R7 or F3

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The same vintage glass for the Leica is better. You will see less distortion and aberrations from them. Newer Nikon lenses is more competitive optically, but is less well made and can not be used on F3.

 

Being in two systems is a pain and requires carrying 2 sets of lenses. OK if one is used in a studio and the other for travel.

The lenses focus in opposite directions which makes learning to focus rapidly difficult.

 

I would buy lenses for the Nikon all said and done. They are more easily used for digital when you end up there. Most of the aberrations can be repaired in photoshop if from a digital file to start.

 

Buy only AiS lenses or Ai. They are the last generation and can be mounted on digital without modification.

28 2.8 AiS that focuses to .7 meter is a gem and better than any other wide Nikon. 105 2.5 is versatile and nice. Get a 50 1.8 . 1.4 are really not that good at 1.4 anyway. I use these on current digital cameras unless I need auto focus.

 

There is really no good way to use R lenses on digital without changing mounts and then you lose diaphragm automation, ie you regressed to 1955 .

[FinnPirat]

..Get a 50 1.8 . 1.4 are really not that good at 1.4 anyway...

 

to late

just got a 50/1.4 and a 105/2.5

[SteveYork]

Both an F3 and R7 are good cameras.

 

One plus for the Leica is that the viewfinder has higher magnification; an important feature for a manual focus camera.

 

But as others have said, base the decision on which to get solely on the lenses. Which do you like better, the Nikon look or Leica?

 

I prefer the Leica look.

 

In my limited experience with Nikon, using their 50/1.4 and 105/2.5, they just didn't match up with the 50mm Summicron and 90mm Elmarit. The Nikons were good, the latter two Leicas are outstanding, and reason enough to go with the R line over Nikon.

 

I can understand why someone would opt for Nikon when paying list price -- back when Leica R sold across the store shelf for … too much -- but now everything is deflated. Leica R isn't mush more expensive then Nikon, and in some cases it is less expensive.

 

Five or six years ago Leica R lenses sold for cheap, cheap, cheap, but the prices have creeped up a bit. There's a reason demand has driven the prices up!

Edited November 7, 2014 by SteveYork

[bocaburger]

Well I had a F3/T bought new in 1985 which I had until 2010. I had a number of prime AI-S lenses over the years but in the end kept the 2.0/24, 1.4/35, 1.4/50, 1.2/55, 2.8/105 Micro and 4.0/80-200.

 

In 2010 I bought a M9 initially with three lenses: 1.4/21 Summilux ASPH, 1.4/35 Summilux ASPH, and 2.0/75 APO-Summicron ASPH. The results were so overwhelming that I sold all of my Nikon gear almost immediately - these AI-S lenses weren't a patch on the Leica lenses (especially wide open).

 

You're comparing 40 yr old Nikkors (and not the best of the bunch...that would be the 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/3.5 Micro, 105/2.5...and zooms of that era were all pretty poor compared to modern ones) against recent-vintage Leica M lenses, of course you're going to see an overwhelming advantage with the Leica's. Compare the Nikkors I listed to similar lenses in Leica R and there isn't such a huge difference. In fact the so-called Leica 24/2.8 was actually a Minolta design, same optics as they used in their own version.

 

The main thing that turned me off the R system was the bodies. I had a lot of trouble with them, always breaking down in little, annoying ways. Not so my older Leicaflex SL, it just kept on truckin.

[dkCambridgeshire]

So … do Canon DSLR users prefer manual focus Nikkors to Leica R lenses on their cameras? From what I have read seems they prefer R lenses. And some R lenses were/are of the same design/construction as the equivalent M optics … e.g. 50 , 75/80, 90 and 135mm. See Leica Pocket Book 8th Edition pages 193, 245 and 247 and compare the MTF graphs which are almost identical. And Rogliatti's book 'Leica and Leicaflex Lenses' has schematic lens diagrams showing the similar/identical constructions of some M and R lenses … as does Dennis Laney's book 'Leica Lens Practice'.

 

dunk

Edited November 8, 2014 by dkpeterborough

[Paul Verrips]

thx for all the answers!

I will try both. At the moment, I only need a 85/90/105 and a 50mm lens.

So for the F3 I will take the 105/2.5, and the 50/1.4 AI-S for the R7 I will try to get a not so expensive Elmarit 135mm. A 90mm Sumicron would be great but for the moment...

 

Summicron 90 with Leitax for Nikon:

Refoto Website no_selection

 

Summicron 50 with Leitax for Nikon:

Refoto Website Leica 50mm F2.0 Summicron-R met Nikon Mount (Occ) - Leica

[Benjamin Leica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is vital to note that both systems have their unique strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately, choosing between them depends on your personal preference and the type of photography you prefer. I personally use the Nikon f3 for my needs.

Nikkor lenses are known for their sharpness, color rendition, and excellent build quality. They are also more readily available and generally less expensive than Leica R lenses. If you're on a tight budget or looking to explore the Nikon system, investing in a set of Nikkor lenses would be an excellent option for you.

On the other hand, Leica R lenses are famous for their excellent optical performance, smooth focus and aperture control, and compact size. For many photographers, they are regarded as some of the most exquisite lenses ever made, reflected in their hefty price tag. If you're looking for lenses that offer the ultimate optical performance and are willing to make a more significant investment, then Leica R lenses are an excellent choice.

Regarding the specific focal lengths you mentioned, both systems offer exceptional options. Nikkor lenses, such as the 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.8, are highly regarded, while Leica R lenses such as the 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4 Summilux, and 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit are also held in high esteem.

Deciding between Nikkor lenses and Leica R lenses comes down to personal preference, budget, and the type of photography you enjoy. I hope my insight will guide you to make a well-informed decision about your lens purchases and wish you the best with your photography endeavors!

[wizard]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Benjamin Leica:

I hope my insight will guide you to make a well-informed decision about your lens purchases and wish you the best with your photography endeavors!

Did you note that you were replying to a question posed in 2014? It would seem that the OP has long since teken a decision ... 🙂

[dpitt]

On 9/16/2014 at 12:24 PM, FinnPirat said:

thx for all the answers!

I will try both. At the moment, I only need a 85/90/105 and a 50mm lens.

So for the F3 I will take the 105/2.5, and the 50/1.4 AI-S for the R7 I will try to get a not so expensive Elmarit 135mm. A 90mm Sumicron would be great but for the moment...

The Elmarit 135 can give very similar results to the 90 Summicron. Just take one step back and you take the same shot with F2.8 as the 90 at F2, DOF is similar too. It is a really good lens, also for macro with a macro adapter.

On 9/16/2014 at 12:24 PM, FinnPirat said:

thx for all the answers!

I will try both. At the moment, I only need a 85/90/105 and a 50mm lens.

So for the F3 I will take the 105/2.5, and the 50/1.4 AI-S for the R7 I will try to get a not so expensive Elmarit 135mm. A 90mm Sumicron would be great but for the moment...

Try a 50mm Summicron v1 (3-cam preferably). It is less expensive, but IMHO even richer tones than the v2, maybe a bit less sharp wide open, but not sure. Price difference could be just because it is older and has no built in sun hood.

And why not try one of the 'Minolta' 80-200 (or 75... or 70...) beer can zooms. They are a real bargain, and outstanding IQ. IMO they are just as good as the 'real' Leica R lenses, maybe a bit lighter, but Leica QA made sure they were up to Leica's IQ standard. I read somewhere that in some cases they rejected 80% of the Minolta production.