rngfdr.But in low light my M3 wipes out any Slr.I can use slower speeds.I can focus in almost no light.I once did assignment where the other pro had EOS-1 with a light to focus ,fitted to his flash,zoom lens 17~35 or similar.I had the 33 year old M3,50mm Summicron and 20 year old Vivitar 285.My results were much sharper and clearer and no DISTORTION.You will have to decide whether you want slr or rangefinder.Leica is expensive but in the long time use can be very economical.

You just must use it more than 33 years!The problem is that technology is going very fast.Modern Japanese SLR offer very much more for your money... I`d recommend the M system.Have patience.Use it at least a year and then compare your best results.In my case,34 years ago,The Leica

M3 was the way for me.I use less lenses,no accessories,just the body,2 lenses max.Flash if there is no light.I travel light and free,sometimes...."better a simple camera and a complex photographer than a complex camera and simple photographer.."

Please allow me to offer my 2 cents worth in here. first a

qualification, (or lack of such)... I don't use the Leica R series.

These are my points to arrive at that decision.

<p>

1. There is a difference between the use and goals of SLRs and

Rangefinders. When I wanted to enter the world of rangefinders,

there was only one serious place to go... Leica. Even with the entry

of several other brands, IMHO the track record is not in yet, so I'll

stick with Leica at this point in time. There are many sources of

information on RF vs. SLRs, so I won't clog Tony's site with

redundant talk about philosophy, but there are times when one system

over the other is beneficial... there are times when either / or will

also work. Each photographer needs to reach their own conclusions.

<p>

2. Owning a using both SLRs and RF cameras offer no cross

utilization, so sticking with one system for both is a matter of

desiring to do so for reasons other than any true mechanical

advantage. You can't use M and R lenses on the opposite bodies, so a

fully replicated set of lenses are needed anyway.

<p>

3. Cost over performance. I don't want to insult the users of R

lenses... I'm sure they are great, but not so great that it should

cost me to 1200 Dollars to get the equivalent Nikon lens for 400

Dollars. If you simply have that kind of disposable income... go for

it. I am on a different budget, and need to justify my purchases. I

can't scrimp on rangefinder cameras, but I can make up for that

outlay of cash on the SLR side of the house. If I ever bit the

bullet and purchased a R6.2, I'd be so coddling with it that I'd

never fully realize its potential. The plastic Nikons of today are

truly crap, IMHO... but you can go to any decent camera store and

find great manual focus AIS lens in perfect condition for

ridiculously low prices. I bought a perfect, (mechanical and

cosmetic), 35mm f1.4 and 105mm f2.5 for a combined 800 Dollars. A

brand new FM2 goes for 500 Dollars. If the R6.2 is better... is it

that much better? Another benefit of the cost differential is that I

actually use my SLRs. I'm not afraid to subject them to the abuse

that comes with hard use. I can almost buy 4 brand new in the box

FM2's for the price of 1 R6.2. If the R6.2 lasts twice as long as

the FM2, (and I don't believe it will), I'm still ahead.

<p>

Here is a site in which a photographer did side by side comparison of

the Nikon and Leica 35mm and 90mm (Leica) and 105mm (Nikon). Read

his results and ask yourself about the intrinsic value over true

value. Now if you ask about rangefinder cameras... I would totally

recommend the Leica line.... nothing can touch it today.

<p>

http://www.bill-hunton-photo.com/nikvlei.htm

The R-lenses tend to be more expensive - remember that reflex lenses

need auto diaphragms and extra cams. They are no better optically or

mechanically, but they are arguably the best set of lenses available

for SLRs. Leica-R cameras have less features than Canon or Nikon etc.

but in my opinion these features are not very useful, nor even

desirable.

<p>

In my opinion the best way to get into Leica R is secondhand. You can

pick up secondhand 21, 28, 35, 50, 90 (f2 and f2.8), 135, and 180 for

under $700 each and you will be getting the best there is. My

experience is that in general the lenses are superior to pretty well

most Nikon equivalents, and most Canon (although some Canon L lenses

are probably as good - but also cost the same). By "better" I mean

their anti-flare characteristics and useability at wide apertures.

<p>

Al is correct when he says that for rangefinder there is still

perhaps only one choice and that the reflexes suffer from competition

from the Japanese. This is indeed the case, however, I think it needs

to be said that a better comparison is between the premium Japanese

lenses (L and ED types) and the Leica-R glass. The difference is then

less of a big deal.

<p>

I have never bought a new Leica R lens (which I feel a little bad

about) and every now and then wonder whether I might not find Canon

as good, but the fact is when I get out my (Leica) projector and look

at the results - they speak for themselves - why change something

when I am happy with it? So as an answer to Al - I have never paid

more than $1000 for a Leica lens (most in the region $500-$900) so

although expensive it has not been totally out of proportion and I

have not needed a second mortgage.

<p>

As others have mentioned on this site many times, rangefinder

photography is an acquired taste and not every one likes it. I much

prefer reflex viewing ("one kit does all") and bought a Leicaflex SL

with older 50mm Summicron 50mm and 90mm 15 years ago and never looked

back. The results were such that I lost my taste for the Canon optics

I had previously. You can see my comments on the R6 posted elsewhere.

Please, accept my two cents, gentlemen. During last 25 years I had

many R-Leicas: the very first Leicaflex, then SL, SL2, R3, R4, R6 and

lenses: 21, 28, 35, 50, 90(2.0, 2.8), 135, 180/2.8-old 2 cam, 180/2.8

compact. After many years of experience I have returned to a classic

Nikon F. But RF Leicas I have never left. My opinion is that Leica R-

lenses are weighty but excellent, may be the best in all respects,

and almost comparable to M-lenses and to a few Nikkors AI-AIS

(28/2.0, 35/1.4, 50/2.0/1.8, 105/2.5, 180/2.8 ED). Lecaflexes are not

so reliable as Nikons F, F2, F3 are and are very huge, but no

vibration. R-bodies have Minolta interior design and Seiko� shutters.

So much vibration and noise, and so much unsharp pictures made with

mid-tele on short distances when handholding even on 1/60-1/125. Even

FA is more quiet camera, but has limited reliability too. It is

difficult for me to recognize R-Leicas as genuine pro-cameras.(I

don�t know R7, R8). So, for me R-lenses are exceptional, but R-bodies

are not so good for them, R-bodies and R-lenses are created in

different styles. By the way, I dream to shoot as David Alan Harvey

does, with a single Leica with 35 and 50mm lenses.

<p>

Best,

Victor

Victor

<p>

I don't think the R6.2 has the Seiko-designed shutter as it is

completely manual. I do not agree with your analysis. The original

Leicaflexes are heavy, but no larger than an F3. The current R6.2 may

debatably be less good at handling mirror vibration if this is true

(I have not found this in my experience owning both an SL and an

R6.2) this is due to the fact that the camera is much lighter rather

than because the mirror box is inferior. I have no problem with

mirror slap at 1/60 - 1/125. In my opinion the FA shutter cannot be

compared with the Leica R6 in sound or vibration. I have looked many

times at manual Nikon and like their bodies as a rule, but the R6 is

much nicer in operation than an F3 or FA in my opinion with a much

brighter screen. Your comments might indeed have some validity when

referring to the R3 or to the early R4, which were perhaps less

refined than the SL2 they replaced, but the current R6.2 and R8 are

of very high quality. The big thing is the money - is it worth paying

all that extra to get a Leica body to use the R-lenses. That is a

personal decision, but, rest assured, you do get a nice body if you

do think it is worth it.

Robin,

<p>

Thank you for your comments. I realy don't know R6.2, R7, R8 and have

never shot with them. My personal conclusions about R3(shutter Leitz-

Copal),R4(shutter Seiko-MCE)R6 are not so good.I like horizontal

shutters. Seems, that R6 in operation was close on R4, it was very

nice and pleasant, with exellent performance as all leicas are. But

it wasn't a true pro-camera for me (like all Minoltas, exept XK with

horizontal titan curtains). R-leicas are delicate cameras, not for

hard work. Meanwhile, though R is not my cup of tea, I would like to

play a little with a new R8 too. The difference between men and boys

is the price of their tois, isn't it?. By the way, SL,SL2(I have one

yet)are more weighty and more bulky in its dimensions than F-non

photomic, F2, F3(I like them). But, sorry, seems, I got away from the

main theme.

Regards,

Robin, I have just read, that R6.2 shutter is more quiet than R6 I

have had

http://teachnet.edb.utexas.edu/~leica/leicaslr.html

The shutter and mirror are well controlled on the R7--noticeably

better than the R4 I had. The camera also seems very ruggedly

constructed-similar to the Nikon F3 in feel. For macro work, I have

used the convenient mirror lock up for some of the sharpest close ups

I have taken. By the way, the Minolta 55mm 2 element close up lens

works remarkably good on my 90mm Elmarit. I don't do much super

telephoto work these days, otherwise I'd pick up an old mile long 400

Leica Telyt lens and try it with the mirror lock up. My biggest

problem with the R7 is that the focusing screen is almost too bright

and clear. I'd like to find something that snaps in and out of focus

with a bit more certainty. Unshart images taken with my R7 haven't

been from camera shake as much as missing the focus from time to

time. I've talked to Bill Maxwell and he told me to send him a stock

matte screen and he'd run it through his process. one of these

days...

Andrew

<p>

I think you need the microprism spot screen (no split image). This is

a big improvement in my opinion.

Leica R lenses are the acme of Leica optics. According to Chasseur d'Image laboratory tests

there are far more five star ***** R lenses then M lenses.

Martin

<p>

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, there are also MORE R lenses

than Ms - so perhaps your statement is not unexpected.

Just a very good example of a quality of R-lens:

"For the first time ever, a 35mm transparency was used for Kodak's 60-

foot long Colorama in New York's Grand Central Station.

All previous Kodak Coloramas (27 years worth) were made from Large-

format negatives.

What was truly astonishing was the fact that the tiny 35mm

transparency, though magnified an incredible 516 times, retained

sharpness. A very impressive testimonial to the quality of Leica

lenses and photographer Ernst Haas. The camera: Leicaflex SL with

Summicron 50mm lens" (Popular Photography, September 1978, p.75).)

Robin, there are indeed more R lenses then M lenses.

Since you asked, I will answer in a little more detail without copying

the test result of Chasseur d'Image ( which they forbid )

Chasseur d'Image tested about eleven M lenses, including 35mm/2.0 3.5mm/1.4 ASPH etc, the highest rating all M lenses recieved were ****, 4 stars, there was NONE five star lens

They also test 25 R lenses, with seven top rated lens received ***** rating.

In terms of percentage, 28% or R lenses are *****, 0% M lens

There you go.

Chasseur d'Image lens test lab has advanced computer controlled, MTF lens test equipment.

OK Martin

<p>

Point taken! Which R-lenses rated 5 stars as a matter of interest?

Let me guess:

<p>

100mm Apo, 180 f3.4 or 180 f2.8 Apos, 180 f2 Apo, 280f2.8 Apo, 280 f4

Apo, 70-180mm f2.8 Apo, 35-70 f2.8 Asph?

<p>

Did they test the new 90mm Apo-M by any chance?

<p>

I am not a slave to MTF charts, but they are probably the best thing

we have for testing resolution, if nothing else...

Hi! M 90/2 apo asph received *****5 along with 2/35asph - 135/3.5

apo - 90/2.8 and 2/50.

their web site is photim.com but they don't publish the tests on

line. you can order lenses tests files on leicas M and R .(chasseur

d'images)

None of you have mentioned the60mm macro elmarit which has never had

needed to be changed optically since it was introduced. What do you

say people?

Yes, that is right! The 2.8/60 macro was not mentioned so far. It

also belong to the superb line of lenses from R series. All of the

macro lens from Leica are very superb. I got an R6.2 fitted with

2.8/100 APO Macro + Elpro 1:1.1, R7 fitted with 2.8/60 Macro + 1:1

converter and an R5 fitted with 4.0/100 Macro. Some of my backup R

lenses are 2.8/35 2.0/50 and 2.8/135. All of these 3 backup lenses

are supported with Elpro 1-4. The battle of �which� in terms

of �better� or �best� in a camera body or lens must be judged by its

operational design and logic-user-friendly access. After using

different systems before, I gathered test results from different SLR

lenses before I decided to get the body. It really went to a very

tight screening ended up with getting myself decided to use Leica

system. Weight and size can also be added as factors but we do not

need to argue about certain grams and certain millimeters. Mirror

vibration can be elliminated by the MLU in R6, R6.2 and R7. What I am

after for is durability, reliability, resale value and again�.

operational design and logic-user-friendly access.

The R8, IMHO , is far superior to the M cameras in every way. Leica

optics, (their suppose to be better because I spent one katrillion

dollars just for one lens), Brightest viewfinder of any SLR and an

image that actually changes when you switch lenses. No, I am not a

Leica shooter. I would say I can't afford to,but I have invested a

good deal of money in the system I have chosen. An inferior choice

I'm sure, but it gets used quite extensively. By the way, R lenses

cost more because ROM is suppose to be similar to Nikon with its

distance information for flash exposures. Hey, I thought Leica glass

was fast enough not to need a flash!!

The R lenses are expensive yes, that's a horrible fact. But their

performance in shooting color slides as I do is not compared by

any other brand, I have been amazed to read a lot about lens

sharpness, weight and so on and almost nothing about the

amazing colors that Leica lenses can bring out in color

transparency film, any brand! of course I rather use Velvia. I sold

all my Nikkors even the expensive ones like the 2,8 zooms and

use exclusively thre R lenses 28 f2.8, 60 f2.8 macro and 135 f2.8

There is nothing more I need.

Good luck in your search for you optimal lens choice.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion of the relative quality

of the Leica-R wideangle lenses. I Have wideangle lenses in Leica M

mount (21/3.4, 28/2.8, 35/2, 35/1.4); and Nikon mount (20/4, 24/2.8,

28/2.8, 35/2 & 35PC). I might like to add one or two wideangles for

the Leica R4, but only if they are really good, and worth the $.

Erwin Puts seems unimpressed with the 35/2 R. He doesn't comment on

the 35/2.8 or the 28/2.8. These are the two I would probably

consider, if I could find out anything about them.

<p>

Marco says he got rid of his 28/2.8 Nikkor in favor of the Leica

equivalent lens. I take that to be a pretty strong endorsement.

What do the rest of you think about R wideangles, especially 24, 28,

& 35?