Things I want to know: R lenses as good as M lenses?

[leicaglow]

<p>I've never shot with a Leica R. I was just wondering if the look of images from a Leica R SLR looks similar to a Leica M. For example, would a 35mm Summilux of the same subject look similar? The reason I ask is a) are the R lenses as good as the M lenses, and b) is there any difference due to the design and distance of the lens from the film plane.</p>

[dave_green5]

<p>I would say that anything from 50mm on out to longer is as good in the R family as it is in the M family from a comparable timeframe. Some M designs are slightly newer, and thus might be better.</p>

<p>The Wide Angles are different, and probably the M-versions have the edge - especially the fast ones.</p>

[claude_batmanghelidj]

Leica lenses are outstanding, and in many cases, I believe that the R versions are superior to the M versions.<p>I can personally vouch for the 90mm 2.0, 2.8 and 50mm 2.0 lenses. The best I have ever seen. In fact I am talking myself into purchasing these lenses again, to use on my EOS....

[MTC Photography]

<p>The strength of R lens is in macro and telephoto</p>

[fred_c1]

<p>Several R & M lenses actually share the same optical construction: 50/2, 90/2 (pre-asph). 90/2.8. There could be even more but I don't have Sartorius on hand.</p>

[charlie lemay]

<p>I've owned 3 different 35 Summicron M lenses, 2 of the 4th version and 2 pre-aspherical Summiluxes. in the past I've tried to like them but none of them seemed to do it for me pictorially. I've owned 2 different 35 Elmarit R lenses over the years, and though others raved about it being the most under rated R lens, I still could not see what all the fuss was about. Then I bought a 35 Summicron R lens and it has been by far the best of this bunch in my opinion. For the M, I love the Voightlander Nokton and the antique quality of the Canon f2 LTM lens. I also own the current 28 Elmarit R lens and it is every bit as good and the pre-aspherical final version of the 28 M lens. I have owned the 21 pre- aspherical final version and replaced it with a Zeiss 21 f2.8 which I like much better. The 19mm R lens which I own is every bit as good as the Zeiss 21 lens. This is my own personal experience and obviously not in agreement with most.</p>

[jonathan_lee3]

<p>I use both systems. The 2nd version 19mm Elmarit-R is as sharp and snappy as the 21/2.8 mm ASPH. The 100mm R macro is as good as the last version 90mm/2.8 M. The 80 Summilux-R has the same image signature as the 75mm Summilux, soft and smooth wide open, much sharper stopped down. 35 Summicron-R and 50 Summicron=R are both excellent lenses but the 35 ASPH and 50 ASPH Summilux are "better", if you are referring to tack sharpness. The R lenses are bigger, heavier but the last time I checked, they were cheaper that their M counterparts.</p>

[stephen_york3]

<p>A more specific question will get you more specific answers. In general, both R and M lenses are very good. The more recent optical formulas are more excellent. In general, the M line has been updated more in the last two decades. In general, the current telephoto and Macro R lenses are excellent. It would be easier to identify the ho-hum R lenses (e.g., 180mm Elmar) and just assume that everything else is excellent. If you really want to compare, get a copy of the Leica Pocket Book, 7th Edition, and look at the MTF graphs. Of course, the best lens is the one you use.</p>

[Bill Blackwell Images]

<p>"In general, both R and M lenses are very good. The more recent optical formulas are more excellent. In general, the M line has been updated more in the last two decades."<br /><br />If by "more excellent" you mean sharper and more contrast, then on the whole, I would agree this statement is correct. But there are two areas we need to clarify about this: <br /><br />(1) M and R lenses of the same generation are pretty much equal (some of the R lenses are, in fact, slightly better on the specs); and (2) sharpness and contrast are not the only measure of the quality of a lens. Many insist the older formulas (R included) produce more pleasing OOF areas with unbeatable rich color saturation.<br /><br />For the most part, in the real world graphs and specs mean very little where the proof is in the resulting images produced. If images are pleasing to the eye (and richer compared to their Nikon or Canon counterparts) then the issue becomes a matter of preference between an SLR box and an RF box. And when cost is a factor, when Leica is the only option, choosing the R system against the M system becomes a no-brainer.</p>

[john_liberty]

<p>The R lenses are further away from the film plane because there's a rotating mirror in between. Still, using the 90 and the 50 Summicrons on M and R cameras I have seen no difference in sharpness, and until I purchased a Bessa II w/ a 105 Color Heliar the Leica R 50 Summicron was the best lens I'd ever used. If you are shooting at slow shutter speeds like 1/60 and below (and possibly even 1/125) the M lenses will be sharper because there is no mirror to slap around. While nearly everyone thinks the Leica M bodies are fine shooters, the R bodies are a bit of an acquired taste. And as Bill stated, the older German lenses have a way of imaging that I think is preferable to the newer glass, but that's just how I see things. If you choose wisely you can't go wrong w/ either type of lens.</p>

[mark cortella]

<p>Some of the R lenses are so good image quality wise,there is really no point in trying to make them any better. The 280 f4 apo,the 180 f2.8 apo,the 100 2.8 apo macro and the 180 f2 apo come to mind ,as I have all of these except the 180 f2. There are quite a few others. The 60mm 2.8 macro was designed in 1975,and it's still on of the best lenses around. If you want a light,compact quiet camera,with lenses from 18mm to 135mm,get a Leica M. If you want long telephoto's,or close up work,Get an R. And the mechanical R camera's are every bit as good as an M. My R6.2 is not that much bigger than my friend's MP,and about the same weight. The R8 and R9 are much bigger and heavier. If you want a really sharp portrait lens,go for the R 90mm f2 apo Summicron asph. The image quality has to be seen. And it is the same size as a 50 mm. I have one. Also,some people just can't get used to a rangefinder. The R wide angle lenses are also excellent. Especially the 15mm2.8,the 19 2.8,and the 28 2.8. Sorry for the long reply.</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>Mark, thank you for the thoughtful post. As an M user, I never knew those focal lengths/speeds were available.</p>

[bill a.]

<p>How about wide open (M vs R)? or does mirror slap now come into play?</p>

[doug herr]

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1569833">Mark Cortella</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>wrote: <em>"Some of the R lenses are so good </em><a href="../leica-rangefinders-forum/00Tvdx" target="_blank"><em>image quality</em></a><em> wise,there is really no point in trying to make them any better. The 280 f4 apo,the 180 f2.8 apo,the 100 2.8 apo macro and the 180 f2 apo come to mind ,as I have all of these except the 180 f2."</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Ditto that, word for word.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Mark Cortella continues: <em> "The 60mm 2.8 macro was designed in 1975,and it's still on of the best lenses around. "</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Here's where we disagree. I think it was 1972, not 1975 :)</p>

 

[mark cortella]

<p>Michael,your welcome. Bill,I've shot my R 6.2 as low as 1/15th of a second hand held with the 90 f2,but I cheated. When I'm not using a tripod,which is most of the time,I shoot handheld,but, I attach the large ball and socket head to the Leica table top tripod,and use it supported on my chest. Works just fine withe the 90 f2 apo-asph. I've even pulled that trick with my 180 2.8,but at 1/125 . The film was Fuji Astia,at iso 100. I don't notice mirror slap with my 6.2. I also use the small tripod against buildings,and other things. Instead of my big tripod,when I'm to lazy to carry it around. For grab shots I just carry the 28 f2.8,the 90 f2 on the camera,and the 180 f2.8,and the macro adapter R. In a small belt pouch,with film and filters. If you can be more specific-do you mean mirror bounce,unsharp caused by the mirror? I haven't noticed any.</p>

[mark cortella]

<p>Douglas,thanks for the correction. I knew it was 70's,but couldn't remember if it was 75 or 72. :-) I know it's one of the two. Any way,for a lens designed back then,it's really good.</p>

[bill a.]

<p>Mark: Yes, I am assuming, all other things being equal (lens), the difference between the R and M (without lock-up) will be the back element to film distance on the wides, and the mirror slap.</p>

[35mmdelux]

<p>Didnt Leica shut down the R series?</p>

[doug herr]

<p>

 

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1560768">Paul A</a> wrote: <em>"Didnt Leica shut down the R series?"</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Yes.</p>

 

</p>

[mark cortella]

<p>Bill-I've used my 90F2 apo Summicron asph,which I'm sure is based on the M 90mm apo Summicron asph wide open,using the table top tripod as a chest pod,as low as 1/60,and haven't noticed any difference from the photos my friend shot with his M version on his MP-but he shot the same picture handheld at 1/30, and both were equal in sharpness. Leica ceased production early this year of the R system,but you can find plenty of gear around,at much,much lower prices Than M gear,because the M gear is "hunted" by silly collectors to put on glass shelves and stare at,and by people who appreciate a fine classic camera,to take pictures with,which drives up the M prices. By the way,I picked up a new-brand new,R bellows,and 3 photar lenses for it,in Toronto. Last stock in store 75 % off the list price-did I mention it was brand new?</p>

[bill a.]

<p>Mark,<br>

It seems it would be a nice compromise for folks like me who want the sharpness and low light capabilities, but have a damn time composing and "seeing" in a RF style viewfinder -- I work much better in a SLR VF. (and yes, I currently have Leica M and Contax G)<br>

One more: Have you compared primes, say Nikon to Leica R -- 50 to 50, or 35 to 35?<br>

I had a Contax ZF 50 for a while, and like Sean Reid's assessment, could only see subtle differences wide open--- not enough to justify the cost difference.<br>

b</p>

 

[mark cortella]

<p>Bill,my friend has a new Nikon,the 25 mp one and several primes. Even scanned Fuji Astia blows them away. I don't suggest he buy a used Leica R 6.2 any more,because it gets him angry. :-)</p>