Jump to content

M or R macro for SL?


LocalHero1953

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd welcome any comments from those with experience of both the 90 Macro-Elmar-M and the 100 Macro-Elmarit-R.

I'm considering a used one for the SL, and I also have a M240, though the SL is the obvious candidate for macro photography. I'm aware of the physical differences between them, including in macro enlargement ratios, but are there other considerations in performance to be taken into account?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the 60 is an option, but as I would use it on the SL, size and weight are less of a consideration than if it was for the M alone. Also, I understood (but I'm happy to be corrected) that the 100 was a "better" lens optically, whatever that means. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, since the SL is a heavier body, if you want a macro lens that you can also use for more casual shooting, the lighter weight and smaller size of the Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm f/2.8 is a plus. 

 

I know the APO Macro-Elmarit-R 100mm is supposed to be one of those magically amazing lenses, but I have to tell you that the 60mm is so freaking good it's hard to imagine just how much better it can get before we're all doing the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" thing again. ;-)

 

My solution was to buy the 60mm (I found what turned out to be an almost mint, perfect 1983 3cam example on Ebay for the almost embarrassingly low price of $500), added the Macro Adapter R for a scant $60, and found the 2x Extender-R (not the APO version) for $79. I've tested it with the extender ... and I know the APO extender is better performing ... but even with this pre-APO extender, the quality evident in the resulting 120mm macro lens is a hit way out of the ballpark and more than good enough for my purposes. And the 60 macro ends up being a really nice carry-around lens: lighter than the Summilux 50 with very fast focusing for the normal range of picture taking. 

 

I think I'm gushing about it too much.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point about lens weight and the SL is that I don't expect to use the SL as a carry around camera - that's the M, for me. And I'm more likely to play around with macro locally, rather than on long walks (where I'd carry an OUFRO and Viso - clunky, but light), so portability is not the top concern. But I take your point, and 'm quite capable of changing my practices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

100mm R Macro is the best lens I have used. I have owned both the 60 and the 100, although not the M-Elmar.

The 100 also has a 1:1 Adapter which can be hard to find, but worth the effort. 

 

these were shot with the M240, but with the SL it would have been much easier.  The advantages of the R lenses are that they are real macro lenses and that they are full size and better fit the SL. Especially the 100mm which has all the markings on the barrel of a traditional macro

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I shoot a lot of macro with the 100mm R and love this lens. Another example shot with the M240. The 2nd image is my first shot taken with the SL

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the SL + 100mm Macro + 1:1 Adapter

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main advantages of the 100 macro over the 60 macro, besides its optical qualities, is the narrower field of view and shallower depth of field, both of which help isolate the subject.

 

Plus, I might add, the longer working distance between subject and camera. Important advantage for macro in the field and angry wasps (Dunk!).

Not to mention the incredible colors and sharpness on all apertures from centre to corner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main advantages of the 100 macro over the 60 macro, besides its optical qualities, is the narrower field of view and shallower depth of field, both of which help isolate the subject.

I have to say I've never found the need for even shallower depth of field in macro. I generally stop down a fair bit before even the main subject is in focus!

 

The benefits of different focal lengths, as with all photography, depends on the subject and the type of image you're trying to create.

 

I wouldn't argue with the qualities of the 100 though. I just wanted to keep the brilliant little 60 in contention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of very helpful comments, thanks to all. No one is speaking up for the 90 Macro-Elmar M vs the 100 macro Elmarit-R. Is that because it is not a "proper" 1:1 macro?

 

Is it even a true macro lens? I think its more of a close focus lens. The 100mm is a real macro with the adapter front element. The disadvantage of the M lens is its size IMO. When you are shooting macro a larger lens has an advantage.

 

Here is the lens fully extended

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I've never found the need for even shallower depth of field in macro. I generally stop down a fair bit before even the main subject is in focus!

 

 

agree, you need to stop down otherwise hardly anything is in focus. The first example above was probably wide open, if I stopped down it would have been a better shot. The watch shots were probably at f8 or f11

Link to post
Share on other sites

a few more with 100mm

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the 60 and have used it on my M because it feels in the hand just like the Nikon 55 mm macro that I used long ago on an F.  Looks like it too.  It's a little faster and sharper, but just a very simple, convenient size.  (But I just got a deal that I couldn't resist on a 100, so I will be able to compare them.)  I expect greater working distance and the ability to go to higher f-stop without diffraction will be factors.

 

scott

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main advantages of the 100 macro over the 60 macro, besides its optical qualities, is the narrower field of view and shallower depth of field, both of which help isolate the subject.

 

???  

 

Depth of field is independent of focal length for the same magnification … thus if images are of the same magnification, and taken at the same f stop, with lenses of various focal lengths, then DOF will be identical. 

 

If anyone wants to save a few hundred £,€,$ on a decent R macro lens, consider the 100/4 Macro Elmar - it's a superb lens and in its short non-focus mount for use with the R bellows it can be bought relatively cheaply. 

 

Most of the thousands of photos of Leica cameras, lenses and accessories illustrating James Lager's  3 volumes "Illustrated History …"   were taken by him using the 100/4 R lens . 

 

If you examine the build quality of the 100/4 R bellows lens, I doubt if you will fail to be impressed - particularly regarding the superb telescopic hood construction and the light baffling - it's a work of art and lenses are seldom made today with such attention to detail. 

 

The hood on the 100/4 R with focusing mount is a mere 'gesture' compared to the substantial hood on the first version of the 100/4 R bellows lens.

 

Furthermore, for anyone seriously into photomacrography, the Leica R bellows via Photar adaptor 14259, offers the means of using microscope lenses for high magnification imaging - particularly if utilising image stacking. 

 

dunk

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Leica M 90 Macro is a really good lens, but not for macro use. If you want 1:1 macros with M Adapter the older Visoflex Elmar 65 3.5 black version is a winning choice. If i have enough time, i use this combination with bellows. Easier is the Apo 100 R. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Leica M 90 Macro is a really good lens, but not for macro use. (...)

 

absolut right; I could compare this "M-Macro" with APO-50 at short distances, the APO was far better...

The data sheet of the Macro-Elmar-M doesn't show MTFs für short distances, only for infinity.

 

The SL needs a better solution for Macro!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...