R vs. M Lens on CL/TL

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

M lens of same or similar focal length and aperture are typically much more expensive than R lens.

 

It is said that M lens due to the much tighter requirement on the size and blockage of the view finder, it is much more difficult to built. Does it imply R lens could be better in optical performance and cheaper in price?  When there is choice, R lens would be a better buy than M lens?

 

 

[lct]

Some R lenses can be much expensive as well e.g. 15/2.8, 35/1.4, 80/1.4, 90/2 apo, 180/2, 280/4, 280/2.8, 400/4, 560/4, etc. The cheaper ones have more or less the same IQ as pre-asph M lenses but are more obtrusive due to their size and weight let alone that they cannot be used on M cameras w/o their mediocre EVF. As far as i'm concerned, most if not all my R lenses are outperformed by my M ones from 21 to 135mm.

Edited March 11, 2018 by lct

[Advertisement]

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

[Einst_Stein]

50mm summicron R and 35mm Summicron R are generally much cheaper than their M version. Not sure the optical performance.

The other apple to orange comparison is R 35-70 F4. Vs. MATE. 35-70mm F4 is about 25% of MATE in price.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Einst_Stein

[lct]

OK for R 50/2 and to a lesser extent R 35/2 but you may wish to compare them to M 50/2 v4 and M 35/2 v4 which are much smaller. I like them both, i used them with pleasure on my Canon 5D but i don't use them any more since M lenses can be used on mirrorless cameras i must say. Too bulky definitely. I happen to have both MATE and R 35-70/4 as well but those are different beasts really. MATE is a unique multi-focal lens made in Germany to trigger 28, 35 and 50mm framelines on M cameras whereas R 35-70/4 is a classical zoom lens made in Japan by Kyocera. It is a very good lens indeed but when i need a small zoom lens for my CL for instance it is always the MATE i take in spite of its propension to flare at 50mm. Bulk is the culprit again. BTW remember that you have to use a rather large adapter on both TL and CL bodies to fit R lenses, which adds to the bulk of the latters. FWIW.

Edited March 11, 2018 by lct

[Einst_Stein]

Size does not matter that much on L mount cameras. It matters only when blocking the viewfinder is an issue.  If you really care that little difference between R and M lenses, I can't argue.

 

Optical-wise, the different versions of the same Leica lens are more about the stylish than the quality, although you can always find a way to split the hair. On the other hand, the price is not an issue too among the Leicaphiles. But the objective conclusion is still valid: for the same price and similar optical quality, R lenses are usually the better choice.

 

It's true, R 35-70mm F4 and R-MATE are very different lenses, but I see both are lazyman's walk-around lens. For this purpose, they are two very matching competitors. My personal opinion is the R 35-70mm F4 is a better choice -- for L mount cameras. -- more so when considering the SL. For CL and TL, who needs 35-70mm or MATE if he already has the 18-56mm!

Edited March 11, 2018 by Einst_Stein

[lct]

Why asking if you know the answer? I can just confirm what i said above sorry especially about bulk on compact cameras like the CL. As for TL lenses, i have no experience about them so i cannot confirm nor infirm what you are saying with respect.