Best adapter solution for R lenses on SL?

[robgo2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have just purchased an SL with 24-90 zoom, but I also have a modest collection of M mount lenses and two R lenses (both sans electrical contacts). I have the M adapter T, and I am puzzling over the best way to adapt my R lenses. Leica makes an R adapter L, but the list price is an absurd $795. There is also an R adapter M that can be stacked on the M adapter and is much less expensive. My question is this:  Does the R adapter L perform better than the stacked adapters? Or is there a reason to prefer the stacked solution?

 

Thanks,

Rob

[Advertisement]

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

[steppenw0lf]

I prefer the stacked solution - it is simply the most practical for me. (and affordable)

With some long lenses the single adapter is better (not important for me, only for 400 or 560).

 

My suggestion: Start with the stacked version (original adapters). If not good enough you can still buy the single adapter later.

[jip]

Does the single adapter have any upsides? Like ROM contact reading for EXIF? Just wondering. 

[ropo54]

Novaflex has a R to M adapter. Check B&H.

[gvaliquette]

The R-Adapter T (previously known as the R-Adapter L) transmits the ROM information (Lens, f-stop, actual focal length for zooms) to the SL body FOR ROM LENSES only.

 

robgo2, as you have M lenses and 2 non-ROM R lenses and the M-Adapter T, the R-Adapter M make much more sense for you.

 

The only down side of the stacked adapters is some (modest) vignetting in the extreme corners, only with long teles and macrophotography.

 

Let me just add that I have the M-Adapter T, the R-Adapter M AND the R-Adapter T  I bought the R-Adapter T when it came out because I already had a (nearly) full set of R lenses, most of them ROM.

 

Guy

[helged]

Some discussion - and examples - about adapting lenses to Leica SL in this thread.

[adli]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Stacking adapter L-to-M and M-to-R vignettes on some longer lenses. The L-to-R adapter don't and it transmits the ROM information. The price is rather stiff though....

[robgo2]

So, am I understanding this correctly? Even with ROM R lenses, the stacked adapters will not transfer lens information to the camera. I just checked and discovered that one of my R lenses is ROM.

 

Rob

[steppenw0lf]

Read the description of the adapter, it describes exactly what it can do. Keep in mind that the lenses must be able to do it as well (which is more of a problem).

Let's assume I had the R 2.8/ 35-70 lens, then I would definitely buy the original single adapter.  (But this lens is rare and extremely expensive - not more than 200 in existance). Asking price only for collectors - so I will never get one.

But for my R lenses the single adapter is not that interesting. (mostly primes, only 3 zooms, not all at the latest level).

[steppenw0lf]

It is quite a mess, but here I try to get some order:

For long teles:  use Novoflex adapter (or another cheap single adapter)

For the most modern R zooms (with full ROM functionality), maybe the original single adapter is useful. (not sure it is worth the price).

For the rest the stack is good enough.  (For me the stack is good enough for all purposes).

 

Generally: Start with the stack and add "better" adapters later if you really need them.

 

About the teles: Would I recommend using the old 400 and 560 ? They are rather weak, not up to modern standards (so what does a little vignetting matter ?)

About the modern top zooms: Check first if the zoom works correctly. Some have been upgraded later (with a ROM) and won't work as expected. The top zooms should indicate the current focal length. Yes, the original single adapter can read that. No other adapter can. But no lens can transfer the current aperture. (Only to the R cameras).

[ModernMan]

The R Adapter L is very nicely fabricated, with obviously superior finish compared to the Novoflex adapter (which is ok, just not as finely finished). Using one adapter rather than stacked adapters reduces the rotational play (mechanical compliance if you like) arising from the locking pins since there will be 2 rather than 3. Also, less adapters may yield smaller cumulative error in terms of parallelism of the mounting flange to sensor plane.

 

However, at the end of the day, the  R adapter L is quite expensive and the potential for any visible difference in results vs. the alternatives is certainly questionable.

[Waterden]

Without yet owning either it seems clear that while the Leica R to L adapter transmits lens EXIF data the Novoflex, without contacts, can not. However the Novoflex, at least in Europe, costs about one fifth that of the Leica. So, rationally, you need to have a very good reason to need EXIF data to go for the Leica. Personally, while I have easy access to EXIF data on LR, I'm only sort of interested in ISO, which comes from the camera body. Do we really need data about focal length, aperture and shutter speed?

[Lynx]

I had one problem that occured with the Novoflex adapter: I could not use my r 35/2 at infinity, it was not sharp any more. This is not the case with the Leica adaptors, they both work (the stacked ones and the R to L). Think they are built to be just a little bit shorter than spec so they work with older and less perfect lens samples.

 

...Most of my R-lenses are ROM, so eventually, when I found the R to L adaptor at a black friday-sale, I got one. Its rugged and also rests very well in my hand so I really prefer it to the stacked adaptors. However, If my R-35/2 would have worked with the Novoflex (and if black fridays didn't exist), I don't know if I had bothered to get one...

 

//J

[Marac]

Strange, I have had no issue at all with my Novoflex R-L adapter even with the Summicron-R 35mm. (now sold) I got the adapter mainly for my 180 and 250 R lenses, not bothered about Exif myself and the adapter is made to a very high standard, apart from the obvious exif info, I found the tolerance to be excellent on both.

[robgo2]

Without yet owning either it seems clear that while the Leica R to L adapter transmits lens EXIF data the Novoflex, without contacts, can not. However the Novoflex, at least in Europe, costs about one fifth that of the Leica. So, rationally, you need to have a very good reason to need EXIF data to go for the Leica. Personally, while I have easy access to EXIF data on LR, I'm only sort of interested in ISO, which comes from the camera body. Do we really need data about focal length, aperture and shutter speed?

Shutter speed info comes from the camera, not the lens.

 

Rob

[Waterden]

Of course, silly me! But I do wonder whether anyone apart from photo writers needs to capture EXIF info for every shot. Who cares whether it's 28, 35 or 50 if the photo is good? Most competent photographers should be able to spot the differences between wide / normal / telephoto, wide-open / stopped-down, slow / fast shutter so I don't really understand the need for further (spurious) precision.

[rafael_macia]

I had been using the R to M Leica adapter, stacked with the M to SL adapter. Everything worked fine with all R lenses used on the SL. Then I got a new outrageously priced Leica R to SL adapter.

It was expensive, yes. But there are things about it I like; namely the well designed tripod foot which does not need a stupid hex key to remove it. The stacking process was a pain. It s a lot simpler having an adapter for the R lenses, and an adapter for the M lenses.

If you can afford the new adapter, buy it. It is worth it.

IMHO

Rafael