Leica SL with M or R lenses?

[Craggs 101]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Firsty, a bit of background. I’m new to Leica. Always admired the build quality, but never really liked the rangefinder experience. I have been a long time Nikon user, currently with a D4 and liking the full frame format, low light abilities and responsiveness and build quality of the body. But I don’t like the polycarbonate lenses and I'm increasingly tired of the weight of the full kit. I have a Fuji X system for snapshots and enjoy the EVF WYSIWYG experience (not having to check the exposure after every shot and then recompose and reshoot), the Fuji colours, the low weight and the metal body & lens. But I find the APS-C sensor limiting and the images a little ‘plastic’. I also occasionally use a Hasselblad 503cw and love the slow methodical and mechanical experience. I have explored the option of a digital back, but the camera plus 3 primes is back breaking for the kind of travel, street and candid portraiture photography that I enjoy.

 

So… that brings me to the SL and the idea that I can have the best of all three worlds: solid build quality, manageable weight, great glass, full frame and 24mp, a huge EVF and real-time exposure compensation, responsive AF when needed, ability to use analogue mechanical lenses yet still be able to focus them quickly and accurately, deliciously real colours. However, I’m not keen on the current lens, the 24-90mm due to its weight and length offsetting any body weight saving. I’ll get the 50mm and maybe other primes in time, as they come out. In the meantime I’m keen to build a trio of manual focus Leica lenses to use with an adaptor. And here, at last, comes the question: should I get R or M lenses?

 

Research tells me that R glass is highly regarded, and is often affordable on eBay, but its old design and will be used (and possibly abused). M glass has a wider range of options, is smaller (and fiddlier?) but also benefits from being newer in both design and use. (However, I’m not talking about the $6-10k APO or 0.95 beauties.) I also like the idea that I could get a used R6 and still be able to use film with the same lenses.

 

Essentially, I’ve set myself the 24-90mm’s budget of $5k to get three, maybe 4 primes: 35mm, 50mm, 75/80/90mm. What are your recommendations? Older and cheaper but possibly better R? Newer but possibly not so good Ms, such as the f2.4 Summarits?

 

Thanks for your advice and comments.

Gary

[ramarren]

Some of Leica's nicest lenses were designed for the R system, IMO. Even the older ones like I own are delightful performers with superb rendering qualities. 

 

I have both R and M systems. There is a greater diversity of M lenses, due to the age and popularity of the M system, but only within a relatively narrow range of focal lengths. This is because RF focusing systems have specific, calculable limits of accuracy and limitations on framing accuracy due to the optical tunnel viewfinder. TTL cameras have always been more versatile, with more available focal lengths; the lenses focus closer because framing/focusing accuracy is bounded only by human eyesight (and the design of the viewfinder screen and prism in an SLR, irrelevant to an EVF). 

 

All of that matters little. I use mostly R lenses on the SL because they are a better ergonomic match to the SL body. M lenses are designed for a different kind of focusing system, on a body shaped differently, and have differently optimized controls: I find them a bit clumsy to use on the SL. R lenses fit beautifully and the controls suit the SL very well. 

[Advertisement]

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

[thighslapper]

Leica lenses were ..... and are expensive.....

 

Most are well looked after and they are built to last.

 

You should have no trouble finding almost mint used M and R series lenses at very reasonable prices if you are willing to hunt and/or bide your time till the best turns up...... and you have the choice of M or R ...... often with almost identical optics but very different prices .....

 

I got a mint 80/1.4 R before xmas for 1/3 of the current used price of an M series 75/1.4 ........ performance is virtually identical and ergonomics if anything is better. 

 

A quick look in one of Puts books will confirm that many R and M series lenses were close brothers based on the same design ...... so I would just get whichever is the best bargain in terms of condition/cost.

 

Leica will repair/recondition almost anything (at a cost) .... and the market for Leica lenses is fairly stable so you are not gambling much if you make a mistake and want to sell on .....

[jonoslack]

I can't add much to what thighslapper says . . . except perhaps that if you are going to buy R lenses there may be an advantage in ROM lenses (or, indeed, there may not!). It remains to be seen, but it's possible that when the Leica SL to R adapter comes out later in the year it may read the ROM chip on the lenses.  Mind you, as ramarren will tell you, it's always going to be perfectly possible to use non-rom lenses and choose them from the menu.

 

It's fantastic using the SL with both M and R lenses - I might be tempted to get R for the wider of your focal lengths . . and perhaps the M lenses for the longer ones, (my all time favourite lens is the 75 APO summicron M, and you can get a clean secondhand one for a decent price)

[adli]

I have both the 75 APO summicron M which Jono mentions and the  80/1.4 R mentioned by thightslapper.

 

Even though they are very close in focal length, they are very different creatures. The 80 is a Walter Mandler design with the traditional Leica look. It is a tad soft wide open, but renders beautifully and is together with the 90 cron pre-ASPH my favorite portrait lens. THe 75 APO har a modern look, is bitingly sharp with its high contrast and is also a lighter and more discreet looking lens than the 80. The 75 APO also has a very short focus throw and as such is fast to focus, at the cost of the precision of longer focus throws.

 

I also had the 75 lux for the M, but never made friends with it, even though it has the same design and it renders similiar to the 80 lux R. The 80 with its size and weight balances well on the SL, while for the M, my favorite is the Mandler 90 cron.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[jonoslack]

I have both the 75 APO summicron M which Jono mentions and the  80/1.4 R mentioned by thightslapper.

 

Even though they are very close in focal length, they are very different creatures. The 80 is a Walter Mandler design with the traditional Leica look. It is a tad soft wide open, but renders beautifully and is together with the 90 cron pre-ASPH my favorite portrait lens. THe 75 APO har a modern look, is bitingly sharp with its high contrast and is also a lighter and more discreet looking lens than the 80. The 75 APO also has a very short focus throw and as such is fast to focus, at the cost of the precision of longer focus throws.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

There seems to be an internet understanding that the 75 APO is 'modern' . . 'clinical' is another word which is bandied about - certainly it's reliably sharp, but it also has lovely bokeh - it's a similar design to the 50 'lux Asph (which nobody ever calls 'clinical'). 

 

I think it's often damned with faint praise (as Arne has), whereas I consider it to be one of the very best Leica lenses (and a search of my LR library shows that it's my most used as well). It's also a good deal (I've just seen a minty one on ebay for £1,500.

Edited April 27, 2016 by jonoslack

[adli]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Jono,

 

There is nothing negative in the word modern, but the 75 APO renders different than the old Mandler lenses. So it boils down to personal taste.

 

Not having read the specs but owning both the 50 lux Asph and the 75 APO, my impression as that the 75 has higher contrast than the 50, but both are very good lenses indeed. And they both what I would call a modern design.

 

I use the 50 lux Asph a lot, but for portraits I prefer my Mandler lenses.

 

Here is a portrait with the 80 lux-R:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/259726-the-young-modell-iii-bw/

[thighslapper]

I have to agree about the 75/2 Apo ....... I'd estimate it is on one of my M's 50% of the time and super on the MM or M246 for B&W.... results are always outstanding and still light/compact for the focal length. 

[steppenw0lf]

As always the selection of lenses is a very personal matter, nobody can do for you.

But to find out how R lenses feel, start with a inexpensive and easily available lens.

Why not the Summicron-R 1:2 50mm. If you like the way it works (I do, it is actually one of my favourites). Then go on buying R-lenses. E.g. the apo 3.4/180 is also very cheap compared to its price when new and often available.

If you think it is too big, change to the M-lenses. And so on.

 

As second hand lenses are not always available, it makes no sense to do a perfect planning....

 

An important question is, what kind of photos do you take ? M-lenses are typical for "street" style.

R lenses are allrounders, but to make a difference to the Ms, they go far into tele territory, they offer Macro lenses (excellent lenses!!) and they offer zooms (nowadays often very expensive).

For me it is important that the ordinary R-lens is much closer focusing than the average M-lens. But I do a lot of macro and like the little details. 

Your preferences are maybe different, so you need your personal selection.

 

The good thing, with the SL you can almost use anything - I also use Nikon (the 17-35 f2.8 is one of my favourites) and Contax and Pentax and Canon ... 

That's perfect if the second-hand lens you are looking for is not available at the moment or simply too expensive.

 

Stephan

Edited April 27, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[ramarren]

  Which specific lenses ... Now there is a difficult thing. It's very personal. 

 

 

The trio I took on my trip to NY recently worked out very well: Summicron-R 35, Summicron-R 90, and Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 (WATE).

 

But I have a lot of other lenses that I like equally. For instance, on the SL, I tend to like shooting with the Super-Elmar-R 15 a bit more than the WATE but the WATE is much less to carry and thus a very nice travel choice. I can shoot for weeks with the Summilux-R 50, etc. 

 

Pick what you might like and shoot with it a while, get to know it, then add to that when you want something different. Etc. 

[Guest]

I recently acquired a Summicron-R 1:2 /50 and a 90 + a Elmarit-R 1:2.8 /180. All three work well on either the T or the SL, currently with the Novoflex adaptor. I have difficulty to focus on an M. So I was sceptical of trying manual focus lenses, having not focussed manually since AF came out a long time ago.

 

You know what? On either the T or SL it is almost as easy to focus manually with these R lenses, I am really pleasantly surprised. In my studio the Summicron 90 is sublime.

[ramarren]

The Summicron-R 50 is a bit sharper wide open than the Summilux-R 50; they have a very different character to their rendering down to about f/4-f/5.6. Then both are razor sharp, everywhere.

 

Speaking of razor sharp, the Macro-Elmarit-R 60 is hard to beat, and I hear the 100 is even moreso, yet the 60 has very lovely rendering.

 

I have the non-APO version of the 'Cron 90 and find it delightful... I hear the APO is even more special. And both Elmar-R 180 and Elmarit-R 180 ....

 

And on, and on. There are very few 'poor' R performers. 

[Steve Spencer]

I agree that what you want to shoot makes a big difference. Here are some of my thoughts of three lens kits that keep you in budget for different types of shooting:

 

Portraits:

 

Leica R 35 f/2 version II (with the built in hood) -- I love the bokeh of this lens and it has the classic Mandler look Arne describes above. Its corners never really sharpen up, but for portraits it doesn't matter. Cost is about $1,000.

 

Leica M 50 f/1.4 ASPH - this is a very modern lens with crisp sharpness and I love the bokeh. It is my favourite 50 portrait lens by a fair bit. It has quite a different look from the class Mandler look, IMO, however. I like having both looks, so I would get it. There isn't an R equivalent. You can get one for about $2,500 or perhaps a bit less. So, it is expensive but worth it to me.

 

Leica M 90 f/2 pre-AA (also called version III) -- This is also a Mandler lens with the Mandler look. I like the M version with its 11 bladed aperture better than the 8-bladed R lens, but they are essentially optically the same. The R lens is cheaper, however, by about $500, so it is not a bad choice.

 

You could also go with the Leica M 50 f/1.4 (pre-AA) and the Leica R 80 f/1.4 (both very nice Mandler lenses) and stay within you budget.

 

Landscapes:

 

At 35mm I would go with the Leica R 35 f/2.8 version III (with the built in hood) which is a great landscape lens with very nice colours and good across the frame sharpness. It is a bargain too at about $700.

 

At 50mm I would go with the Leica M 50mm f/2 version IV (with the built in hood). The M version IV and the R version II are very similar optically, but I prefer the M version for its 8 blade aperture over the 6 blade aperture in the R lens. The M lens is also smaller and lighter. The M version will cost more money, however, at about $1,250, whereas the R version is a bargain if you are patient you can find them for $500.

 

At 90mm I would go with the Leica M 90 f/2 APO. This lens is amazingly sharp especially at distance and has fabulous colours. It is expensive at about $2,000, but with the other choices it is within budget with even a bit to spare. It is a fine, fine lens. This lens also comes in an R version, but it is very hard to find these days and costs more than the M version typically going for about $3,000.

 

Another solid option here would be to select the R 100 f/2.8 APO Macro - which is a fabulous lens and does landscapes very well and of course gives you excellent macro as well. It is a much larger lens, however, and I prefer my landscape lenses to be small as I often walk a fair distance to my shoots. It costs about $2,000 or a bit more so still well within budget.

 

Street: I don't shoot a lot of street so I may not be the best judge here, but my choices would be:

 

At 35mm the R 35 f/2 described above.

 

At 50mm the M 50 f/2 version IV described above.

 

At 90mm the M 90 f/2 APO described above.

 

This trio of summicrons would make a great kit. You could sub the M 50 f/1.4 ASPH and the M 90 f/2 Pre-AA (the same kit I suggested for portraits) and I think that would work well too.

 

Macro

 

The R 60mm f/2.8 Macro is a really nice lens and a great all around performer. It is super inexpensive as well at about $500. It would be great to add to any kit. You need an adapter to get to 1:1 macro, but it is cheap.

 

I am a huge fan of the M 90 f/4 macro. It is tiny as it is a collapsible lens and works wonderfully for landscapes as well as macro. With the macro adapter (which you need for macro capabilities) it runs about $2,000 if you look carefully. I think this is a great lens for the SL as the EVF makes it a lot easier to use. Even with the adapter this is a 1:2 macro lens.

 

As described above, however, for top Macro performance the R 100 f/2.8 APO is a fabulous lens and well worth its price. You do need a fairly expensive (around $600) elpro converter which attaches to the front of the lens to get to 1:1 magnification. Natively it is a 1:2 macro lens.

 

All around kit: From the above you could put together many kits, but if it were me with that budget I would want a very versatile kit that could do a lot of different things. For that my choice would be:

 

35mm is the difficult lens to have be versatile. I would put a lot of money here and get the new version of the Leica M 35 f/2 ASPH (#11673). This is a wonderful lens and does everything quite well. It is a good street lens, a good landscape lens, and a good portrait lens. You will only be able to get it new, however, and it will cost you $2,800. The R lenses are great bargains, but not great all arounders, IMO, and the older M 35 f/2 ASPH does not do well on the SL. The M 35 summilux FLE would totally ruin your budget, so I would go with this one. The M 35 summarit is worth considering as well, but I don't know that lens very well.

 

I would then add the R 60 f/2.8 Macro. The lens isn't fast but it is great at all distances and a very solid lens. This is one of the best bargains and off set the non-bargain 35mm. The R 50 f/2 version II would also be a good choice here as well and would be similar in cost.

 

Finally, I would add the M 90 summarit, which is a very nice all around lens. This would keep you in budget, but if you could spend just a bit more you can probably tell I am a fan of the M 90 f/2 APO as I think it is a great value at this point in time. Getting that lens as your third would just put you $300 or so over budget and the three lens kit would be very strong.

 

Finally if you haven't noticed I have not included any of the 75mm lenses. I think they are very strong, but I have a preference for the 90mm lenses. So, take my lack of recommendation here with a big grain of salt.

[Craggs 101]

Thanks to everyone who chipped in and gave advice: there is quite a rich seam of knowledge out there. I tried an M 50mm and M 75mm at my local Leica dealer, but I think they are too fiddly to operate on the SL and with my bear paws. I'll start acquiring the 35, 50 and 90mm R lenses, 1.4 or 2, as and when they come up on eBay, and use the paired adaptors. I'll also keep my web-eyes pealed for announcements about the SL 50 Summilux and stablemates. The AF on the 24-90mm is great, but the lens is far too cumbersome for me for street and candid portrait work.

[Guest]

I love the R-lenses that I have acquired they are so easy to work with with the SL and not too bad on the T too. Although the more I use the two cameras I feel that the T and its lenses will be up for sale .........

[ramarren]

I've grown more accustomed to the SL24-90 and it's a fine performer. But it's still a rather large lens to tote around. 

 

Although, I should talk... I took my walk last evening with the Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5 fitted, which is nearly the size and weighs just as much as the SL24-90.

[Guest]

815g (15mm) vs 1140 g (24-90) - now that would shock me if the 15mm was nearly the weight, fortunately it isnt!

 

I am planning a 21mm M secondhand which of course is a lot lighter than the R 15mm.

 

Then I have a MF spread 24, 50, 90 and 180. Lovely selection. I may then sell my AF lenses and keep the T and SL. I am in no hurry to decide with the T.

[ramarren]

815g (15mm) vs 1140 g (24-90) - now that would shock me if the 15mm was nearly the weight, fortunately it isnt!

 

I am planning a 21mm M secondhand which of course is a lot lighter than the R 15mm.

 

Then I have a MF spread 24, 50, 90 and 180. Lovely selection. I may then sell my AF lenses and keep the T and SL. I am in no hurry to decide with the T.

 

 

The absolute real weight wasn't what I was thinking about, but I was unclear. The SER15 seems about the same size and weight as the SL24-90 when I pick it up but it isn't, really, and it has no telescoping parts, balances beautifully on the SL, and is remarkably easy to focus critically even stopped down to f/5.6. It focuses very close indeed with incredible precision. A remarkable lens.

 

I acquired a secondhand Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH (the WATE). This lens is smaller still compared to the SER15 and also images very nicely with the SL ... maybe even better than with the M-P. It's a great choice for the wide end of the spectrum below 24mm. I love using it on the M-P even more than on the SL ... its controls are better set up for the RF body ... but it saves a lot of space and weight to carry it when traveling and gives you a couple more wide angle options. 

 

I have a lot of gear to put on the market.   

[J S H]

I've had most all of the lenses being discussed in this thread. I would offer advice learned from many years of Leica use/buying/selling:

 

Wide: the Leica R 28MM 2.8 Version II is a great lens and has excellent ergonomics on the SL. It's not quite as good optically as the newest M 28MM lenses (1.4 & 2.0), but it's much cheaper and appropriately sized for the SL.

 

Standard: Leica R 50MM 2.0 (try to find a german made copy, they aren't much more expensive and of my 4 copies the German ROM version was the best). Another good option is the 60MM 2.8 Macro, also look for a ROM version.

 

Tele/Portrait: Top choice would be the M 90 f/2 APO. I have had about 10 Leica 90 lenses ranging from the R AA to ancient M lenses and this lens is the best 90 hands down. Ergonomics are great on the SL as well. Next choice would be the M 135 f3.4 APO. Nice size, great performance and handling. A gem on the SL

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Guest]

J S H, a lot of beautiful images on your flickr gallery.