Which 50 & 35mm R lenses

[Paul Verrips]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm thinking about using "Leitax modified" Leica R 50 & 35mm on my Nikon Df

 

There are several versions from both lenses, which one does the better job on Nikon full frame?

 

With several, i mean several version Summilux an several version Summicron, like one-cam, two-cam, thee-cam and ROM lenses.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Paul Verrips

[Paul Verrips]

No one who has an answer?

[Advertisement]

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

[k_g_wolf ✝]

GO FOR SUMMICRON-LENSES, ROM IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE LENSFUNCTIONS.

 

 

BEST

GEORG

[masjah]

GO FOR SUMMICRON-LENSES, ROM IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE LENSFUNCTIONS.

 

 

BEST

GEORG

 

.... in fact, in the context of Leitax conversion, ROM lenses sometimes create their own conversion complications, and you may be better off not choosing them at all. Even the number of cams is not relevant, since they are unused on the Nikon cameras.

[SteveYork]

The last 35mm Elmarit is very sharp, and relatively light at about 300g. I own this one, and the prior version.

 

Both versions of the 50mm Summicron are very, very good, with the second version being slightly sharper. I own both.

 

The 50 Summilux, first optical version, is an ok lens, but not great. The last version is said to be great, but insanely expensive.

 

The last 35mm Summicron is said to be very good, and has a wide following. I recently obtained the first version, and i like it much, especially with color film, but it is very heavy.

 

The problem with R lenses is that they tend to be heavy.

[JohnFM]

I have 35 and 50 R Summicrons. Both are great. The 35 is very similar to the legendary M version -- smooth, creamy tonality. The 50 Summicron is very light and doesn't look or feel like much, but it's a superb lens. When the 50 Summilux update was introduced a number of years ago, I tested two new examples relative to my 50 Summicron. The Lux had more overall contrast and was sharper at the edges but the Summicron was sharper in the middle. I kept the Summicron and still love it.

[masjah]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with cmments on the 50/2. I've also got the 35/1.4. It is a relatively old design, but a good one. It vignettes a little bit wide open, but that doesn't matter too much in the contexts in which it's likely to be used. Personally I think also the edge sharpness isn't quite as good when completely wide open, but same comment applies. It is relatively heavy.

 

Now that I've got an M240 as my "digital solution for R lenses", the 35/1.4 R is the one lens I might trade for a 35/1.4 M so that I've got one M lens for conventional M shooting (not that this is my usual style of photography).

[hamey]

I have two 50mm Lenses, the 50mm R F2 Rom, used it for years with no complaints.

The other is the 50mm M 1.4 ASPH, both are fantastic Lanses.

 

I cannot speak for the 35mm as I used the 28mm F2.8 Rom, that was also a great lens however when I

Bought the 21-35 vario I sold my 28mm.

 

Good Luck.

 

Ken.

[AB007]

For best value and performance, I would recommend the Summicrons.

[Nick_S]

There are some comparisons of the last versions made for the R system, with a bit of history and technical background, in these articles by Puts in the Leica download section:

Leica Camera AG - Downloads

 

Nick

[JonPB]

[Climbs up on soapbox.]

 

For 35mm, my impression is that the Elmarit (having a max aperture of f/2.8) technically outperforms the Summicron (f/2) and Summilux (f/1.4) when used at the same apertures. My Elmarit 35mm outperforms my 21-35mm only in the very center; the zoom beats the prime out toward the corners; in the middle zone, which is what matters most, they're about the same. The primes have better out of focus rendering, though.

 

For 50mm, the same general trend holds true: the Macro Elmarit is overall better above f/5.6 than either the Summicron or Summilux. (The most recent Summilux, with a 60mm filter thread, breaks this trend by matching the Elmarit, though I'd prefer the Zeiss Otus 55mm over the Summilux as they cost the same amount.)

 

Technical performance isn't all it's made out to be, though. I prefer my Summicron-R 50mm over my (former) Pentax DA* 55/1.4: even though I suspect the Pentax would measure as the superior lens, the ways in which the Leica lenses fall short of perfection is very pleasing while the Pentax fails in distracting ways. Many people like the way the early Summilux lenses render--their manner of imperfection--enough to value them above more modern, more precise lenses.

 

I'd generally look for lenses with "E" filter mounts (e.g., "E55", which means it has a 55mm diameter), because these are standard and easy to come by; earlier lenses have "series" filter mounts, which are an older style and therefore the filters are harder to find. Not a big deal, but perhaps worth considering.

 

They're all good lenses. The faster lenses cost more and have more capability; the slower lenses perform better within their limited scope because there is less light to aberrate, and are cheaper. The older lenses have a classically pleasant style and the newer lenses have a modern, pleasant style. You really can't go wrong unless you're buying it because it says "Leica" and therefore you expect it to be perfect. They all have strengths and weaknesses; fortunately, most of them have lots of samples posted here and elsewhere on the 'net for you to check out before buying.

 

Cheers,

Jon

 

[Wipes brow and climbs down from soapbox with apologies for verbosity.]