Leica R lense on Canon 5D II vs Leica M9 with M lense

[chris_chung]

<p>Very curious about the comparison. R lense is generally not as good as M lense for same focal length range. However, pixel wise (and perhaps image quality wise) Canon 5D II may still have advantage. So did anyone compare e.g. Canon 5D II with Leica R 50mm/1.4 E60 vs Leica M9 with M 50/1.4asph?</p>

[robert meier]

<p>In my experience, the R lenses are noticably sharper than the M lenses.</p>

[chris_chung]

<p>Thanks Robert.<br>

Well I have used both systems(film) and my experience/opinion is that:<br>

M21/2.8asph > R21/4<br>

M24/2.8asph > R24/2.8<br>

M35/2asph > R35/2<br>

M35/1.4asph > R35/1.4<br>

M50/1.4asph > R50/1.4(E60)<br>

M90/2asph apo = R90/2asph apo<br>

M135/3.4 apo > R135/2.8<br>

Thanks!</p>

[cd_k]

<p>I wouldn't say that Leica R lenses are 'not as good as' M lenses. In many respect, R lenses hold their own compared to M lenses, for example, Elmarit 19R (current version) Elmarit 28R (current version), Elmarit 100R APO, and Elmarit 180R APO are as good as they get. There are excellent zoom lenses too, 28-90/2.8-3,5 and 80-200/4,0 and 70-180/2,8, and 105-280/4,2. R lense are also better build compared to M lenses. </p>

<p>M lenses, on the other hand, are all about speed, Summiluxes 21M, 24M, 35M, 50M, and 75M have no peers, so are Summicrons 28M, 35M, and 75M.</p>

<p> </p>

[dstate1]

<p>The R lenses Leica designed near the end of active production were on par with M lenses, but there were not many of them. Some of the lenses mentioned above as old as dirt, so they will not compare to modern M mount designs. As noted the latest 19, 28, 100, zoom and telephoto designs were benchmarks. The only SLR 28 I've owned thats better than the Elmarit ROM is the latest Zeiss ZF F2.0 and that is after more than a decade of progress.</p>

[john_liberty]

<p>The only R lenses I've owned were the 50 Summicron, the 90 2.8 Elmarit and the 90 2.0 Summicron. They were as good as any lens ever made, Leica M or not. I sold the 90's and wish that I hadn't, and will never sell the 50 Summi. Between it and my Voigtlander Bessa II w/ a 105 Color Heliar I have two of the best lenses you can find at any price. The 50 Summi is an older German made lens, every bit the equal of the newer glass. In fact, in the way it images in 3-D, it's better.</p>

[nee_sung]

<p>For about 15 years I used both M and R lenses and in my experience there is no difference in quality between them.</p>

[MTC Photography]

<p><a href="http://www.leicapages.com/pdf/lenstestphotozone.pdf">http://www.leicapages.com/pdf/lenstestphotozone.pdf</a></p>

[MTC Photography]

<p><a href="http://www.leicapages.com/pdf/lenstestphotozone.pdf">http://www.leicapages.com/pdf/lenstestphotozone.pdf</a></p>

[majid]

<p>Some M lenses like the Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 were introduced after the R equivalent. The problem is the viewfinder on the 5DmkII is not adequate for critical focus, even with an Eg-S screen, and you would need a magnifier like the Angle Finder C or Magnifier C, either of which is quite cumbersome, not to mention the hassles of stop-down metering, or you would have to use Live View. The Zeiss ZE line is a much more practical option.</p>

[lonsdale]

<p>I own the 5D MKII and only Leica R Lenses, 21 f4, 35 f2, 50 f1.4, 90 f2, 100 f2.8 macro and the 180 f2.8. These lenses are beautiful I will not let go of any of them. I sold my canon lenses to buy them. The live view on the 5D MKII makes them very easy to focus and I have been so happy with the quality of the photos I will not be going to anything else for sometime. Using them in manuel mode and many times in aperture priority is like going back to my early film cameras. I have also been very successful in focusing through the lens. I fist started using them with my 5D.</p>

[arlen_c._elkins]

<p>One major drawback of the M9 ( and M8 ) is that they do not have a Live View option, so even with a R to M adapter there is no way to critical focus the R lenses. Even those adapters that have a focus ring on the adapter that you transfer the reading to the lens are not accurate enough for really detailed subjects. Lack of live view is why I do not even consider purchasing the M9, and a Visoflex is not an acceptable option. </p>

<p>I do however own a 1Ds Mk3, and my 2 most used lenses are the 100mm Apo-Macro-Elmarit and the 60mm Macro Elmarit, quality with either lens is superb on the 1Ds, and I do feel superior to the Canon lenses in the same focal length. I feel it odd that I can use these two Leica lenses on a Canon camera, but if the same lenses are mounted on a Leica M9 I can only guess at focus.</p>

<p>Although I do own a Leica M4p with several Leica lenses and use it for film work, I cannot give any direct comparison of a M to R lens as I cannot mount the M lens on the Canon and I cannot mount the R lens on a Leica M9 and have the ability to critical focus the lens. The only way to accurately compare R to M lenses would be to mount both on the same camera, which sad to say is not a viable option.</p>

 

[geoff_r1]

<p>I think it's absolutley possible to use R lenses on an M, but of course you need to be within the limits of scale focusing. I use 35mm to 19mm R lenses on my MP using a Novoflex adaptor (no rangefinder coupling) without a problem.<br>

You mention two of your favourite lenses being the 60mm and 100mm macros, longer focal lengths would not be practical to scale focus, and although possible, an M really isn't the most practical choice for macro anyway.</p>

 

[arlen_c._elkins]

<p>"An M really isn't the most practical choice for macro anyway."</p>

<p>That is one of the reasons why the Digital M cameras would benefit from having Live View, it would make the camera much easier to use in a Macro or Studio setup, in fact Live View would seem to benefit a Rangefinder type camera more that it woud benefit a DSLR. Think of Live View as a 21st century Visoflex for the Digital M cameras!</p>