R lenses with adapter .....or M lenses worn adapter?

[Big John]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

Had the SL with 24-90 for 5 months now and very happy with performance. Before buying I tried it with M lenses and found the compact and light weight nature of the package to be very nice. Now that the R lens adapter has been out for a little while, I am torn between going the M or R lens route. Only want to add a 50mm, maybe a 35mm. R lenses seem to be a better size. Thoughts pls?

 

Thanks.

John

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[steppenw0lf]

The Summicron-R 50 is now my "normal" lens as it was when I started with Leica R. The 35mm is also great on the SL.

But I use a M 28mm, because it offers great IQ and I do not have the latest R 28. So I think it is not necessary to go one way or the other. Simply use what you have or like best.

For example the R 60 Macro is a nice alternative to the 50mm.

I do also have several M lenses, but usually prefer the size of the R lenses. Especially the Apo Macro Elmarit-R 100 is my favorite.

But I use also many other lenses I have been using in the last 15 years - now adapted to the SL. (e.g. Micro 70-180 Nikkor).

Or Nikon 2.8/17-35, a lens that was very often on my Nikon camera.

 

You can use the new R to L adapter, or also the adapter stack consisting of M to L and R to M adapter. This way it is easy to add a Contax to M or Nikon to M or whatever you need.

[scott kirkpatrick]

R lenses are classic designs, not as "clinically sharp" across the whole field (which you may like or dislike)  as the latest M lenses, and match the SL's size nicely.  Hands that fit the SL also fall nicely around the bigger long-throw focusing rings of the R lenses.  In the 28 to 75, maybe even 90 mm range, though, the latest M lenses are noticeably crisper and contrastier.  But they cost a lot more and the R lenses will still feel pretty sleek after the 24-90 SL zoom.

 

scott

[steppenw0lf]

Sorry Scott, but if you use the latest R lenses, especially the Apo lenses, then they have equal IQ and are better in all other aspects in my eyes than the M lenses. because they also offer a very usable nearest focus distance, while the Ms are relatively weak in this regard because of their rangefinder heritage.

Nearer close focus often also means better bokeh (e.g. for portraits).

So it depends if close-up photos are your thing or not. If not, buy M, if yes then better use R.

A Apo-Summicron-R 90 is for me better than an Apo Summicron-M 90, and unfortunately it is also more expensive. (Much more expensive than the lens was when new).

 

If you do not want "clinically sharp" portraits, then you should use the pre-Apo version of these two lenses (R or M). 

 

As the Summicron-SL 90 has been "announced" for 2017, it is probably better to simply wait for that. (It will also be a Apo version). A SL 35 is also announced and the SL 50 is already close (end of 2016/ beginning of 2017). And even for the 17-35 there will be a replacement in 2017, the SL 16-35.

So it is probably better to save the money for the optimal new lenses, than spend it on older gear. 

[ramarren]

Had the SL with 24-90 for 5 months now and very happy with performance. Before buying I tried it with M lenses and found the compact and light weight nature of the package to be very nice. Now that the R lens adapter has been out for a little while, I am torn between going the M or R lens route. Only want to add a 50mm, maybe a 35mm. R lenses seem to be a better size. Thoughts pls?

 

 

I use my SL mostly with R lenses. I find the M lenses to be less ergonomic on this body, they work better on an M. The Summilux-R 50/1.4 and Summicron-R 35/2 are both superb lenses that suit the SL beautifully. 

 

All of my R lenses are somewhat older, three-cam models (no APOs), with two exceptions which are one- and two-cam (even older). I love the way these lenses image.

 

I've been using the two adapter stack (M Adapter T and R Adapter M) since the SL came out. There's little advantage to using the R Adapter SL for me since I have no ROM lenses and even my long teles do not vignette with the two adapter stack. 

[Guest]

The Summicron-R 50 is now my "normal" lens as it was when I started with Leica R. The 35mm is also great on the SL.

But I use a M 28mm, because it offers great IQ and I do not have the latest R 28. So I think it is not necessary to go one way or the other. Simply use what you have or like best.

For example the R 60 Macro is a nice alternative to the 50mm.

I do also have several M lenses, but usually prefer the size of the R lenses. Especially the Apo Macro Elmarit-R 100 is my favorite.

But I use also many other lenses I have been using in the last 15 years - now adapted to the SL. (e.g. Micro 70-180 Nikkor).

Or Nikon 2.8/17-35, a lens that was very often on my Nikon camera.

 

You can use the new R to L adapter, or also the adapter stack consisting of M to L and R to M adapter. This way it is easy to add a Contax to M or Nikon to M or whatever you need.

 

I have two R lenses both Macro the 60 and 100 for studio work mainly. There they both excel. Then I have 4 M lenses, the Super Elmar 21mm I use the most, followed by a 90mm APO. The 50 and 135 are used for some other shots. I frequently leave the house with combinations. 21mm and 90mm or 50mm or 135mm.

 

With respect to size I don't feel either is better than the other they both feel great on the SL.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry Scott, but if you use the latest R lenses, especially the Apo lenses, then they have equal IQ and are better in all other aspects in my eyes than the M lenses. because they also offer a very usable nearest focus distance, while the Ms are relatively weak in this regard because of their rangefinder heritage.

Nearer close focus often also means better bokeh (e.g. for portraits).

So it depends if close-up photos are your thing or not. If not, buy M, if yes then better use R.

A Apo-Summicron-R 90 is for me better than an Apo Summicron-M 90, and unfortunately it is also more expensive. (Much more expensive than the lens was when new).

 

If you do not want "clinically sharp" portraits, then you should use the pre-Apo version of these two lenses (R or M). 

 

As the Summicron-SL 90 has been "announced" for 2017, it is probably better to simply wait for that. (It will also be a Apo version). A SL 35 is also announced and the SL 50 is already close (end of 2016/ beginning of 2017). And even for the 17-35 there will be a replacement in 2017, the SL 16-35.

So it is probably better to save the money for the optimal new lenses, than spend it on older gear. 

The OP asked about the medium focal lengths, 35 and 50 mm.  I agree that the 80, apo-90, and apo-100 R's are special (and I use them).  But I prefer the latest M lenses for the middle range that was asked about.  One exception is the late model 21-35 Vario Elmar-R, which is very usable in crowded quarters.  I got some effective shots of a large group in a small room with it recently.  But it is lower in contrast than the M Summiluxes and SuperElmars.  I posted some comparison shots recently that convinced me to stick with my M lenses for landscape scale work.

 

scott 

[Big John]

I use my SL mostly with R lenses. I find the M lenses to be less ergonomic on this body, they work better on an M. The Summilux-R 50/1.4 and Summicron-R 35/2 are both superb lenses that suit the SL beautifully. 

 

All of my R lenses are somewhat older, three-cam models (no APOs), with two exceptions which are one- and two-cam (even older). I love the way these lenses image.

 

I've been using the two adapter stack (M Adapter T and R Adapter M) since the SL came out. There's little advantage to using the R Adapter SL for me since I have no ROM lenses and even my long teles do not vignette with the two adapter stack.

 

Thanks to everyone for the replies, rally appreciated.

 

Have to confess to not really understanding ROM....etc. What functionality will the R adapter provide? I gather that apertures are estimated, and as long as exposure is not compromised, then I am not bothered! Thanks

[scott kirkpatrick]

Thanks to everyone for the replies, rally appreciated.

 

Have to confess to not really understanding ROM....etc. What functionality will the R adapter provide? I gather that apertures are estimated, and as long as exposure is not compromised, then I am not bothered! Thanks

The SL has profiles in its firmware for correcting vignetting and slight color shifts when you tell it the correct lens identity.  It offers a choice from the profiles when the M-to-L adapter (which has electrical contacts) tells it that a B/W coded R-to-M adapter is in use, but you have to select the correct profile from a list.  If the R lens is a prime, the SL can also correct distortion in Jpegs or insert correction parameters into the DNG raw files so that LR or other rendering programs can offer the correction.  If the R lens is a zoom, the SL doesn't really know what to do, so it assumes a focal length of zero, in most cases, and takes default values for the minimum shutter speed in Aperture mode with auto ISO.  And cannot calculate corrections.  Also, I frequently forget to change the profile setting when I change lenses.  (For M lenses, the SL does set lens ID automatically, based on the B/W six-bit code.)  R lenses with ROM contacts transmit the lens identity and, for zooms, the focal length in use.  The late R models could set flash angles to match this information.  So with the new one-step adapter, this information is now available.  The lucky few with the new adapter have confirmed that it all seems to work.  Estimating the aperture is more accurate in normal outdoor lighting when the SL knows the lens focal length, so this will improve, but it is never completely reliable -- sometimes a little bit off, sometimes completely wrong.

 

scott

[ramarren]

Thanks to everyone for the replies, rally appreciated.

 

Have to confess to not really understanding ROM....etc. What functionality will the R adapter provide? I gather that apertures are estimated, and as long as exposure is not compromised, then I am not bothered! Thanks

 

 

Said another way:

 

The R Adapter SL with ROM equipped lenses

- allows the SL body to automatically recognize and apply the correct lens profile. 

- populates the lens information in EXIF automatically.

- informs the body as to zoom lens settings.

 

It also does not have the throat constriction required for M lens mount, so very long telephotos and ultra extension close-ups will not vignette as much. 

 

The one negative of the R Adapter SL is that, like R8 and R9 bodies, it should not be used with one- and two-cam R lenses: they can damage the mount adapter's ROM contacts. The three-cam, R-only, and ROM R lenses are all compatible. 

[Big John]

The SL has profiles in its firmware for correcting vignetting and slight color shifts when you tell it the correct lens identity.  It offers a choice from the profiles when the M-to-L adapter (which has electrical contacts) tells it that a B/W coded R-to-M adapter is in use, but you have to select the correct profile from a list.  If the R lens is a prime, the SL can also correct distortion in Jpegs or insert correction parameters into the DNG raw files so that LR or other rendering programs can offer the correction.  If the R lens is a zoom, the SL doesn't really know what to do, so it assumes a focal length of zero, in most cases, and takes default values for the minimum shutter speed in Aperture mode with auto ISO.  And cannot calculate corrections.  Also, I frequently forget to change the profile setting when I change lenses.  (For M lenses, the SL does set lens ID automatically, based on the B/W six-bit code.)  R lenses with ROM contacts transmit the lens identity and, for zooms, the focal length in use.  The late R models could set flash angles to match this information.  So with the new one-step adapter, this information is now available.  The lucky few with the new adapter have confirmed that it all seems to work.  Estimating the aperture is more accurate in normal outdoor lighting when the SL knows the lens focal length, so this will improve, but it is never completely reliable -- sometimes a little bit off, sometimes completely wrong.

 

scott

Said another way:

 

The R Adapter SL with ROM equipped lenses

- allows the SL body to automatically recognize and apply the correct lens profile. 

- populates the lens information in EXIF automatically.

- informs the body as to zoom lens settings.

 

It also does not have the throat constriction required for M lens mount, so very long telephotos and ultra extension close-ups will not vignette as much. 

 

The one negative of the R Adapter SL is that, like R8 and R9 bodies, it should not be used with one- and two-cam R lenses: they can damage the mount adapter's ROM contacts. The three-cam, R-only, and ROM R lenses are all compatible.

 

Said another way:

 

The R Adapter SL with ROM equipped lenses

- allows the SL body to automatically recognize and apply the correct lens profile. 

- populates the lens information in EXIF automatically.

- informs the body as to zoom lens settings.

 

It also does not have the throat constriction required for M lens mount, so very long telephotos and ultra extension close-ups will not vignette as much. 

 

The one negative of the R Adapter SL is that, like R8 and R9 bodies, it should not be used with one- and two-cam R lenses: they can damage the mount adapter's ROM contacts. The three-cam, R-only, and ROM R lenses are all compatible.

 

Thanks guys!! That is all clear now. Really appreciated.

So........since I have no R or M lenses, which should I go for: 3 cam, R only or ROM R? Thanks.

[scott kirkpatrick]

There were a lot more of the 3-cam lenses made than any other type, so availability and price will make those the easiest to acquire.  R-only is pretty rare.  And for the lengths you mentioned, 35 and 50, these are classics.  In medium telephotos, 80 to 100, the latest, APO versions are really special, much nicer than earlier models.  All seem to come in ROM mounts.  If you want to obsess, as some of us do, over the best possible lenses for your SL, then download a copy of E. Puts, Leica Lens Compendium and read up on his recommendations.  He's good on spotting the years in which real advances were made.  (Even better, get a printed copy with the MTF drawings included.)

 

Or just buy and try.  I think you can sell an excellent quality R lens for the same price as you paid if it doesn't suit your needs.

 

scott