Leica 60 Macro - old vs new

[sfowler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the new Leica CL and have been looking at the Leitz R 60mm 2.8 Macro and then I see the new autofocus Leica APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 60mm f/2.8 ASPH Lens.  I have the Leica M to L adapter that was provided free with the purchase of the camera so I can always add an R to M adapter to mount the old R lens if I bought that lens. I noticed the price is the big difference from what I can see . The old can be bought for $400 and the new can be bought for about $3000. So my question is - is there a big quality difference between these two lenses besides the cost? Will the R lens work on the new CL with the R to M  then M to L adapter? Any opinions regarding this? Any options other than what I am looking at? Would like some view points on this idea as I am relatively new to Leica. I love the new CL and only have the Leica Summilux-TL 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Lens with it. 

Thanks for reading and providing your input. 

 

sam

[tritentrue]

The R 60mm goes to 1:2 and needs the Macro-Adapter-R to get to 1:1; whereas the 60 TL goes to 1:1 on its own.  At 1:1 the R 60mm gives 19mm more working distance than the 60mm TL.

 

The R lens will work on the CL with the R to M + M to L adapter. 

 

Shooting hand-held, the CL's AF-C is easily good enough to give me a better keeper rate with the 60mm TL lens than I got manually focusing the R lens (assuming sufficient shutter speed).

 

Having owned the R 60mm in the past and the 60mm TL currently, I much prefer the 60mm TL. 

[Advertisement]

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

[ramarren]

When I was preparing to buy the CL body-only (because I already have a full complement of R and M lenses that work well with it), I spent some time evaluating whether I wanted to buy the TL60 lens since macro work is something I planned to do pretty frequently with the CL. I had already the Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm, the Macro Adapter-R (for 1:2 to 1:1 magnification range), the Focusing Bellows-R plus Macro-Elmar-R 100mm lens, the Summicron-R 50mm (actually an excellent macro lens), and the Elmarit-R 135mm as well.

 

Some context:

When I do close up and macro work, I always use a tripod or camera stand. There's absolutely no comparison to the performance of a lens in the 1:4 to 2:1 magnification range between hand-holding and properly supported exposures, either in critical focus or in camera movement: the stand mounted exposures are ALWAYS better quality, even though it might be a PITA to do the setup. I will always choose the better quality. Autofocus for macro and close up work is a complete waste of time IMO: I have to be in control of focus and focus zone to get the results I'm after.

 

With that in mind, I went to the Leica store, borrowed a CL body, brought my Leica mount adapters and my R60 and a small tripod with me, and borrowed the TL60 as well. I made a series of exposures with each lens of the same subjects at every lens opening, and at 1:10, 1:4, 1:2 magnifications, and several hand-held at portrait (8-10 foot) and middle (10-30 foot) focusing distances hand-held. With various lighting circumstances as well. It was several hours of testing and several hundred exposures. I took the exposures home and evaluated them on my own computer system with my own processing tools.

 

There are some small differences in rendering quality between the two lenses at different apertures and focus settings, but by and large it takes a test like the above to see them. One does slightly better than the other at some settings, and it's not always the same which one is on the plus side. That said, for most work (even critical work) the differences are invisible assuming that you've got the focus set critically. The AF was a nice convenience when shooting portraits or middle distance subject matter, the quality differences hand-held are invisible. Both are easy to focus manually with the CL.

 

The full information focusing/magnification scales on the R lens suit my use better, and the autofocus is not important to me. I concluded that if I was going to buy any CL dedicated lenses, the TL60 would stay on my short list, but would be prioritized after the T35 and/or T11-23.

 

... Four thousand exposures on, I've not yet bought any T/TL lenses. My R and M lenses continue to do me very very well with the CL body.

 

G

[lct]

As far as MTF graphs are concerned, the TL 60/2.8 is significantly sharper than the R 60/2.8 at f/2.8 but differences become negligible at f/5.6 so question is how often you intend to shoot macro pics at faster than f/5.6 apertures. I never do it personally due to ultra thin DoF there so i would use my good old R 60/2.8 if i could unstick the MEM 90/4 + macro adapter from my CL. I am not a serious macro shooter though and i have zero experience with the TL 60/2.8 so take what i say with a lump of salt.  BTW could someone explain to me what's the point of AF in macro photography? Just curious.

 

TL 60/2.8 at f/2.8:

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!

 

R 60/2.8 at f/2.8:

 

TL 60/2.8 at f/5.6:

 

R 60/2.8 at f/5.6:

[Boojay]

My take on it is, if you are going to do serious Macro photography then the 60mm R lens with the 1:1 adaptor will do it perfectly, and lack of AF is not an issue at all.  I find the long focus throw of the R lens makes it less desirable for anything other than Macro work.    Having the advantage of AF and 1:1 without the need for all the adaptors (R to M,  M to L, 1:2 to 1:1) makes the 60TL look very tempting to me.  So far I have held off purchase but my desire grows ever stronger looking at Tritentrue's lovely examples with the lens.   

Edited September 19, 2018 by Boojay

[pgk]

I've owned the 60R lens and its a very good macro lens indeed. But then so are many similar lenses. This type of macro lens design is tried, tested and proven. It works well.

 

I've not handled the TL lens but if I am correct in thinking that it is an internal focus (IF) lens then the following may apply to it as it does to other IF macro lenses. Such lenses can be extremely good - within their design limitations which is from infinity to 1:1. But they are not great if used with any form of extension (tubes or bellows) because their IF design doesn't like the rear extension. So if you plan to use a lens at greater than 1:1 or anticipate that it may be possible to do so in the future (will Leica produce extension tubes or a bellows unit - I'm doubtful) then the R lens is potentially a more usable lens.

 

My own experience of using IF macro lenses is that they quickly lose optical quality when used on extension tubes or bellows.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am not a serious macro photographer, but I do have the 60TL. I greatly value it for its optical quality and its versatility. If I'm out and about travelling, it is a great portrait lens, but it can also be used for close ups and near macro of small objects, textures, plants, insects etc that I happen to see. If I was a dedicated macro photographer, I would certainly want to carry a tripod, but in the cases where I use it, I don't want the extra kit to carry. I agree AF is useless for a lot of macro work (it will never focus exactly on what you want) and, using it handheld, I prefer to get it into the rough focus zone then sway back and forth till I can see that I have it right. For portraits, of course, AF is great. Hence the versatility of this lens.

Edited September 19, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[tritentrue]

 There's absolutely no comparison to the performance of a lens in the 1:4 to 2:1 magnification range between hand-holding and properly supported exposures, either in critical focus or in camera movement: the stand mounted exposures are ALWAYS better quality, even though it might be a PITA to do the setup. I will always choose the better quality. Autofocus for macro and close up work is a complete waste of time IMO: I have to be in control of focus and focus zone to get the results I'm after.

 

Perhaps you should qualify all of the above as being within the realm of your experience.  Your comments are certainly not applicable to my experience using the 60mm TL, illustrated by the photos I've posted in the CL image thread.

[sfowler]

Thank you all for your great responses and guidance. That was a wealth of knowledge and great information - thank you all. You all ROCK!! 

[ramarren]

Perhaps you should qualify all of the above as being within the realm of your experience. Your comments are certainly not applicable to my experience using the 60mm TL, illustrated by the photos I've posted in the CL image thread.

I don't think it necessary to qualify every statement I make with "in my opinion/experience" because every comment on every forum in the world is almost certainly "in my opinion/experience" unless it's backed up with certified testing and documentation. And I disagree with your opinion regardless of what web resolution images you post ... I've measured the results of my testing with optical resolution charts a bazillion times in the past 55+ years, and that's the experience from which I speak.

Edited September 19, 2018 by ramarren

[tritentrue]

Your first sentence of the portion I quoted is presented as a universal truth, which it is NOT.

 

BTW, can you enlighten us all as to how you were able to precisely position the CL/60mm TL at 1:10, 1:4, and 1:2 magnifications?

 

Your experience may be different from mine, but you have no basis whatsoever for denying mine.  Welcome to my ignore list.

 

 

 

 

Apologies to the thread starter for the discord.  Either lens will bring you much satisfaction, and I hope you enjoy whichever you choose.

Edited September 19, 2018 by tritentrue

[ramarren]

...

BTW, can you enlighten us all as to how you were able to precisely position the CL/60mm TL at 1:10, 1:4, and 1:2 magnifications?

 

Your experience may be different from mine, but you have no basis whatsoever for denying mine.  Welcome to my ignore list. ...

 

1: With a ruler, measuring the horizontal angle of view.

2: I didn't: I disagree with it. There's a difference.

 

Enjoy ignoring. I'll ignore you too to be fair.

[pgk]

Be aware that with IF type macro lenses their effective focal length can change significantly during focusing. 'Conventional' macro lenses also have a shift but its generally smaller.

 

On the macro debate of handheld versus tripod - there are three solutions:

 

1. Handheld - can yield great images and extraordinary images, but is rather unreliable in that it frequently leads to failures too

2. Tripod or other support - great with none moving subjects

3. Flash illumination - potentially the 'best' solution but requires lighting skill and more effort.

 

Speaking as someone who has spent 35 years photographing macro subjects at up to 1:1 underwater using option 3, I can even say that not a flash units are equal and for highest clarity of fine detail good reflectors and a short duration flash are both prerequisites. I can often see 'tear drop shaped' motion blur due to the gradual 'flash fade' of units which have a flash duration of 1/1000s or longer. Serious macro photography is very exacting and not for the faint hearted.

[jip]

Here are some pics with the Macro Elmarit-R 60mm (ROM Version) on the Nikon Df. I know it's not on the CL/TL but it shows how capable the lens is even on a full frame sensor. I'm by no means a macro enthusiast however. I like the lens for portraits too. 

 

#1 @ F4.0

 

 

#2 @ F5,6

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by jip

[Stonewall Brigade]

I routinely use the Leitz 60mm & 10MM R macro lenses on my M10 and CL and get excellent results.  The TL 60mm Macro offers convenience and autofocus as you know, at a tall price.  As long as you're aware that live view peak focusing will be needed with he R lenses, and you take some time to learn that process and trust it to be accurate, the R lenses offer a great cost savings.  I think the image quality between the TL and R macro options will be the same.  The combination of adapters work fine together.