Performance - M versus R?

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

First realize the R4 & 5 have no mirror dampening system of value. (snip)

If you not get the R5 or keep the shutter up really high, the m & r will be the same. You will be better served by a later model camera. These are cheap for a reason.

 

How does the SL2 compare with regard to mirror-damping? Sizewise and aesthetically it is not as appealing as an R4 or R5 but if it is a better option in terms of potential results then I may reconsider. (The R8 and R9 look to be far too large for my attempts at keeping everything minimal).

[Advertisement]

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

[wattsy]

The R8 and R9 look to be far too large for my attempts at keeping everything minimal

 

I think the size is deceptive. When I handled an R8 I was struck by how compact it seemed. The R8 represents a lot of camera quality (the viewfinder in particular is super) for what they cost nowadays. I don't really have a need for a film SLR (indeed any kind of SLR) but often wish I did so that I could justify buying an R8 and lens.

[stunsworth]

I think the size is deceptive. When I handled an R8 I was struck by how compact it seemed. The R8 represents a lot of camera quality (the viewfinder in particular is super) for what they cost nowadays

 

Totally agree, If I were in the market for a film SLR the R8/9 would be my first choice. It's a deceptive camera, it looks big until you handle it, then everything (literally) fits into place.

[dave.gt]

First realize the R4 & 5 have no mirror dampening system of value. I got much sharper results with my R3, 6 6.2 7. The 4 went back to Leica for checkout and they claimed to find nothing wrong,it was sold off to an informed buyer.

 

There are two 50 mm Summicron R versions, 1964 and the last that took 55 mm filters and was for R cameras only because it was missing first and second cams. The later was a more modern rendition like the current Summicron. The first was like the early M Summicrons. It took ser 6 filters and to get the best performance, you need the shade and UV filter. I know, contrary to filter opinion, but this is the exception. I have looked at multiple samples and talked to people who bought them in 1964. That is how they are.

 

If you not get the R5 or keep the shutter up really high, the m & r will be the same. You will be better served by a later model camera. These are cheap for a reason.

 

That's odd...never have a problem with my own R4 and I use it for my documentaries in printed book form.

[jaapv]

I have owned just about every Leica reflex that was made. The "best" is probably the R8 (or R9 a close second), the objectively best the SL2, the most underrated the R3, the king of the R line the R7 amongst the electronics and M6.2 for the manuals.

[urs0polar]

The R series is great. I have an R8 with the motor drive, and an R3 MOT I just picked up for next to nothing. I have standardized on Leica R glass for all of my SLR shooting. In addition to the R3 and R8, I have a Canon 5D (version 1) with an adapter, so I can shoot film or digital with my R lenses.

 

I used to be a Nikon shooter, but after I decided I like R glass the best, I sold it and went to Canon. I think Nikons are a bit more ergonomic than Canon, but with the Canon, I can use one set of lenses for everything. The only Canon lens I own is the 50/1.8, and I never use it, and I don't think I'm really missing anything from Canon for what I do (I'm not a pro in any case). I'm spoiled at this point I guess.

 

short rant interlude: I cannot understand the Leitax people who take apart R lenses and put Nikon/Canon mounts on them; I really don't get it. I know that it's "reversible", but then you can't use it on an R body -- which is half the fun of this stuff. Plus, it's _taking apart_ a Leica lens with a screwdriver in your dusty house. These things were put together by top experts, and when I buy an R lens used , if it's been leitaxed (i.e screw damage from a cheap-ass screwdriver wielded by an idiot), I won't take it. Who knows what else they've messed up or dropped in there or whatever. Why can't they just buy a Canon and an adapter?

 

Anyhow, regarding lenses, I have the following, all which fit on the 5D via adapter as well:

 

50/1.4 Summilux E55, penultimate version. Sharp compared to other brands, but not tack sharp until F2.8 or better at f4. Doesn't really matter though, the way it draws is phenomenal, and the colors and bokeh are literally amazing. This lens fits with no issues on the 5D, though I hear the latest 50/1.4 doesn't.

 

60/2.8 Macro E55. The best lens I have ever owned from any manufacturer, hands down. Incredibly sharp at 2.8, awesome bokeh, awesome everything. Has the 3D look. Fantastic lens.

 

135/2.8 E55. This lens seems to get a bad rap, but it holds it's own with the others just fine, and the Leica qualities (3D drawing, color rendition) are all there. I think it's pretty underrated, especially for the price.

 

180/3.4 APO E60. Awesome; crazy sharp, great colors, great rendering. Not all that much bigger in size than the 135/2.8 either, so it's not too bad to carry around.

 

35/2 Summicron E55. Just bought one; should get here this week, so I don't know yet.

 

I also have an M8 and and M6. I have a 28/2.8 Zeiss ZM, and a 50/1.5 Summarit (my other most favorite lens ever). For the price of a modern M lens with the performance of, say, the R 60/2.8, or the specs of the R 50/1.4, I am able to own ALL of the above R gear. Because of this, I sometimes feel like I like the R stuff better than the M stuff, though they are quite different so I don't think it has to be "one or the other".

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My friend had the 80mm 1.4 by far on of the best and sharpest portrait lens you could ever buy. Expensive but worth every penny.

 

 

How does it compare to the 75 Summilux M?

 

I guess sometimes a sharp lens isn't what the subject wants for portraits.

[jaapv]

Basically it is the same lens. The differences in imaging are minimal. If anything, the R lens performs marginally better, but if you can see it in print you should apply to all ads "eagle wanted".

[philipus]

Basically it is the same lens. The differences in imaging are minimal. If anything, the R lens performs marginally better, but if you can see it in print you should apply to all ads "eagle wanted".

 

Bedankt Jaap.

 

The price difference between the two is pretty big. Examples from Newoldcamera>

 

75/1.4 M SUMMILUX-M

80/1.4 SUMMILUX-R

 

Interesting.

 

One thing that interests me in terms of the R system is the ability to use extenders.

[SteveYork]

I've been shooting my R system (Leicaflex (orginal and SL) + circa. 60's, 70's and early 80's lenses) a lot this last year. It's hard to compare lens to lens, M to R, because the bodies are is different. Camera shake is very real. But the R lenses I've used are good performers, especially both versions of the 90mm Elmarit. And I believe a 90mm focal length on an SLR is analogous, in terms of usefulness and results, to a 35 on a rangefinder. Just one of those good matches.

 

I have a late 70's version of the 50mm Summicron R, and it is very good, but I give a slight nod to the current M version, although I've read that the R and M have a similar, if not the same, optical formula.

 

I have 3 versions of the 50mm Summicron R, and I can't really tell a difference between the 1, 2 or 3 cams. You can see why this lens was so highly regarded back then.

[bronto]

Quality's the same -- allowing for the standard & well-known RF & SLR differences (and including any such "samenesses") -- and right now, price wise, Rs obviously win hands down! I notice R lenses becoming harder to come by now.

[wildlightphoto]

I'm curious about the R4. Is it the best R?

 

Subjective preferences go in to determining 'best'. I found that the R4's mirror isn't damped as well as the SL or R8 mirror, such that I had to use one stop faster shutter speed when used hand-held to get equivalent sharpness. The R4 also doesn't have a mirror pre-release or lock up mode, and it has a longer shutter lag than the SL or R8.

 

Among the smaller R models the R4 series has the highest viewfinder magnification. Early production was unreliable, but I'd expect that a camera working now would have escaped the early production bugs.

 

There are two 50 mm Summicron R versions, 1964 and the last that took 55 mm filters and was for R cameras only because it was missing first and second cams.

 

The 50mm Summicron-R with 55mm filters was made in three cam configurations: 3-cam, which works on any Leica reflex body, R-cam which lacks the first and second cams used by the Leicaflexes, and ROM with has the R cam and electronic contacts for the R8 and R9, which can be used on R3 or newer bodies.

 

Often the "R only" lenses have a flange that will fit the Leicaflexes and may be used on these bodies with an external meter or stop-dowm metering. ROM lenses will always have an R-only flange. The Leicaflex SL can be modified slightly to use many ROM lenses, and if the second metering cam is added to the lens, it will function perfectly on the modified Leicaflex SL.

[wildlightphoto]

How does the SL2 compare with regard to mirror-damping?

 

Compared with the R4, I was able to use 1 stop slower shutter speed with the SL2 for comparable sharpness hand-held. I can't say that it was because of better mirror damping, or because of its more massive body, or because I had a better grip on it. The SL2 can also be tricked into pre-releasing the mirror.

[nobbylon]

Picture versus picture, I honestly couldn't tell you which camera, using equal focal lengths, shot which photo.

Most of my Leica photography is done at f2-f5.6 and as much as I like my M cameras I actually prefer using SL and SL2. I can focus quicker even in poor light.

One of the reasons I decided to go back to R's was the macro elmarit 60mm which is without question my favorite lens. The shallow DOF makes subjects pop in and out of focus and the performance of this lens wide open is superb.

I had an aspheric 35 M for quite a long time but sold it to buy a version IV as it produces a much closer look to the 35 R I have.

The 90 elmarit R is also an amazingly good lens wide open and to my eyes more pleasing than M equivalents.

[anabasis]

All I know is that with both my R and M lenses, their optical flaws (as minor as they are) are far overshadowed by my flaws in technique.

 

JCA

[tobey bilek]

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 .

[jpattison]

PS - would I be right in thinking that such a lens would also fit the SL2?

 

It depends on which version the lens is:eek:

 

see...

Leica Cams

This was written before ROM was introduced, but ROM lenses will only fit R3 onwards.

Do not attempt to fit one on a Leicaflex of any flavour.

 

John

[philipus]

A tiny bit off topic - I discovered this page which has got me interested in the R line now...

 

USING LEICA-R LENSES ON CANON dSLRs

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wildlightphoto]

... ROM lenses will only fit R3 onwards.

Do not attempt to fit one on a Leicaflex of any flavour.

 

As originally built, I agree. However with slight modification many ROM lenses may be used with the Leicaflex SL or Leicaflex SL MOT (no other Leicaflex models).

[xalo]

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