M glass vs R glass

[Raul]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

hi guys.

 

just want to know if there is a difference in the way an M-mount glass renders light/color versus an R mount glass (e.g. M-mount 28 elmarit vs R-mount 28 elmarit).

 

someone told me that they render differently.

 

i thought they would render the same way and that the difference then would lie on the sensor (an M9 versus a 5dmk2 with R-mount lenses).

 

any truth to this?

 

thanks in advance

 

raul

[hamey]

Hello Raul.

 

Well I don't have the 28M but some time ago I tested my R28 2.8 Rom agains't my 35M f2 asph.

 

I found the R28 slightly warmer then the M35, sharpness was about the same. ( using slide film)

 

I am now also using my R lenses with a Canon DSLR and frankly I am very very happy with the results.

 

Ken.

[Raul]

thanks for the reply, ken.

 

friend of mine has a similar setup but swtiched to M9. will ask him tomorrow night about it.

[jaapv]

The basic difference between M and R lenses are the size and register difference, which means that the designers had more scope to correct the aberrations on R lenses in many cases . Some designs are identical (for instance the135-2.8) and thus render identically, some designs are only very slightly different (the Summilux 75 M vs Summilux 80 R for example) and render slightly differently, with the R design having the edge, and a number are completely different, mainly in the wideangle area, where the R needed more retrofocus designs, although we see convergence in design towards the end of the R system.

This means your question can only be answered on a per lens basis and not in general. But yes, often there is a difference.

[Raul]

thanks, jaap!

[lct]

As Jaap said. About 28mm lenses, both M 28/2 and 28/2.8 asph are sharper than their R counterpart in my experience (R 28/2.8 # 11204 & 11259), mainly at f/2.8 and at medium apertures on edges and corners.

[masjah]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There's also a generational thing, which complicates comparisons even betweeen lenses of the same focal length and aperture. For example, the 35/1.4 R lens is quite an old design, which, unlike its M counterpart, has had nowhere near the number of updating iterations.

 

Personally, I think you should just take each lens (whether M or R) on its own merits and not attempt comparisons.

[Bill W]

Over the years I owned a lot of R gear and glass. I would say that being leica regardless of M or R they rendered images on a scale above others. When I was only using R equipment and film, other said they could tell the difference in my images verses theirs. I eventually sold all of my R gear because I quit film. Sure wish they had brought out an R body in digital like the M. I know there was the DMR but it was sure a large addition.

[adan]

Heck - some M lenses render differently than other M lenses, and some R lenses render differently than other R lenses. Leica has made (or did make) both for 45-55 years, from a string of individualistic designers with their own priorities, working with different glasses and different technologies.

 

There have been five M 28mm Elmarit lenses over the years, each different. And two R 28mm Elmarit lenses over the years, again each one different.

 

So as jaap and masjah say, you really have to either be very specific about WHICH lens you are talking about - or not worry.

 

Specific to 28mm f/2.8 (Elmarit) I'd say the last R lens and the last-but-one M lens (1992-2006) were quite similar in rendering. The earlier 28s of either type were - different - and the later ASPHs are also - different.

[Raul]

Thanks, guys. Just curious, really. I understood it from a friend that the difference was across the board. Glad i asked it here.