M240 with R-Zoom

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have M9, as much as I love the M system, often I also miss the zoom convenience. After struggling, I ended up getting the MATE. It's expensive, probably close to trading M9+ MATE for M240 + R-Zoom. I get the portability this way, but leaving behind the video and R (or any DSLR) compatibility. I am turning away from the possibility of using Canon T&S. Yes, and my zoom range is limited to 28-35-50mm.

 

When I must use Leica R lenses or Canon T&S or shooting bird in fly, I will simply getting a Canon DSLR. I guess the M portability and convenience should not be important for that.

 

So seriously, do you think M240 + R Zoom make real sense or just a play?

[jaapv]

Doable, but quite bulky I would say. A few points. You are shooting in the optimal focal length range of the optical rangefinder, yet you are limiting yourself to the EVF.

Although the last version of the 35-70 is very good, it cannot compete with primes.

What is wrong with the MATE? ( except for it being vastly overpriced at the moment.).

[efreed2754]

Have an M and 90, 100 and 180 Leicaflex lenses. Also use a MATE when traveling.

 

Key aspects of the rangefinder experience are light and quick to use. The MATE facilitates theses attributes and is wonderfully sharp. While might be a squish less sharp than prime lenses, it's flexibility, speed in not having to change lenses and reduced chance of dust on sensor make it a big winner--again when traveling or not sure what will encounter.

 

The M with flex lenses is heavier, bulkier and slower. Consider the M-R solution as less than a real SLR but glad to have it for close ups or very long distances where a 135 and cropping aren't acceptable.

 

If you are shooting inert landscapes like buildings or mountains, the M with flex lenses may be fine. If you rely on your reflexes to capture the moment, the M with rangefinder lenses is much better.

 

So again what type of images or statements are you making and how will the equipment best help you?

[Einst_Stein]

M9 + MATE is nearly perfect for my usage. Nearly, except when I want movie, bird-in-fly, or prospect control.

 

M240 seems a bridge for those, who knows how often, situations. But I am questioning myself what do I really want, Canon FF DSLR or a M240.

 

By the way, I've tried Sony A7/A7R, but decided it should be FF DSLR or M240 (need real optical finder).

 

 

Doable, but quite bulky I would say. A few points. You are shooting in the optimal focal length range of the optical rangefinder, yet you are limiting yourself to the EVF.

Although the last version of the 35-70 is very good, it cannot compete with primes.

What is wrong with the MATE? ( except for it being vastly overpriced at the moment.).

[Einst_Stein]

What is wrong with the MATE? ( except for it being vastly overpriced at the moment.).

 

This is actually my third MATE. I had acquired and sold MATE twice before this one. I didn't find MATE so useful till now, except I did make a little money from the first two.

[Einst_Stein]

So again what type of images or statements are you making and how will the equipment best help you?

 

I haven't develop a style yet. I have been switching from landscape and close-up (most static) to traveling (semi-static) to senior and kid portraits (semi-static to real dynamic). I am now into birding and animal too (super dynamic and movie).

 

M9 + MATE is so far the best solution I've ever had except for birding and wild animal, which leads me to consider M240 and Canon FF DSLR.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In that case the 240 should suit you.

[sillbeers15]

I see and use M240 as a basic Digital RF camera with the support of a range of 21mm to 90mm fast and superb M Prime lenses available and has the extended ability to take on any other lenses (with available adapter) using it's mirrorless capability.

 

This provides an option to those of us who occationally want to go beyond 21mm to 90mm range but do not wish to carry another system.

 

For the needs of zoom and telephoto lenses on high usage, there are better options available.

 

Having said that, I do have both R 80-200mm Vario Elmar & APO 180mm Elmarit for my occational needs.

[efreed2754]

Hmmmm! Sillbeers nicely summarizes the best of the Leica and M system.

 

Have had good success with 18 and 135 although agree 28 to 90 are Leica's strengths.

 

Birding and some animals may be better suited for a true SLR system depending on the details where the Gods live.

 

Suggest tipping point (at least for me) is the gain from a true SLR vs the cost, weight and complexity of another system. Were I shooting sports or whales for a living would have an SLR. I don't so the M with the passing grade R solution is fine with me.

 

FWIW started with Nikon in 1968 and used for few years before finding Leica rangefinders (IIIf, M2, M3...) and the focusing was reversed. Took me forever to relearn the Leica way. YMMV. Of course given your name you must be a fast learner.

[sharookh]

I have the 35-70 Vario Elmar R which I use on my M240. It's a lovely lens, and I like it a lot. For travel, tho' stick with the smaller M lenses to avoid bulk or you will be getting into D SLR sizes, which defeats the purpose of the M cameras' compact size.

 

I've recently purchased the T. It's compact, ( has a few teething issues) but with stellar optics! I use the 18-56 and have posted on the People forum, incase you'd like to check out what it does!!

[bocaburger]

I have an M240 and the Olympus EVF. A long time ago I had a MATE and stupidly sold it, now there's no way I'll spend that kind of coin to repurchase one. But tbh, I found that getting a 28 or 50 FOV was literally a couple strides to or fro using a 35, which was a lot smaller and lighter (version IV) and had a full stop advantage. There really isn't much I couldn't do with 21-35-90. And that was in the days of film when cropping was a bigger problem due to grain. The M9 and M240 can be cropped quite a bit and still deliver astounding resolution.

 

I do have a 400/6.8 Telyt which I have been using on the M240 with good results, but again tbh I enjoy that lens much more on my 5D with reflex viewing than with the EVF. Recently I picked up a 70-210/4 Vario Elmar and have also been using it on the M240. The lens cost me roughly $200 so it wasn't a major money issue. It's a very well-made lens and despite its Minolta lineage, performs within a gnat's whisker of the Kyocera-made 80-200/4 (which I owned for a time along with a previous 70-210/4 and compared them). All that said, for hand-holding, the Canon EF-IS lenses more than make up in steadiness what little they may lack against Leica R glass.

[hamey]

I haven't develop a style yet. I have been switching from landscape and close-up (most static) to traveling (semi-static) to senior and kid portraits (semi-static to real dynamic). I am now into birding and animal too (super dynamic and movie).

 

M9 + MATE is so far the best solution I've ever had except for birding and wild animal, which leads me to consider M240 and Canon FF DSLR.

 

I have both the M240 and the Canon DSLR.

 

If you're into birding and anything fast my choice is the Canon DSLR and Canon L Lenses.

 

Ken.

[Einst_Stein]

I have both the M240 and the Canon DSLR.

 

If you're into birding and anything fast my choice is the Canon DSLR and Canon L Lenses.

 

Ken.

 

That's why I thought. Haven't heard any happy bird shooter using RF yet.

[masjah]

I have a photographer friend who does a lot of bird photography, and uses a Canon DSLR system. He has seen my M with R lenses, R-M adapter and EVF, and agrees that it produces excellent results with the sort of subjects (essentially static) which I photograph. But his opinion is that the relatively slow refresh rate of the EVF and the lack of autofocus would make this system essentially unusable for bird photography, and I entirely agree. Horses for courses.

[Bill W]

I am not into birding but I wanted a zoom for my M. This was a much cheaper alternative to the MATE for my purposes. The zoom is the Vario-Elmar R 35-70 f4. It also has a Maro mode. It is model 11277

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!

[MarkP]

Well there are times when a zoom is very convenient and the MATE just doesn't give enough versatility. I only wanted to stay with one camera system so the 28-90 Vario-Elmar-M on the M covers nearly all of my usual focal lengths (and is quite fast at 2.8-4.5) in one high quality package.

 

A spectacular lens (although some barrel distortion at 28mm) and already worth thousands more than I paid for it - no it's not for sale. I don't use it where individual prime lenses or the MATE will do. Yes, it is obviously heavier and bulkier than the primes, does mean that I have to use the EVF but the lag isn't really an issue for me as I don't shoot as such a pace that it is a significant limitation.

 

So yes, zooms do have a place with this camera.

[Einst_Stein]

I believe M240 + R zoom can do pretty good job, but it won't be close to a real DSLR, not to mention M + Tri elmar when it is applicable. I would say it is better off go to Leica T or X.

 

A M240 + R zoom or any mirror less plus foreign lenses can only be a second class tool compared to a real DSLR setup.

[MarkP]

I believe M240 + R zoom can do pretty good job, but it won't be close to a real DSLR, not to mention M + Tri elmar when it is applicable. I would say it is better off go to Leica T or X.

 

A M240 + R zoom or any mirror less plus foreign lenses can only be a second class tool compared to a real DSLR setup.

 

 

With respect to handling, and focus peaking limitations at 28mm, I would completely agree, hence the MATE for the 28-50 range - M+R zoom does not beat an optical VF.

However, the images produced by the MATE and 28-90 are very different.

 

However I would disagree with your comment with respect to the final output of R zooms on the M240 (well at least the 28-90) which is extraordinary - anything but second class.

 

As I mentioned, I did not want a second system so for me the handling limitations are an acceptable compromise as it may also be for those that want longer zoom lenses on an M240 without having to buy or use two camera systems.

[hamey]

That's why I thought. Haven't heard any happy bird shooter using RF yet.

 

Well Einst, unless it's in a cage or your local pet it would be pretty hard.

 

I have several R lenses and thats the reason I bought the M240, however I was disappointed with the EVF

I don't think I will bother at this time with the M240 and R lenses, I will just stick with the M lenses and the RF as I consider the M240 RF to be brilliant for static and low light but still behind the Fuji X-T1 as I consider the X-T1 a fantastic low light camera, I might evaluate an X to R adapter to try with my R lenses.

 

As for my Canon DSLR and the L lenses I mainly use it for Aircraft Photography and doing it rough when I am with the Boys.

 

For the best, I still love using Slide film, so there is ample use for my R Lenses as I use my beloved

R system for everything as it's still my primary first choice in my photography.

 

I also agree, it's horses for courses.

 

 

Ken.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[atournas]

I use an M9, so I can't comment on any combo around the M240.

 

However, I own two R zoom lenses, the 28-90 ASPH and the 80-200 f/4, which I use on Canon DSLR. Unfortunately, the ASPH can only mount on 1.6x bodies like the 7D. I also use Hasselblad lenses (on any Canon).

 

From my experience, the DSLR+R lenses (or Hasselblad) are quite capable of producing a lot of "keepers" AS LONG AS one uses a tripod. It's strange that point did not come up emphatically in the previous posts. I believe it is an unavoidable compromise, if Leica-like results are sought. The reason is not lack of AF; as a matter of fact, the adapters I use offer focus confirmation with the R lenses. The issue is the balance of the zoom--just forget hand-held shooting!

 

So far, the best images come from 5DII+Hasselblad 50 f/4 FLE and 40D+80-200 f/4, both ON a tripod.

 

Paul