R7 or F3

[FinnPirat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know it's not fair to ask such in a Leica forum…

BUT: I've got a R7 with motor drive (without any lenses yet) and a Nikon F3 (without any lenses neither).

 

So my question is: should I go in (the very good) Nikkor lenses, or in the (better? but more expensive) R lenses?

 

what I want to get is (maybe) a 28mm a 50mm (1.4) a light tele such as a 85mm or 90mm and/or a 105mm or 135mm

 

any suggestions?!

 

thx

[dkCambridgeshire]

Instead of buying each of those Leica R lenses, why not consider sourcing a Leica 28-90mm Vario Elmarit R? They command a premium price but might not cost that much more than all the R prime lenses on your list and a good example with box and papers would hold its value. And maybe get a Nikkor 50/1.4 for when you need something faster.

 

dunk

[Advertisement]

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

[ferdinand]

I know it's not fair to ask such in a Leica forum…

BUT: I've got a R7 with motor drive (without any lenses yet) and a Nikon F3 (without any lenses neither).

 

So my question is: should I go in (the very good) Nikkor lenses, or in the (better? but more expensive) R lenses?

 

what I want to get is (maybe) a 28mm a 50mm (1.4) a light tele such as a 85mm or 90mm and/or a 105mm or 135mm

 

any suggestions?!

 

thx

 

Not an easy question. I took this way with digital. Photos on film base with the F3 will follow

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/technik-industrie/345560-nsu.html

Edited September 10, 2014 by ferdinand

[FinnPirat]

Instead of buying each of those Leica R lenses, why not consider sourcing a Leica 28-90mm Vario Elmarit R?

 

dunk

 

I know, it seems to be a great lens (perhaps the best), but…. it's over 4000.-€

[gyoung]

Not an easy question. I took this way with digital. Photos on film base with the F3 will follow

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/technik-industrie/345560-nsu.html

Do I understand you are using leitax modified Leica R lenses on a Nikon Df?

Do you find focussing ok? Is it easier than other Nikpn dslrs?

 

Gerry

[mmradman]

Do I understand you are using leitax modified Leica R lenses on a Nikon Df?

Do you find focussing ok? Is it easier than other Nikpn dslrs?

 

Gerry

 

I would also appreciate to hear how manual focus lenses behave on Df.

 

Leica lens used by Ferdinand (post #3) is most probably converted to F mount -Leitax or cheaper copy otherwise it would only work at close up with R-F adapter which is possible in theory but I haven't sen one (yet).

 

Note; inpost #3 forum members appear to be more excited about NSU push bike than photo-technical side of things (Df with R Summicron 90mm).

 

And this is great bike http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/technik-industrie/293350-fahrrad-mit-bereifung-aus-spiralfedern.html probably result of design by adversity.

Edited September 11, 2014 by mmradman
Added note.

[ferdinand]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do I understand you are using leitax modified Leica R lenses on a Nikon Df?

Do you find focussing ok? Is it easier than other Nikpn dslrs?

 

Gerry

 

three times yes

 

I've used Leica R-Lenses eight years with my Canon stuff (5D I - III, 1Ds III, 1Dx) and there was always a problem to get the exact focus with the viewfinder. I also tried some Nikon gear (D600, D700, D800) with manual lenses and after testing the Df twice from friends of mine I realized that the optical viewfinder of the Df was the best for me to manual focus. Maybe it works on a D4 or D4s with an equal comfortable manner.

 

I've rebuilt five R lenses now and this is my 'adäquate solution'

[folke_k]

I know it's not fair to ask such in a Leica forum…

BUT: I've got a R7 with motor drive (without any lenses yet) and a Nikon F3 (without any lenses neither).

 

So my question is: should I go in (the very good) Nikkor lenses, or in the (better? but more expensive) R lenses?

 

what I want to get is (maybe) a 28mm a 50mm (1.4) a light tele such as a 85mm or 90mm and/or a 105mm or 135mm

 

any suggestions?!

 

thx

 

I do not like the Nikon F3. If you compare both cameras, the Leica has a far better finder than the Nikon. On the other side the Nikon will always work. Leica R7 has its small problems (of course Nikon has these as well, but the camera will take pictures anyway).

Regarding your choice of lenses there is not a big difference in price. At 28mm you have to take Nikons 28/2,8 AiS to get very good results, but Leicas 28/2,8 is a far better choice. 50/1,4 is way cheaper at Nikon and this is a very good lens. at 90mm nothing beats a Leica Summicron, but you may consider a Nikon 85/1,8 (the old one with Ai)

Nikon 135/3,5 is a bargain and unbelieveable good, but Leicas 135/2,8 is not much less, a really forgotten lens and cheap to buy.

 

When i have to choose a camera out of my stock today, i nearly always take a Leica, mostly a Leicaflex with 28/2,8 and 90/2,0 with me. When it comes to Leica R i take a R6.2, alternative a Leica RE.

If i go out with Nikon i use a Nikon FE (far better camera than F3 in my opinion) and use it mostly with a 55/2,8 Micro-Nikkor and 24/2,8.

[sc_rufctr]

R7 or F3 is not really a question IMO. If you go "R" it will be way more expensive than anything from Nikon of similar vintage., so it's not really a fair comparison.

 

Is money a factor?

 

There's nothing wrong with Nikon but I've had all of the top brands in film cameras over the years and only the "R" gear remains.

(I still have a Canon 1Ds and three lenses but aside from my "M" bodies and lenses that's it.)

[bocaburger]

I had fairly extensive kits of both R and N back a few years ago and quite frankly I found the R lenses underwhelming. I expected them to be vastly superior to the Nikkors and they weren't. I suppose one could make an argument for the R's being better constructed, but the tradeoff is weight and expense, and I've had my Nikkors since the late 60's and never needed service on any of them. I sold all my R stuff, kept the Nikkors, use them on Canon 5D and recently Leica M240. My favs are the 55/3.5 Micro, 85/1.8, 105/2.5 (I have that lens in LTM also), and 180/2.8. And I had R7 and F3 and there's no contest, the R7 was a gussied-up prosumer Minolta whereas the F3 was a pro-level workhorse with interchangeable finders and a 100% viewfinder.

[spydrxx]

Both bodies are old and subject to the issues of aging. IMHO the F3 is by far a more versatile body. While I love the Leica lenses and have used them on a variety of Leicas from the SL2 to the R8, and then on digital bodies, the Nikon lenses are no slouches, and generally less expensive and more readily available. I think for the average user Nikon is a far better choice. If you are a collector, gear fondler, or obsessive pixel peeper with deep pockets, or you just want Leica gear - go for the Leica. After years of using both and comparing the results for my type of shooting....I sold most of my Leica SLR gear and kept my Nikon gear.

[MarkP]

Well I had a F3/T bought new in 1985 which I had until 2010. I had a number of prime AI-S lenses over the years but in the end kept the 2.0/24, 1.4/35, 1.4/50, 1.2/55, 2.8/105 Micro and 4.0/80-200.

 

In 2010 I bought a M9 initially with three lenses: 1.4/21 Summilux ASPH, 1.4/35 Summilux ASPH, and 2.0/75 APO-Summicron ASPH. The results were so overwhelming that I sold all of my Nikon gear almost immediately - these AI-S lenses weren't a patch on the Leica lenses (especially wide open). I decided that if I went back to film I would use a Leica film body for my Leica lenses.

 

Yes, there are clearly some underwhelming R lenses but most are outstanding.

 

So for me it would be an R film body with R lenses rather than an F3 with Nikkor lenses. I see no point buying an F3 for adapted Leica lenses. I should add that the F3 was a fantastic camera - indestructible (not a single problem from 1995 to 2010), versatile, reasonably compact compared with an R8/9, 100%VF coverage (the F3/T was an high-eyepoint). But I always hated the LCD lightmeter readout compared with the needle matching of the FE series bodies.

 

However, the price of Leica R lenses continues to rise and availability of many better lenses is more limited as they are bought up. An F3 and Nikkor AI-S system would cost about the same as an R8/9 and one of the better R prime lenses.

Edited September 15, 2014 by MarkP

[Nick_S]

For the F3 camera why stick solely to Nikkor lenses? One might also consider the highly regarded Zeiss ZF.2 prime lenses. These also have an electronic interface to support camera modes and lens information communication with more recent Nikon bodies.

 

Nick

Edited September 16, 2014 by Nick_S

[FinnPirat]

thx for all the answers!

I will try both. At the moment, I only need a 85/90/105 and a 50mm lens.

So for the F3 I will take the 105/2.5, and the 50/1.4 AI-S for the R7 I will try to get a not so expensive Elmarit 135mm. A 90mm Sumicron would be great but for the moment...

[xalo]

If you prefer the look from the Leica compared to the Nikon (or Zeiss) glass, the body becomes secondary.

Refraining from the Leica R 50/1,4 lenses and other with hyped prices, you can have a lot of lasting fun and value for money with the 28/2,8 (first version — second is quite expensive), any 50/2 or 60/2,8, and either a 90/2 or 90/2,8. The 135/2,8 is undervalued, but a bit heavy.

 

Alexander

[Guest Bademeister]

...I will try both. At the moment, I only need a 85/90/105 and a 50mm lens.

So for the F3 I will take the 105/2.5, and the 50/1.4 AI-S for the R7 I will try to get a not so expensive Elmarit 135mm. A 90mm Sumicron would be great but for the moment...

Are you sure that your R7 copy actually works? If not, I suggest to find out before you invest in R glass...

Should the one (R7 or F3 respectively) be a replacement for the other in case of fault I would buy two bodies of the same model (brand). If one is supposed to be a complement for the other (indoor - outdoor, tele - wide, high iso - low iso, zoom - primes,...) I would go the route you do, use both (R7 and F3) and chose the lenses accordingly - which means no similar lens for both systems (e. g. 105 and 135 of the same speed). But that's just me. Do not forget that there are also excellent third party primes for Nikon F mount (Nokton 58, Vivitar Series 1 90/105 Macro and many others). And remember that you focus Nikon lenses the other way round than you do R lenses. Same for the aperture ring which may confuse some users if they change between the systems frequently.

[lewis44]

While I shot Nikon for many years with good results, Leica Glass is much better. I've had both overlapping each other and when I had to make a choice on which to use, it was based more conditions and area than anything else. If I break a Nikon, not to worry. Took it in deserts, swamps, East L.A. you name it. With Leica, Downtown Only. $$$ difference was the motivating factor. Sorry if that sounds crass.

[FinnPirat]

While I shot Nikon for many years with good results, Leica Glass is much better...

 

this applies for sure for the ASPH lenses; but this will not be the question for me, too expansive!

The question will be: is a "common" Elmarit 90mm or a Summicron 90mm much better than an AI-S 85/2 or 105/2.5; a Summicron 50/2.0 better than an AI-S 50/1.4? They are (more) or less the same price; let's say not too far from each other...

[dkCambridgeshire]

Consider a 60mm Macro Elmarit R - it will give better results than all the 'common' R lenses mentioned. Have you read The Leica Pocket Book 8th Edition? Well worth consulting to see which of the non-apo R lenses are worth considering.

 

dunk

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[xalo]

[The question will be: is a "common" Elmarit 90mm or a Summicron 90mm much better than an AI-S 85/2 or 105/2.5; a Summicron 50/2.0 better than an AI-S 50/1.4? They are (more) or less the same price; let's say not too far from each other...

 

I would perhaps coin the question differently, because "better" is so subjective. What is better? Sharper? Try look and feel of both options, if your can. I have a Summicron 90 (pre-apo) that seems wide open less sharp than, e.g., my Canon FD 85/1,8 under some circumstances (i.e. close focus), but the depth of tones, rich hues and delicate transitions put it in a different category. I find that even more true with colour slides.

Btw, I really like the 60/2,8, too.

Alexander