19 VS 28 VS 35 R lens

[thebarnman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Looking for the best performing lens in this range. If you noticed, I did not include the 24mm R lens in the title as I have not read too many good things about it.

 

What's important to me is how good the lens performs while it's wide open (sharp edge to edge) and throughout it's entire focus range. And of course all of the other qualities that makes up a good lens (contrast, resolution, sharpness) even at other aperture settings.

 

If I had a M system, it would be an easy pick as I keep reading that the new 24mm is outstanding. However as far as I know, Leica stopped updating the wider angle R lens for a while now.

 

I really do prefer new lenses, however I have bought a used before. Currently I have the R 90 ASPH (new) and a older R 60 (used without ROM).

 

It would be nice to have a wide angle to "round" out my R9 system.

 

So far I have locally found (used) a

Elmarit R 2.8/28mm S/N 2803422 (I think that's 1976)

 

24mm R Leica S/N 3837251

24mm R Leitz Wetzlar S/N 3329038.

 

Those two 24mm I'm not considering, however I thought you might find it interesting that's what I found at a local camera shop...

 

I'm considering the 28mm over the 35mm because I keep reading that the 35mm looks like a 50mm with a slightly wider angle. However if the 19mm turns out to be the better performer, I would rather go with that.

 

 

Thanks,

Edited July 14, 2009 by thebarnman

[PasMichiel]

The 28 is really great.

 

It don't has the fisheye effect and the 24 and the 19 do.

 

And its depth is enorm. If you take 22 it's sharp from 58cm to endless. So it's good, but also an handicap. To sharpen with the viewfinder, it's hard. So if you want to focus and faded parts in the picture, you'd better take the 35 of 50.

 

You always have footzoom. One step backwards and the 35 is the same with the 28.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[mgcd]

The 28 is really great.

 

It don't has the fisheye effect and the 24 and the 19 do.

 

And its depth is enorm. If you take 22 it's sharp from 58cm to endless. So it's good, but also an handicap. To sharpen with the viewfinder, it's hard. So if you want to focus and faded parts in the picture, you'd better take the 35 of 50.

 

You always have footzoom. One step backwards and the 35 is the same with the 28.

 

The 24 and 19 do NOT have a fisheye effect.

[PasMichiel]

The 24 and 19 do NOT have a fisheye effect.

 

 

Is that so. Okay. Then I have to look for that 19mm.

[I.H.G.]

From the technical standpoint the 28mm (last version) and the 19mm (last version) are the best. However the 19 mm can be used only in special situations, so the 28mm would be the choice, I think.

[dkCambridgeshire]

19mm lens? What size shoes do you take?

 

Good luck

 

Cheers

 

dunk

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use my 19mm lens much more often than I thought I would when I originally bought that lens. It is a GREAT lens, most likely the best 19mm ever made. That said, a 19mm lens is not a beginner lens. You have to carefully compose your shots to get a meaningful result. The lens is very good for landscapes and even more so for situations in narrow streets. I wholeheartedly recommend that lens, but not as your only wideangle lens. You should have a 28mm or 35 mm lens to complement it.

 

Andy

[troyfreund]

I've got a 19mm and 24mm and love 'em both, especially on the DMR. I'm not the pickiest photographer around--I know that these lenses are good and that I appreciate them. In this user's situation, I'd likely suggest going for the 24mm, as the 19mm is a little obnoxious in its size (I have the first generation).

[SteveYork]

A review of the MTF graphs tells me the current 19mm has the best optics, followed by the 28mm Elmarit, followed by the 35mm Summicron. But they are all excellent lenses, and you're comparing "apples and oranges," as they say. You decision should be based on our needs and not the optics, because they are all very good.

[Angora]

I have the old version of the 28 Elmarit, and I'm very pleased with it; it's a quite versatile lens.

The newer version is said to be even better...

 

In either cases, you can't go wrong.

[roguewave]

You have many choices here. I own both version of the R19. Each has it's strengths. The old one gives a beautiful, smooth look in B&W that the ultra sharp newer 19 just can't render. The newer 19 is my primary lens. There's little it can't do. It takes time & practice, but what doesn't. The technicals of the 28 are strong, but it isn't a very interesting frame. Very bland and the images "look" nice, but the way the lens works, it's hard to get something to standout from the frame. I'd go with the Summilx 35 instead if you want a smooth wide angle. The 28 just doesn't render interesting elements.The 35 & 80 Summilux are the 2 best R optics, by any measure.

 

Regarding the R24. It is a real gem. Just look at the catalog of exquisite images Rob has posted here over the last 2 years with the R24 as his prime. Can't argue with those results. I use thie R24 all the time for B&W film work. The images are outstanding. Again, the Elmarit 19 & 24 have the same properties, super sharp, a most excellent way to isolate the most important elements in the frame using a wid angle. BOTH require a lot of study & use to master them.

[4X5B&W]

The 28mm SL #28xxxx would be the earlier version Elmarit. The current 28 Elmarit is the better performer.

 

From my experience, the best wide angle performers in the R line are the latest 19, the latest 28, the 35 Summilux, and the last version of the 35 Elmarit......a superb lens that not a lot of people buy.

 

Good luck with your purchase.

[lct]

...What's important to me is how good the lens performs while it's wide open (sharp edge to edge) and throughout it's entire focus range. And of course all of the other qualities that makes up a good lens (contrast, resolution, sharpness) even at other aperture settings...

So far I have locally found (used) a

Elmarit R 2.8/28mm S/N 2803422 (I think that's 1976)

24mm R Leica S/N 3837251

24mm R Leitz Wetzlar S/N 3329038...

Not sure if it may help as i don't use my R lenses with film any more (Canon 5D).

Anyway, wide open the 24/2.8, at least mine (code # 11221), has too much vignetting and softness in the corners IMHO.

Again wide open, the 28/2.8 you've found (code # 11204) is sharp in the center but not in the corners where there is some vignetting as well, less so than with the 28/2.4 though.

The later 28/2.8s (code # 11259 & 11333) are better from this viewpoint. I have no problem with my 11259 that i can advise w/o hesitation.

Same with the Summicron 35/2 (code # 11115).

No experience with Elmarits 19 sorry, i don't go wider than 21 so far. FWIW.

[Pixels By Paul]

Are lenses from the 1st year of production (1993) of the Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/28mm E55 (V2) lens as good as those from later years?

[dave_d]

Looking for the best performing lens in this range.

 

Define "best performing". Lens performance has more to do with the person behind the camera than the lens itself.

[lct]

To my knowledge the only difference is ROM contacts on the latest 11333 vs previous 11259 version.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Define "best performing". Lens performance has more to do with the person behind the camera than the lens itself.

 

That's a myth. Picture composition and technical ability/merit are 'photographer dependent' … but actual pure lens performance in terms of e.g. MTF is all about manufacturers' design criteria and manufacturing QA. Nobody can make a silk purse from a pig's ear … and some manufacturers' QA is such that they make higher proportions of pig lenses than their competitors. I have read of several instances where several pig-dog samples of the same super wide zoom lens were tested by professional photographers before finding one 'up to spec. and performance'.

 

Someone may now tell the story about Bert Hardy and his seaside pictures to try and make their point - but it's unlikely that anyone can make a decent job of photographing e.g. the whole front of a large building with a Box Brownie.

 

Horses for courses.

 

dunk

Edited February 18, 2014 by dkpeterborough
typo

[masjah]

At the risk of stating the obvious, please don't rule out from consideration the 21-35 zoom; opitically it is excellent.

[pgk]

I'm considering the 28mm over the 35mm because I keep reading that the 35mm looks like a 50mm with a slightly wider angle. However if the 19mm turns out to be the better performer, I would rather go with that.

In all honesty, performance differences between these three options is of minor importance in comparison with their other differences. Angle of view and maximum apertures will have vastly greater impact on imagery than the performance difference between three well designed, high quality lenses.

 

FWIW the 19mm sits astride what I would describe as the 'super-wide' lens 'class' and as such is IMHO, of somewhat specialist usage - it is likely to be very effective when used appropriately, but will almost certainly get less use than the other two lenses, unless that is you have specific requirements and need such a 'super-wide' lens because of this.

 

35mm lenses DO NOT look like 50mm lenses (I use both and IMHO they are certainly not the same). The 35mm is an excellent choice if you prefer a slightly wider view but do not want to use a lens which shows a wide-angle nature in the images it produces.

 

The 28mm lens on the other hand is often underrated as a focal length. Whilst its clearly a wide-angle, it works well in a variety of situations without being too wide, which even a 24mm can sometimes tend to be. From what you have written I would suggest that the 28mm would fit your needs and as a relatively recent R design its performance will be superb.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[thebarnman]

Define "best performing". Lens performance has more to do with the person behind the camera than the lens itself.

 

Hi Dave,

 

I'm tickled a thread I started almost five years ago received a bit of a rebirth! My question was answered pretty thoroughly around that time.

 

However to answer your question, I was looking for a R lens that had the best performance technical wise when compared to the R-19mm, R-28mm and the R-35mm.

 

To my surprise, it was a R zoom lens that had the better performance at 35mm when compared to the older R-35mm prime.

 

And best over all performance in those ranges is the newest of the R-28mm prime lens.

 

Unfortunately, there had been no updates for the R lenses and the newest M-35mm lens is even better yet. Of course, there is the new M-50mm lens that performs even better, however I was looking for a wider lens than 50mm for the R system.

 

I think it would be fun to do some street photography and I was going back and forth between 35mm or 28mm lens. If I remember correctly, the R-50mm lens is even a better performer than the R-28mm lens, however I felt the 50mm angle was a bit too narrow for what I was looking to do.

 

I have thought of the idea of getting a M with the nicest M-35mm lens for some street photography. Today of course, I have not decided if I wanted to go the MM route or the M6 or M7 route. The reason being, is I like to shoot B&W negatives, get those reversed processed and displayed on a big screen as a B&W transparency. If I do digital, I'd have to change the format I'm used to and print the images from a fine printer. Both are nice, however there's much more impact looking at the image on a big screen VS a fine art print. At the same time, it's much easier to share prints when compared to setting up the big screen and projector.