Performance - M versus R?

[wildlightphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello - could you specify how that could be done? Homegrown or in Solms? I'd love to use my 35-70/4 on the SL...

Thanks, btw, for your hint (photo-net?) on the mirror lock-up on SL and SL2.

Cheers,

Alexander

 

The 35-70 f/4 can't be used on the SL because of mirror box clearance problems.

 

For lenses that don't have this problem, the inner edge of the SL's flange is trimmed to allow R-only lenses to be used, some lens lock pins also need to be trimmed to fit the lens' slot, and the second cam is added to the lens. In the USA, Don Goldberg knows how to do it.

[Advertisement]

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

[xalo]

Thanks a lot for the instant reply - this might still be an option than for my 90/2 pre-apo.

Shall inquire with Dan Goldberg.

[leicamr]

R4 and R5 are shakers because of poor/no mirror dampening. Stay away. Sold mine off and am glad they are gone, no remorse. Still have the R6, 6.2, R7 2 each.

 

M andR lenses were improved over the years so you need to compare by year of manufacture to detirmine which is better. Even the first 35/50/90/135 originally introduced fared well against the M line. 21 & 28 were added and then improved later

 

E55 Summicron 50 and E60 Summilux 50 were the last and best. E55 35 2.8 Elmarit was the best 35.

 

Later 28 and 19 were improved over the early versions. Only one 21 was made and it was good for its time.

 

The killer teles were / are 100 2.8, 180 2.8, 180 2.0, 280 4.0, 280 2.8 90 2.0 APO. Prices are still high on these.

 

Cheapo review of the R history .

 

I agree with the above but lets not forget

 

28-90 vario

35-70 f2.8

35 Summilux

28 Elmarit (last version)

60 macro elmarit

Tele Apo module system

 

The R system lens range was comprehensively superb.

 

Mark

[bull40]

Hello,

The E55 50 'cron is wonderful, I found it better than the earlier 50 'lux. The later E60 50 'lux is the best of the lot, but very hard to find now. My least favorite were the 35 'cron v1 and the earlier 28 Elmarit. I had found the 35 dirt cheap in 1 Cam form, sent it to Leica to upgrade to 3 Cam. Very prone to flare, low contrast and soft, especially wide open, which is where I needed to shoot with it. The 28 I had I was really disappointed with. It was a 3 Cam from Wetzlar, had Leica do a full CLA on it. Built like a jewel, but I much preferred the results of my Nikon AIS 28 2.8 with crc to it. I hear the last 28 Elmarit has the close focus correction lens group and is a much better performer. I've been looking to pick one up, but I think I may just try out a 21-35 Vario instead. So what about the 180 APO Telyt 3.4? It has quite a cult following. Been thinking of picking up one for a few years now... so many lenses, so little time! ;-)

[steveclem]

What's all this nonsense about "beware of the undamped mirror?" Low shutter speeds require proper support, if you're shooting in low light, get a fast lens and up the film speed, get a mono/tripod, get a bean bag. The cameras are superb, perhaps not fashionable to some but high quality kit indeed.

Some people seem obsessed by performance charts and figures and line graphs, have a word with yourselves, the cameras are all superb, they are built to be used with the same quality standard and successive models may offer improvements, or they may not. What it doesn't do is render older models obsolete.

I think some people here would rather have a folder of test results and a flawless example sitting behind glass doors.

[hamey]

John, I had the 28mm f2.8 Rom but I sold it as I already had the 28-90 and the 21-35 lenses that covered that focal lenght and simply wasn't using it often enough.

On looking out for the 21-35mm it's a great lens simply gorgeous and it perfoms beautifully on my Canon DSLR as well as the 28-90mm lens.

 

On the matter of performance between the M and R system, I have made and spoke my opinion on this

forum several times over the years, love using my M7 with the 35mm asph and now added the Zeiss 50mm f2

just a beautiful lens but for what all the praise the M gets on this forum and some of it I do agree the

Reflex system is still my favorite as I feel at home with it.

 

Now this is my interpretation of the M versus the R.

 

I have been using the Leica reflex system since 1973 owning a number of models SL, R3 R4, R4mod2,

R7's, R8 and finally the R9, still use the R7-8-9.

 

In Leica M or RF system, the range finding focal lenght system is perceived, the 21-24- 28-35-50-75-90 and the 135 etc select their own frame lines in the view finder but the respective focal lenght in the view finder is unchanged as no actual focal lenght perspective takes place in the view finder.

 

The ® eflex SLR or mirror reflex system is in my view the finest viewfinder because by viewing and composing your subject through the lens, is what you see is what you get and with zoom lenses you can really change the focal lenght from one position, the down side of SLR or DSLR is yes they are bigger and heavier but the pro photographers using them produce the finest pictures in this world, check out the Magazines to prove the point as most images are taken with the reflex system after all the have the huge lens range to meet all occasions.

 

As much as the popularity of the M system and it's philosophy why did Leica choose the Reflex system for their S system.

 

And on final note,...... I was told the other day that Nikon Australia have broken their previous orders with the D800.

Canon is also doing great with their 5D-3 so it's obvious that the SLR IS STILL THE KING OF PHOTOGRAPHY.

 

LONG LIVE THE KING.

 

Ken.

[wildlightphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What's all this nonsense about "beware of the undamped mirror?" Low shutter speeds require proper support

 

I found that cameras with better mirror damping don't require as much support. I also found that with the R4 (poorer mirror damping, no MLU) slower shutter speeds were not usable if I wanted sharp photos, even with a sturdy tripod.

[Ruhayat]

Interesting thread. You know how people say R lenses will not/never be as sharp as their M equivalents due to SLR mirror slap? Well, guess what: when you use them on an M body, there's no mirror to slap. So you'd get a more accurate representation of what the lens is capable of.

 

Well, I personally will probably know the answer in a couple of days. That's when I get my roll of Tri-X back from the shop. What's special about this roll is it was shot with a 28mm Elmarit-R and a 50mm Summicron-R, on an M6TTL body.

 

I used an adapter from Fotodiox. Will be comparing against a 90mm Summicron-M shot on the same roll as I don't have equivalent Elmarit 28mm or Cron 50mm M lenses. I've actually been using the 28mm Elmarit-R on the M6TTL for a while now and never thought about doing a proper test at smaller apertures and higher shutter speeds to maximise sharpness as much as possible.

 

It still won't be a very scientific test. For one, I should have used a tripod. And T-Max 100 instead of Tri-X 400 would probably have shown more detail to pore over. But I was just interested to see for myself how good R lenses really are.

 

There was no rangefinder focusing, of course, so I used pavement blocks to measure distance from camera to subject and transferred that to the lens scale. That plus f8 ought to give a fair idea whether this test bears redoing on a more careful manner. Besides, the 90mm Summicron-M got the same deal, so comparing the shots side by side should be enlightening.

[Ruhayat]

This is how the 28mm Elmarit-R looks like on the M6TTL with the adapter:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[SteveYork]

Is it rangefinder coupled?

[xalo]

Hi there,

 

no rangefinder coupling (there is no mechanic in the R-lenses to support this), scale focussing/guesstimating only. Can work nicely with wideangles, though. I like the Elmarit-R 19mm (vs II - built-in filters) on my M and RD-1. Not suitable for all applications, obviously, but fun and handy if you want to save on a kit's weight and carry a body less. Sure, the size of R-lenses can defeat the compactness of the M-bodies somewhat...

 

Cheers,

 

Alexander

[Ruhayat]

Hi there,

 

no rangefinder coupling (there is no mechanic in the R-lenses to support this), scale focussing/guesstimating only. Can work nicely with wideangles, though. I like the Elmarit-R 19mm (vs II - built-in filters) on my M and RD-1. Not suitable for all applications, obviously, but fun and handy if you want to save on a kit's weight and carry a body less. Sure, the size of R-lenses can defeat the compactness of the M-bodies somewhat...

 

Cheers,

 

Alexander

 

Indeed, using it "blind" is part of its appeal as it becomes like a point and shoot - you learn to not fuss about nailing focus so there's one less thing to worry about. Plus, it maximises the performance of R lenses since you eliminate mirror slap. If you use it on a meterless M it can even become a handy learning tool if one wants to learn hyperfocusing and Sunny 16.

 

As you mention, it works better with 28mm (or 35mm even) and wider, but I tried it with a 50mm just to see. I expect at f4 and smaller at normal distances it should be rather workable. If you want to use extreme wides once in a while on the M and already have the R variants, buying the adapter could save you a thousand dollars or two.

[Ruhayat]

If you look at it one way, as an M shooter, then yes, the downside is that it makes the M bigger and heavier than using equivalent M lenses. But if you look at it the other way, as an R shooter, then it becomes an advantage as you now have a slightly smaller kit with no mirror slap so you can shoot handheld at even slower shutter speeds.

 

AND if you use it on the digital M's, you get essentially a digital R solution from Leica. (Well, okay, workable for wider lenses only, but still...)

[ganzosrevenge]

If you look at it one way, as an M shooter, then yes, the downside is that it makes the M bigger and heavier than using equivalent M lenses. But if you look at it the other way, as an R shooter, then it becomes an advantage as you now have a slightly smaller kit with no mirror slap so you can shoot handheld at even slower shutter speeds.

 

AND if you use it on the digital M's, you get essentially a digital R solution from Leica. (Well, okay, workable for wider lenses only, but still...)

 

Why does it not work for longer (ie: 50mm and up) lenses. I know RFs stumble past 135, but why does it stumble any more "telephoto" than 35mm?

 

Jason

[wildlightphoto]

Why does it not work for longer (ie: 50mm and up) lenses.

 

Guess-focus only w/o DOF to hide errors.

[gyoung]

You could always use a separate rangefinder

I still have a Voigtlander (old style) and a Watameter somewhere in the junk boxes!

When we got married (a LONG time ago) I replaced my wife's Instamatic with a Contina, built in lightmeter but separate rangefinder, solid brass, weighed a lot, slow to use, she wasn't impressed.

 

Gerry

[RKh]

"The current Summicron-R is almost identical in optical construction

with its counterpart in the M-system. It is one of the

two or three best standard lenses in the world. The predecessor

from 1964 was balanced for high contrast at wide openings.

The disadvantage of the design was a slight shift of focus when

stopping down, that resulted in the best sharpness zone shifting

from center to a zone outside of the center. The current

version is a bit less contrasty at full aperture, but performs better

when stopping down, and its image quality is more evenly

distributed over the whole image area. Stopped down to f/4 the

lens already delivers its best performance. Over an image area

with a diameter of 24mm excellent quality can be seen. Brilliance,

edge sharpness and resolution smoothly work together to

create images with crisp rendition and almost a 3-dimensional

effect. Most objects are 3-dimensional and should, when projected

onto a flat plane (paper or screen), keep these properties."

 

-Leica R-Lenses, by Erwin Puts- (Augest 2003)

 

 

 

I use the first version over 18 years on Leica R4.

 

lens: Summicron-R 2/50 (1964) + B&W frontal macro lens

film: Kodak Royal Supra 400

scan:Konica RXII Professional

 

(Legendary Omega mechanical calibre420 (1952)

(basing "calibre 30mm" by designer Henri Kneuss)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[bull40]

Ok, this is definitely off topic, but that really makes me want to open up my mid 1960's Omega Seamaster, now. ;-)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[RKh]

Ok, this is definitely off topic, but that really makes me want to open up my mid 1960's Omega Seamaster, now. ;-)

 

Please forgive me for off topic picture, but it's just my illustration of the important words Mr. Erwina Putsa of Summicron-R 50mm.

[bull40]

RKh,

I wasn't saying your post was off topic, it was a perfect example of the discussion, and Mr. Puts' wisdom is always welcome and appreciated. I was indicating that my post was off topic, since your very nice photo of that Omega's movement made me want to open mine up to have a look at it. :-)