For Macro - 60, 100 or 35-70?

[CrisRose]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

So I'm looking to pick up an R9 for macro and telephoto to pop in my bag next to my M9/8/6.

 

Top of the list is the Vario Elmar 35-70 f4, which I will be buying first regardless. It has a macro setting, so now I'm wondering if I should even bother picking up the 60/2.8 Macro Elmarit, or the 100m macro.

 

Any thoughts? Is it worth owning either of those two lenses as well? Anyone own both?

 

Cheers

[sfage]

the 60 is excellent... works very well as a prime too

[xalo]

+1

The Makro-Elmarit 60 was my very first Leica lens and delivered beautiful pictures on all my SLRs (Leica, Canon and Olympus) since, so I'm biaised.

 

Just be sure that you know what you want: true macro, down to lifesize and more, the zoom at 70mm is not. The 1:1 adapter/extension with aperture control for the 60 will fit other R lenses (135/2,8, 180/3,4) but not the zoom (nor the 100/2,8). Also be aware of the two versions of the 60, earlier with Series VIII filters, later with 55mm filter thread.

I suppose you know about the zoom's characteristics, the rotating front element, separate control rings etc. I like mine, but find that I do not use it that often and therefore have to re-learn each time, coming from primes. Which in turn leads to not using it often...

The 100/2,8 is quite different and perhaps more complementary to the zoom as a short tele. Its not that light or compact and extends considerably. I handled it, but never owned one. The results I saw are most excellent; stellar reputation. You will not physically approach the subject as close with a 100mm as with a 60/70mm. Noteworthy, it's quite costly.

 

I'd start again with the 60...

Cheers,

Alexander

[sfage]

Yes. The 60. One can be had for very little on ebay.

[CrisRose]

Okay, great, that's really helpful. So having the 60 with macro ring is well worthwhile and not a waste of money given the 35-70 is in the bag.

[masjah]

The 100/2.8 is the gold standard, but it will certainly cost you. (I've got one, and it is superb). In an earlier thread when someone asked about it I posted a picture of a thread (sic) through the eye of a needle. Also, it's own dedicated Elpro (which is required to get to 1:1) is fearsomely expensive when you can find it. (I think I saw such an Elpro for £500 s/h). Probably the 60 macro would be the best compromise, unless you are feeling wealthy.

 

PS: I've found the earlier thread, entitled R-Macro; it's on the previous page of theis sub-forum.

[jip]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've got a R8 with DMR and 1 lens, the Leica Vario-Elmar-R 1:4/35-70, I've shot some great macro shots with it if you ask me, but it doesn't come close to 1:1 and it's only good in my opinion from f/4.8 and up.

 

See this page for some of the pics:

 

(R8+DMR+35-70 only)

 

Macro - a set on Flickr

[CrisRose]

I've got a R8 with DMR and 1 lens, the Leica Vario-Elmar-R 1:4/35-70, I've shot some great macro shots with it if you ask me, but it doesn't come close to 1:1 and it's only good in my opinion from f/4.8 and up.

 

See this page for some of the pics:

 

(R8+DMR+35-70 only)

 

Macro - a set on Flickr

 

Thanks John and Jip

 

Jip, your photo with that droplets to the left was me of the images that drew my attention to its macro function. I'm also considering a DMR.

[jip]

it's even pretty heavily cropped, from a portrait picture cropped into a full width horizontal/landscape picture... I recently got a DMR for a small price, only thing I'm looking for now is a Microprism focussing screen, so without the splitscreen thing...

[farnz]

I am fortunate to have both the 60/2.8 Macro-Elmarit-R and the 100/2.8 APO Macro-Elmarit-R and I agree with John that the 100 is considered to be the gold standard for macro lenses produced by any manufacturer. The 60 is a lot smaller, lighter, and an excellent lens but for sheer performance the 100 prevails. Using the 100 with a 2x APO extender gives an unusual 200 mm macro lens that allows substantial distance between lens and subject, which is very handy for not disturbing insects.

 

Pete.

[sfage]

True, Pete.

 

But, I think we should also factor in the focal length of the 60mm vs the 100 and the ability of the 60 to work as a "real" prime (like a fast 50 for broad application).

 

In that light, the 60 is actually a better deal.

 

You can use it for street, architecture, landscape, et cetera. That is not to say that you can't do that with a 100mm but you are very limited by the narrowness of that lens.

[algrove]

+1 on the Macro 100. I also own the macro 60, but the 100 is my go to Macro all the time. Just wait to get one of those unless the 60mm is intriguing for you.

[farnz]

Fair comment, Shane, but for those uses the 35-70/4 might offer more flexibility. All three are superb lenses; I don't own the 35-70/4 so I'm relying on informed opinion on that one.

 

Pete.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Don't forget or underestimate the 100/4 Macro Elmar R lens. Longer working distance than the 60mm and usually cheaper and a superb macro performer from f8. The lens is dismissed by some but if anyone doubts its capabilities, have a look at James Lager's illustrations in his three "Illustrate History ... " books. Most of the hundreds of illustrations of Leica cameras, lenses and accessories in the books were taken using this lens.

 

There are three versions of the lens - one in normal focusing mount and two in a short mount for bellows. All three are have the same 4 element optical cell.

 

dunk

[xalo]

Pete, Dunk, CrisRose,

As much as I like the 60, I'd consider a 100 a better complement to the 35-70. Btw, I think that the rendering of the zoom is a little different from the 60. Perhaps lore of the "modern" signature. That might be better matched by the Apo, as far as I could tell from pics produced with both. The 60 would be my alternative to the zoom — accompanied by a 35 perhaps. But here I go off topic.

Alexander

[sfage]

Fair comment, Shane, but for those uses the 35-70/4 might offer more flexibility. All three are superb lenses; I don't own the 35-70/4 so I'm relying on informed opinion on that one.

 

Pete.

 

Again, a fair comment. May I ask: I have often heard people refer to zoom lenses as an "exercise in compromise". Or to put it in another way, a prime will generally win out at the equivalent focal length of a zoom.

 

Your thoughts?

 

For example: I have a Rollei/SK 35mm SL-Angulon which I am going to Leitax. It is a stunning lens. Of course, I also have an Angenieux 35-70. I would say the Rollei is sharper, better contrast and has more colour "pop". It also outperforms the 50 Summicron.

[gravastar]

One thing to be aware of with the 100/2.8 APO Macro-Elmarit-R is the highly corrected optical performance is only achieved for a fixed/designed rear of the lens to film/sensor distance. So although extension tubes etc. work there are some penalties such as field curvature. The best way to get down to 1:1 reproduction is with the 3 element dedicated Elpro16545 although it's price is becoming prohibitive. You can also achieve 1:1 with the 2x extender but I don't know what the optical performance of the combination is like.

 

Bob.

[jip]

I've got the 35-70 4 and its a great lens never had any zoom lens as good as it, but then again... I have not ever had a zoom lens by any other brand then Canon... so I guess it's not hard

[farnz]

... Your thoughts? ...

From the increased number of variables and computations needed for correction of aberrations throughout a zoom lens's range I'd expect a prime lens's performance to be better than a zoom lens containing the equivalent focal length in its range, particularly if the focal length appears towards the extremes of the zoom range. The zoom lens will have a 'sweet spot', ie one focal length where the aberrations are most effectively corrected, but correction at all other focal lengths in the range will be a compromise of what's practicable. Whether the performance of a zoom lens at its sweet spot is better (whatever that is taken to mean) than a prime lens with an equivalent focal length will depend on the particular lenses in question.

 

Pete.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[farnz]

I've got the 35-70 4 and its a great lens never had any zoom lens as good as it, but then again... I have not ever had a zoom lens by any other brand then Canon... so I guess it's not hard

Try out the 28-90 f/2.8-4.3 Vario-Elmarit asph if you have the opportunity, Jip, and you might be in for a surprise.

 

Pete.