Which Leica R wide angle lens for Canon EOS 6D?

[Ribavel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a old Leiva R5 and all my Leica lenses I have had modified to Leitax. I would like to buy one used Leica R lens, 50mm or better below that I could also use on my EOS 6D with a chip adapter that I already have. Which R prime wide angle lens is worth buying and what approximately should be the price for a good deal? How is the Elmarit R 28mm/2.8?

Thank you.

Paul

[james.liam]

The 28 Elmarit v.2 is as good as its reputation. The delicate color gradations it reproduces cannot be matched by the Zeiss 2/28 (I have owned both). You might also consider the 21-35 Vario.

 

The 35 and (rarer) 50 Summilux E60 have a cult following and deservedly so; the 50 E60 sells for something like 3000€ these days. Lovely bokeh and sumptuous color, the 59 in particular is sought after by videographers. The later Summicron versions of both are more accessible ($£€) and great glass in their own right. Classical Mandler look as I recall.

 

The 19 Elmarit ROM another marvel, was as technologically wonderful and aesthetically superb as the Contax 21 but requires shaving the mirror in the 5D. Not sure about the 6D.

Edited December 21, 2014 by james.liam

[Advertisement]

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

[Ribavel]

What about the version 1 of the Elmarit 28mm/2.8 as compared to version 2? The version 2 seems to be hard to get...

[james.liam]

What about the version 1 of the Elmarit 28mm/2.8 as compared to version 2? The version 2 seems to be hard to get...

 

Completely different league by every metric.

 

From Erwin Puts' compendium on version II:

"The current R-28 has been introduced in 1994 and is a more advanced design. It has a floating element to improve close distance performance and also to assist the overall level of correction. Its level of performance is very close to that of the 1993 version of the M-28. At full aperture it is about equal to the M-version and almost two stops ahead of the previous R-28. .At 1:2.8 high overall contrast is combined with a crisp definition of very fine detail over most of the picture area (image height 16mm). In the field the fine textural structures are rendered with soft edges. In the corners coarse detail is blurred but detectable. At 1:4 the performance in the field improves and at 1:5.6 the on axis performance (image height 9mm) sets a new standard and surpasses even the M-28. As with the M-version we note a high correction of the oblique sagittal rays, which does improve the rendition of fine gradations in tiny object areas. Close up performance has been improved too and now the full aperture can be used at 1 meter without reservation. Vignetting is minimal. This is an outstanding lens, that in some areas even surpasses the M version, which lacks the mechanically complex floating-element construction."

 

Of version I, Puts writes:

"At full aperture we have low to medium overall contrast and the rendition of fine detail on axis (to image height 6mm) is quite clear, becoming very soft when approaching the corners. Stopping down enhances micro-contrast, but the definition of image details improves marginally.There is a fair amount of field curvature and this limits the improvements when stopping down. At 5.6 the depth of field covers some of the detail softness in the zonal areas and fine detail is now rendered with clean edges. Close up performance is fair at best and stopping down a few stops is necessary for good imagery. Wide open the lens is flare sensitive and small bright spots have extended blur patches. During its course of life, there have been some changes in balance between centre and edge performance. For really critical work, this lens should be used stopped down to middle apertures."

Edited December 21, 2014 by james.liam

[farnz]

I agree; the 28/2.8 v1 is a modest performer and not equal to the v2. The 19/2.8 v2 (the one with the filter turret built in) is a superb performer if you're considering ultra-wide angle.

 

I'm in two minds about the 24/2.8 Elmarit (having never owned or used one) because its reviews tend to be chalk and cheese with some stating that it's an excellent while others disagree but it can be found at very reasonable prices.

 

As James points out, the 21-35/2.8 Vario-Elmarit-R is worthy of consideration but it's unlikely to be found cheaply.

 

Pete.

[james.liam]

As James points out, the 21-35/2.8 Vario-Elmarit-R is worthy of consideration but it's unlikely to be found cheaply.

 

Pete.

 

The R 21-35/3.5-4 ASPH is about a US$3000 optic and a worthy option over the very rare ƒ/2.8 version.

[masjah]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Try Red Dot's s/h list?

[farnz]

The R 21-35/3.5-4 ASPH is about a US$3000 optic and a worthy option over the very rare ƒ/2.8 version.

Oops, I meant the 21-35/3.5-4 not the 28-90. I don't think there is a f/2.8 in the 21-35 mm focal length (range).

 

Pete.

[adan]

Just a reminder of an issue that no one has mentioned yet.

 

NOT ALL LEICA SLR LENSES WILL WORK ON A FULL-FRAME CANON 5D OR 6D!

 

The issue being mirror clearance. Lenses designed in the Leicaflex SL era (pre-1977) are generally OK. Later (post-Minolta-R) lenses may have issues - they won't work at all, or require surgery on the camera mirror or back of the lens.

 

More info: USING LEICA-R LENSES ON CANON dSLRs

 

Those wide-angles that definitely will operate, because I've used them. 21 Super-Angulon f/4, 19mm f/2.8 v.1, 28 v.1, 35 f/2.8 v.1.

 

Of those:

 

- 35 f/2.8 v.1 - VERY soft in the corners @ f/2.8, doesn't clean up much until f/8.

 

- 28 v.1 - adequate, as others have said. Cleaner corner performance than the v.1 35mm f/2.8.

 

- 21mm f/4 Super-Angulon - not bad at f/4, but has weird bokeh, due to 4-blade diaphragm ("Square" blur circles). Focuses really close. Compact compared to the v.1 19mm.

 

- 19 Elmarit v.1 - HUGE! At least as good as the contemporary 21mm f/2.8 non-ASPH M-mount lens. Doesn't focus as close as the 21mm f/4. A bit more corner vignetting than the 21 f/4. Normal roundish apertures. Did I mention it is HUGE?

 

Most of the long lenses don't have any problem (despite being ???? marks in that chart) because they do not have protuding rear glass like the wide-angles. I've used all of the 135, 180, 250, and 400mm models of every era (except the modular systems) - worked fine.

 

But the question was about wide-angles.....

[farnz]

Just a reminder of an issue that no one has mentioned yet. ...

Andy, I think James mentioned it.

 

… The 19 Elmarit ROM another marvel, was as technologically wonderful and aesthetically superb as the Contax 21 but requires shaving the mirror in the 5D. Not sure about the 6D.

Edited December 22, 2014 by farnz

[a911s]

I've owned pretty much every wide angle Leica R lens at one time.

 

15mm is superb (Zeiss).

 

16mm is a good fisheye (Minolta). Canon 15mm fish eye is better.

 

19mm V1 is actually very nice but has a tendency to flare. 19mm V2 is reportedly much better.

 

21mm is a nice lens (Schneider), flares less but an old design in terms of sharpness. Modern offerings from Canon (such as the 16-35 f4 IS zoom) are better.

 

24mm is a nice lens but does not have a Leica rendering. Kinda flat..(Minolta)

 

The 28mm Elmarit V1 is adequate to not very good, especially close up. 28mm PC better than the Nikon, but not the sharpest at this FL. The 28mm V2 is far better and what I use now.

 

Of all the Leica R 35mm lenses I owned (PC -Curtagon, Summilux, Summicron V2, and Elmarit V2), the Elmarit was the sharpest, but I kept coming back to the Summicron for its rendering. The Summilux was nice but very heavy. The PC Curtagon (Schneider) is contrasty but not that sharp.

 

Hope this helps.

Edited December 23, 2014 by a911s

[james.liam]

Oops, I meant the 21-35/3.5-4 not the 28-90. I don't think there is a f/2.8 in the 21-35 mm focal length (range).

 

Pete.

 

My mistake. I was thinking of the 35-70/2.8

[alan.y]

50 e60 was sumptuous. Optically, the only thing that bothered me about it was the somewhat strong barrel distortion (stronger than my 35/1.4 and 80/1.4).

 

On the A7R, 19 v2 struck me as more contrastive and (when on AWB) cooler than the above. In resolution it matched the A7R sensor from f/4 onwards except the far corners.

[bocaburger]

When I had an R kit I used 21/4, 28/2.8 v.2, 35/2 v.2, 50/2 v.2, 90/2 and 180/2.8 v.2 all with decent optical results on the 5D. The issue I had was with Av exposure, I found it increasingly inaccurate as the apertures were closed down. I have no experience with the 6D, still on my 5D MK1's. The only R lenses I own currently are the 400/6.8 (actually mine's the V version with a 16467 adapter) and 70-210/4 and they work great on the 5D with the zoom having the same metering issue upon stopping down.

 

At present the only non-Canon EF lenses I use on the 5D are Nikkors, the 20/4 non-Ai and 180/2.8 non-Ai+factory Ai conversion. The latter I use very rarely, but the 20 I use frequently as it is a tiny lens compared to the 20-35 zoom I also have, and I have the 28-135 IS so it's a good complement.

 

I found the Canon EF primes as good as the R primes I owned, and I would not buy R lenses just to use them on a Canon.

[a911s]

I found the Canon EF primes as good as the R primes I owned, and I would not buy R lenses just to use them on a Canon.

 

I found this to be true for some focal lengths, but not all. Certainly, with the long Apo telephotos, the lack of AF can provide too many challenges vs. benefits. And manual focus is really best suited to static subjects.

 

Here are the R lenses that offer IQ that is unique IMO, something Canon EF cannot quite match at these focal lengths. Leica's manual focus is perfect for video.

 

15mm (sharper than Canon 14mm V2 in corners)

28mm V2 (Canon 28mm is an inferior optic in general)

50mm 1.4 V2 (sharper than Canon 1.4 or 1.2, although 1.2 bokeh is better)

60mm macro (better IQ than Canon)

80mm (better skin tones than Canon 1.2, although not as sharp in the corners)

100mm Apo (better IQ than Canon)

 

 

Sorry, I don't have the time to post comparison photos, so feel free to disregard this info.

[farnz]

To a911Is's list I'd add:

28-90/2.8-4.5 Vario-Elmarit-R asph

280/4 APO-Telyt-R.

 

I suspect that others would add the 70-180/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R, the 105-280/4.2 Vario-Elmar-R , and the 280/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R to the list but I have only hearsay to go on, not personal experience. And then there's the APO-Telyt-R modular system to consider.

 

Pete.

[a911s]

I owned the 280/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R (actually two of them) and it is incredible. The 180/2 Apo I reviewed for PC Photo Magazine was even better. But these are limited to static subjects or video (even better). AF (and IS) become very important for all sports/wildlife stills at these focus lengths. I now use Canon for long telephotos.

[bocaburger]

If you mean the original 280/2.8 (non modular), I had one, and it was indeed a great lens with a beautifully smooth one-finger internal focus mechanism. Optically it was not better than the EF 300/2.8-L IS I owned though, and hand-held the IS gave me better results with less fatigue. The Leica lens also had one very annoying feature, which was that the tripod collar click-stopped at 90-degree intervals rather than being lockable infinitely around its axis. The 280/4 had a much better tripod collar design (and was sharper, smaller and lighter, albeit a stop slower). R lenses were exquisite for the most part, and the R8/R9 and Leicaflex SL and SL2 were likewise a pleasure to use.

[a911s]

Yes, non modular. I don't know about optically better, only ever compared it to my 500mm f4 IS. Leica tended to handle highlights better, otherwise it was close.The 280mm f2.8 Apo did work exceedingly well with the Apo extenders, certainly better than what Canon had at the time. Today, Canon's telephotos and extenders work very well for my purposes.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

My Elmarit 28/2.8 v1 (11204) vignettes a lot and gets soft corners on my 5D1. It is otherwise a very sharp lens in the center of the frame but i cannot recommend it for a full frame Canon body. No problem with the Elmarit 28/2.8 v2 (11259 or 11333) but my favorite is the Zuiko 28/2. FWIW.