R system

[sksaito]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm relatively new to film cameras. How and for what purpose were the R lens/cameras started? Was it for a reason similar to how the M4-2 was to save the company from the M5 (although I personally like the M5 and have two)?

[Advertisement]

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

[lars_bergquist]

The Nikon F debuted in 1959 and started a general swing over to the SLR camera. The real reason for this was a number of technichal innovations that, when applied to the same camera, removed many of the limitations of the SLR relative to the RF camera: A pentaprism finder made eye-level work possible even with moving subjects, split-image and microprism screens made focusing simpler, and automatic stop-down diaphragms meant that you could focus wide open but shoot stopped down without any delay. Leica did not like this but felt that they had to climber aboard the bandwaggon. The result was the first model Leicaflex in 1963 – but by then both Pentax and Nikon were introducing TTL metering, and were ahead again.

 

After the Leicaflex SL2 Leitz found that they could not carry development costs alone and ganged up with Minolta. The new line of Leitz SLR cameras was the R line, starting with the R3 in 1976.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[earleygallery]

As Lars says Leica were following the trend of the time, which was towards the SLR camera.

 

The SLR is still the most popular and versatile type of camera for the serious amateur or pro photographer, but Leica decided that they couldn't compete with the likes of Nikon and Canon and chose to concentrate their efforts back on the M camera which is very much a niche market, but one which they now totally dominate, unlike at the time when the Nikon F was introduced and there were numerous other rangefinder cameras to choose from.

 

Also it is important to remember that the SLR is a much better tool if you want to do close up work, or use long telephoto lenses.

 

Many M users will also have an SLR system - they are complimentary rather than alternatives.

 

Leica do still produce one SLR, the S2, but that is aimed at a pro/studio photographers as an alternative to the 'traditional' medium format cameras.

[sksaito]

Thanks for the education. I was gonna ask about the quality of R lenses compared to the M or screwmount ones but I believe there are other threads on this so I will look there. Thank you.

[luigi bertolotti]

Thanks for the education. I was gonna ask about the quality of R lenses compared to the M or screwmount ones but I believe there are other threads on this so I will look there. Thank you.

 

R lenses are discussed very much less than M lenses, in this forum... but they are indeed a much broader breed than rangefinder and Visoflex lenses,,, they made focals ranging from 15mm to 800mm (some of them outsourced... 16mm fisheye was a Minolta design, for instance) , they made a number of landmark zooms (there used to be a much praised 105-280)... they made some extreme design like a 180 f2... a modular Tele 400-560-800 that was a costly but very smart system... then , they abandoned (until... ???) the SLR market, after a smart and ill-fated modular film-digital SLR... so R lenses have became a less alive matter of discussion, differently from RF lenses, given that, after all, the last and current Leica (M9-P) is still engineered to be able to host Leitz lenses made in the 1920's...

I am not and never have been a Leica R user.. but many R lenses are undoubtly superb performers, with some items that deserve an aura of their own.

[kt66brooklyn]

R lenses are discussed very much less than M lenses, in this forum... but they are indeed a much broader breed than rangefinder and Visoflex lenses,,, they made focals ranging from 15mm to 800mm (some of them outsourced... 16mm fisheye was a Minolta design, for instance) , they made a number of landmark zooms (there used to be a much praised 105-280)... they made some extreme design like a 180 f2... a modular Tele 400-560-800 that was a costly but very smart system... then , they abandoned (until... ???) the SLR market, after a smart and ill-fated modular film-digital SLR... so R lenses have became a less alive matter of discussion, differently from RF lenses, given that, after all, the last and current Leica (M9-P) is still engineered to be able to host Leitz lenses made in the 1920's...

I am not and never have been a Leica R user.. but many R lenses are undoubtly superb performers, with some items that deserve an aura of their own.

 

I was given a modest R system, an R4 with four lenses: a 28 mm Elmarit (first version), a 50 mm Summicron (with the built in hood), a 90 mm Elmarit (first version) and a 135 mm Elmarit (second version).

 

I thought that all of it would serve as my introduction to Leica and that I would eventually move onward to better things, but a funny thing happened along the way. I really like the results! The old Elmarit's render things in an interesting way. Even the much maligned 135 is proving to be a great lens for me.

[spydrxx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I had several R, SL and SL2 bodies and an assortment of lenses beginning in the 1990s and lasting until this year. The lenses were all strong performers, but as Nikon improved its higher end lenses and AF became pretty accurate, and my eyesight deteriorated, I began to lose my attachment to the Leica lenses. They all seemed heavy, smooth as warm butter to operate, and had great definition and contrast. Until the last few years they have been relative bargains in the marketplace, but with the introduction of the Leitax conversions and micro 4/3 bodies, the demand seems to have substantially picked up, driving up prices. I know when I finally sold most of mine over the last 3 years, I was quite pleasantly surprised with the proceeds far exceeding their costs. If you can find them in good condition (optically and mechanically) at what you consider a good price, I'd say "grab them up", especially the notable ones...you won't regret it.

[jc_braconi]

I am not and never have been a Leica R user.. but many R lenses are undoubtly superb performers, with some items that deserve an aura of their own.

 

It's been said, a lot of time that R lenses (in average) give better images than the M ones due to the fact that the glasses/lenses are larger in diameter and so the flux of light is less struggled

 

I follow some members works in the photo forum and usually can guess when a R lens is used ( used with digital system of course)

[AbbeyFoto]

Many of the R lenses still hold their own. For example from personal experience, 50mm f1.4 Summilux (II), Macro 60mm f2.8, 80mm f1.4 Summilux, 100mm f2.8 Macro Apo,180 f3.4 Apo, 180 f2.8 Apo, 28-90 f2.8-4.5 ASPH are all fine lenses.

[masjah]

Many of the R lenses still hold their own. For example from personal experience, 50mm f1.4 Summilux (II), Macro 60mm f2.8, 80mm f1.4 Summilux, 100mm f2.8 Macro Apo,180 f3.4 Apo, 180 f2.8 Apo, 28-90 f2.8-4.5 ASPH are all fine lenses.

 

Not to mention the stellar 280/4, the 21-35 zoom and the 90/2 Apo Asph. Oh and the good old 50/2 is still no slouch either!

[AbbeyFoto]

Not to mention the stellar 280/4, the 21-35 zoom and the 90/2 Apo Asph. Oh and the good old 50/2 is still no slouch either!

 

Sorry to say I am about to return a 21-35 to my dealer. It's been back to Leica three times and still not upto their exacting standards - I am sure it is a "Friday afternoon" copy! I hope I can find a good copy.

[masjah]

Sorry to say I am about to return a 21-35 to my dealer. It's been back to Leica three times and still not upto their exacting standards - I am sure it is a "Friday afternoon" copy! I hope I can find a good copy.

 

Sorry to hear that - mine has been absolutely fine. It's reputed to be better than several of the older or non-leica originating-design primes (apart from slightly less maximum aperture at the 35 end of course). I also have a 35/1.4 lux, which is my main "available light and reportage" lens (on the occasions when I do that sort of thing). It's only advantage is its maximum aperture - and then you have to put up with a bit of vignetting and slight softness in the corners. So, apart from aperture, my 21-35 zoom wins hands down.

 

Good luck in your hunt for a better sample!

 

Edit: PS: I recall now your earlier post dealing with your problems with focus shift with zooming.