Leica SL with M or R lenses?

[steppenw0lf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Stephan,

here's the whole story -

 

Thanks for the whole story.      But so what ?

 

My 2 pence were directed at Mark (MEB) with his terribly limited budget.

The best investment for a small budget is still quite clear, at least to me. A relatively inexpensive and high class alternative is available since last year. And the Leica teles mentioned are unfortunately very heavy - and not up to the latest standards. It is simply realistic to know the pros and cons of your equipment.

They are good enough for me, because I have them already, but why should anybody free of legacy stuff not choose the newest and best ? And why should I keep that to myself (or even tell the opposite) ?

 

And by the way, I am actually thinking about buying the PF instead of the 90-280, It is in the shop Tuesday (really any day).

Let's see.

 

And to Mark: Test shots can be made any time, in almost any place and can be repeated. The really good shot of an interesting target is a different story. Technical details are just a small part. Maybe take the time and read a book about wildlife photographers ?

[Helmut99]

Thanks for the whole story.      But so what ?

 

My 2 pence were directed at Mark (MEB) with his terribly limited budget.

The best investment for a small budget is still quite clear, at least to me. A relatively inexpensive and high class alternative is available since last year. And the Leica teles mentioned are unfortunately very heavy - and not up to the latest standards. It is simply realistic to know the pros and cons of your equipment.

They are good enough for me, because I have them already, but why should anybody free of legacy stuff not choose the newest and best ? And why should I keep that to myself (or even tell the opposite) ?

 

And by the way, I am actually thinking about buying the PF instead of the 90-280, It is in the shop Tuesday (really any day).

Let's see.

 

And to Mark: Test shots can be made any time, in almost any place and can be repeated. The really good shot of an interesting target is a different story. Technical details are just a small part. Maybe take the time and read a book about wildlife photographers ?

 

Please buy the PF, you deserve it.

[steppenw0lf]

Why do you react so silly ?

[thighslapper]

Since there is no way in this lifetime that I will be able to afford the SL 90-280, I am considering a purchase of the R 280/2.8 APO Telyt (not modular) lens for my SL.  Has anyone tried this combination?  I have never used one but it was apparently an outstanding lens.  According to reports, only slightly below the stellar R 280/4 APO.

 

Thanks,

Mark

 

It is a very good lens ...... possibly better than the 90-280 ....... but it makes the 90-280 look small by comparison ...... strictly tripod only and not one to carry about ...... and yes my Robin pictures were excellent .... when I got the focus right ....

 

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!

[bherman01545]

Well, this is apparently a hot topic for many SL owners. I picked up a Leica SL and have the SL 24-90 and the 90-280. I began looking into some small-ish primes, and picked up a Leica R-L Adapter. I figured that the "R" lenses at least from an ergonomics standpoint, are better matched up to the SL than the M lenses. This may be subject to debate, and I can sell the adapter (which is basically new) if I decide to switch gears and go with "M" lenses. 

 

Anyway, how good is the Leica 50mm F2 Summicron R ROM lens? The lens that I picked up is a late model ROM lens from 2001 or later, ser # 3916xxx, in like-new condition for around $1000. My dealer recommends the late version 50mm F/1.4 Summilux R ROM, (latest version E60 filter), but those lenses are close to $3000 or more. I can but a new 50mm F/1.4 Summilux M ASPH for around that price.

 

I was told that the 50mm F2 Summicron is a 'good-performer', while the 50mm F/1.4 Summilux R ROM E60 is a 'great-performer'. My idea was to buy an SL system and a couple of expensive SL zoom lenses (24-90 and 90-280) to cover 95% of my most frequently-used range and then back-fill with a few reasonably-fast primes for walk-around or street photography. With that said, (at least for me) I would like to standardize on supplementing my zooms with either "R" lenses or "M" lenses, but not both. I don't have an "M" or an "R" body, just the SL body with the desire to pickup a couple of good Leica primes to supplement my SL lenses.

 

 

Comments or opinions?

 

Thanks!

 

-Brad

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Well, this is apparently a hot topic for many SL owners. I picked up a Leica SL and have the SL 24-90 and the 90-280. I began looking into some small-ish primes, and picked up a Leica R-L Adapter. I figured that the "R" lenses at least from an ergonomics standpoint, are better matched up to the SL than the M lenses. This may be subject to debate, and I can sell the adapter (which is basically new) if I decide to switch gears and go with "M" lenses. 

 

Anyway, how good is the Leica 50mm F2 Summicron R ROM lens? The lens that I picked up is a late model ROM lens from 2001 or later, ser # 3916xxx, in like-new condition for around $1000. My dealer recommends the late version 50mm F/1.4 Summilux R ROM, (latest version E60 filter), but those lenses are close to $3000 or more. I can but a new 50mm F/1.4 Summilux M ASPH for around that price.

 

I was told that the 50mm F2 Summicron is a 'good-performer', while the 50mm F/1.4 Summilux R ROM E60 is a 'great-performer'. My idea was to buy an SL system and a couple of expensive SL zoom lenses (24-90 and 90-280) to cover 95% of my most frequently-used range and then back-fill with a few reasonably-fast primes for walk-around or street photography. With that said, (at least for me) I would like to standardize on supplementing my zooms with either "R" lenses or "M" lenses, but not both. I don't have an "M" or an "R" body, just the SL body with the desire to pickup a couple of good Leica primes to supplement my SL lenses.

 

 

Comments or opinions?

 

Thanks!

 

-Brad

 

It just depends on your definition of "smallish". I think the R lenses are a bit more balanced on the SL, although there are exceptions (Noctilux, 90AA are both fine in M mount) but if you want small, nothing is smaller with better quality than M lenses. And you'll have a wider choice of classic and modern renderings.

 

Plus a whole bunch of personal preferences....

 

Gordon

[amoebahydra]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have quite a bit of both M and R lenses and in my humble opinion I prefer the performance of R lenses over M lenses.  However, most of the time I use now for foreign trip is a SL camera with SL24-90, SL90-280, SL50 (or M50/0.95 or R500/8 depends on occasion) and a WATE ......... They can nicely fit in a small backpack

[Delcredere]

I realise you are interested in prime lenses but may I suggest you consider the R 28-90 2.8 which I use happily on my SL?

[geetee1972]

I was informed by the chap who owns 'The Classic Camera' in London that R lenses are optically identical to their equivalent M lenses, so a 50mm R-Summicron is exactly the same optically as a 50mm M-Summicron, but it's about a third or half the price. So I guess the reasons to buy the R version comes down to cost and perhaps balance (though given how light the M versions are, an SL with an M lens isn't 'unbalanced').

 

You might also argue that the other reason to buy the R version is because it exists in a focal length not served by the M range, for example the 80mm Summilux. That is a lovely lens but it's very expensive even for a 'user'.

 

I think the most compelling reasons to opt for M mount lenses is that you can always use them on an M camera (if you have one or if you don't, there's a good chance you'll acquire one in addition to the SL) and they will hold their value better.

[caissa]

The most obvious difference between R and M is the close focus distance, which is often quite poor in M lenses. But if you have never used anything else, you won't notice and won't miss it.

But all this "fight" between R and M looks simply childish to me. Use what you like - I have both systems, and lenses from many others. Try understanding finally that the SL allows both systems and many other systems to use at their best. And additionally also allows the use of AF lenses with OIS  and even some alien new AF lenses.

I am taller than average and so this discussion how many grams there are missing or there are too much is just a waste of energy and time for me. If I had a problem of handling a lens because of its dimensions, then it would matter. But I never met anybody who went so far.

If you are able to look over your garden fence, you will find many valuable lenses in neighbours garden (from all times up to the latest inventions). This is worth discussing (which lens could be used for which occasions, not which lens is the "best").

And prices are relative - for you obviously dollars count more than anything else like time.

Getting older most alive will notice that nothing is as valuable as time (especially the remaining time). 

The SL with its flexibility allows me to use the time with better things than discussing which lens is the cheapest or best for its price. I am therefore "grateful" that the SL exists and gives me all these countless possibilities. If a lens is too expensive, or tooo big, or in any other way does not suit my taste - then I simply do not buy it and concentrate on the stuff that is more useful for me. 

 

Ever heard about "quality time" ?

[ramarren]

I've probably said this before.

 

I bought the SL to use with my R lenses primarily. I added the SL24-90 to the order almost as an afterthought, so that I'd have at least one lens with which I could utilize all of the capabilities of the camera. For first year of using the SL, I hardly ever used anything but the R lenses. I tested my M lenses on the SL too, but found I preferred in nearly all circumstances the handling and ergonomics of the R lenses. The exception for me is the WATE ... I still prefer the handling of the Super-Elmar-R 15mm, but the WATE is a better performer in no uncertain terms and is half the size. I still tend to use the SER15 more regardless.

 

I started using the SL24-90 more of the time earlier this year. I find it outperforms both the R and M lenses as a general rule, and of course it allows me to use all the metering modes and other capabilities of the SL. Using largish R lenses as long as I have, it's added bulk isn't that big a difference any more.

 

I found I was only carrying and using my longer R lenses (180/2.8, 250/4) rather infrequently because they are both large and heavy, AND I found I could only get the best results from them if I carried and used a tripod. I decided that since I was using the SL24-90 more of the time anyway, I could afford to sell off my long R lenses as well as a couple of the shorter focal lengths (and a few of my no-longer-used film Leica bodies) and obtain the SL90-280 lens. The advantages are obvious: even without considering the IS, it's a better performing lens than any of my older long R lenses, and with the IS it becomes easily hand-holdable with excellent results. It is a large and heavy lens, but this is mitigated by the fact of its exemplary performance and the way I tend to use it. I rarely carry anything else when I'm out with it.

 

I kept a cadre of my R lenses ... the 15, the 19, 'Lux and 'Cron 50, Macro 60, 90, Macro 100, and 180/4 ... they provide an alternative for use on the SL and also work with the Leicaflex SL body that I kept (except for the 15). And I can still plop any of my M lenses on the SL if I choose to do so ... WATE, 'Lux 35, 'Cron 50, 'Rit 75, etc.

 

So this has become the near perfect Leica system for me. The SL body is the centerpiece that can use any of my lenses, the SL zooms give me a full range of focal lengths with all the modern assists and conveniences while the M and R lenses net a lighter package and specific strengths. The M-D body nets a digital version of the classic M experience with a limited assortment of the lenses. And I have both M4-2 and Leicaflex SL for when I want to enjoy using film's differences from a digital capture as well.

 

Can't get better than that, for me.

[jaapv]

Me too, I am happy with my Elmarit-R 1:2.8/180 and am on the look out for a non-apo 2X Extender which I would use with my 90mm lens when I don't want to take the 180 out.

Why a non-APO extender? Those are really not very good, cropping is better.

[ramarren]

Why a non-APO extender? Those are really not very good, cropping is better.

 

 

I bought a "2x Extender-R" too and use it with the little Elmar-R 180/4. It performs better with this slower lens than it did with the f/2.8, and it was inexpensive ($50-$60) ... Gives me a useful 360mm f/8 on the rare occasions when I need a bit more reach, and actually works beautifully with an R extension tube behind it and the 180/4 as a long macro lens with 3D subjects. I only very rarely need or use such a long lens so having a lightweight option like this that performs acceptably is quite satisfactory.