M lenses on EOS R

[nwphil]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 2/7/2019 at 5:56 AM, rob_w said:

I'm contemplating an EOS R for its own sake but would be added value if I could use my M lenses on it (28/2.8, 35/1,4, 50/1.4,75/2.0 all by Leica).  Steve Huff says the 50 lux works really well.  I have not seen any other comments on the net or on this forum.  Any feedback from those having tried it?  Thanks.

look here:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1621762  "Canon EOS R or RP with Leica M lens"

[rob_w]

Thanks for link to fredmiranda, and thanks sonomabear for the feedback on lens choices.

In the event, I decided to go with the CL instead as it works very reliably with M lenses and punches above its weight in terms of IQ.

That said, I do look at the Canon roadmap for the EOS R with envy.  The roadmap for the CL is threadbare.

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by rob_w

[Ko.Fe.]

1 hour ago, rob_w said:

Thanks for link to fredmiranda, and thanks sonomabear for the feedback on lens choices.

In the event, I decided to go with the CL instead as it works very reliably with M lenses and punches above its weight in terms of IQ.

That said, I do look at the Canon roadmap for the EOS R with envy.  The roadmap for the CL is threadbare.

 

It is heavy cropper. How could you get IQ of M lens if image is chopped?

[lct]

2 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

It is heavy cropper. How could you get IQ of M lens if image is chopped?

Same IQ as when cropping in PP more or less. Did it since 2004 on Epson R-D1, Ricoh GXR, Leica M8.2, Fuji X-E2 and digital CL. Great to use 35mm lenses as standard 50mm equiv. Distinct advantage with telephotos too, small ZM 50/1.5 vs big Leica 75/1.4 for example. Only con, lack of compact fast wides below 28mm but there are TL lenses for AF users. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by lct

[Ko.Fe.]

3 hours ago, lct said:

Same IQ as when cropping in PP more or less. Did it since 2004 on Epson R-D1, Ricoh GXR, Leica M8.2, Fuji X-E2 and digital CL. Great to use 35mm lenses as standard 50mm equiv. Distinct advantage with telephotos too, small ZM 50/1.5 vs big Leica 75/1.4 for example. Only con, lack of compact fast wides below 28mm but there are TL lenses for AF users. 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm in the opposite. I do not crop, except for prints. And I'm not big fan of 50mm, but 35mm or wider. Crop is no good for it. Because where are very many all kind of fifties, but less of thirty five and wider.

[lct]

1 hour ago, Ko.Fe. said:

I'm in the opposite. I do not crop, except for prints. And I'm not big fan of 50mm, but 35mm or wider. Crop is no good for it. Because where are very many all kind of fifties, but less of thirty five and wider.

I don't crop either, at least when don't cheat . Just kidding but i consider my M and even LTM lenses as both FF and APS ones personally. Here a coated Elmar 35/3.5 from 1948 on digital CL at f/5.6, full FoV and 100% crop.

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!

 

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, lct said:

I don't crop either, at least when don't cheat . Just kidding but i consider my M and even LTM lenses as both FF and APS ones personally. Here a coated Elmar 35/3.5 from 1948 on digital CL at f/5.6, full FoV and 100% crop.

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!

 

 

Thanks for sharing, but I’m such wrong audience for it.

No idea why CL and old Leitz are good for it. Sorry...

[Ko.Fe.]

I have RP since last week Friday.

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!

Can't get EF to RP adapter for it, using Nokton 35 1.4 II on it for now.

Couldn't see purple cast on the corners most of the time or it is less than it was shown on previous page.

ISO 25600 and it was darker than on the picture. Nokton 35 1.4 II wide open.

Manual focusing with peaking assistance beats RF focusing. Size is similar to  M-E 220, weight is less, but Canon RF mount has no compact AF RF lenses, yet. Only 35 1.8 IS RF is not as huge as other Canon RF mount lenses. Here is third party 14mm lens, not big one as well, but it gives purple corners. 

[rent]

I have pre-ordered an R5 and will be sure to use it with all my M lenses. I'm especially interested in seeing how the image looks with the 50/2APO, and how the lens looks on the body with the 5.6/28 (modern version). 🤣 Please stay tuned.

[*Mark*]

I am using  a Canon rp with my  M-Lenses. 50mm and longer are all fine. The focus peaking is very good. 
Wider than 50mm only the 28mm SLX is sharp corner to corner. but with pink boarders sometimes. You have to use the LCc Tool in Capture one  or flatfield in Lightroom. For my taste the 21mm Elmar, 24mm Elmar, 28mm Summicron, 35mm SLX are all to soft in the corners.

The new Voigtländer designs, which are also available for e-mount,  are also very good. I have the 15mm Heliar Iii - sharp from corner to corner. 

Mark

[kopuschen]

I suppose I can share my experience of adapting m lens to Canon RF mount camera. 
I don’t have the original R, but I do have the R5. It actually surprises me. The adapted m lens (zm 50, zm 35, and even zm 21mm) all performed really well. When I torture test using the 21mm, I don’t even see edge color shift. The resolution is as good if not better than my M240.

I don’t know why to be honest, there is no focal length specific adjustment for R5 like the one on M. The only explanation I can suspect is the new sensor stack filter on R5, which uses some cancellation magic. Canon declare R5 has higher resolution than even their own 5DSr. And this adaptation results may be the side benefits.

Anyways, thought I would share.

[lct]

6 minutes ago, kopuschen said:

I suppose I can share my experience of adapting m lens to Canon RF mount camera. 
I don’t have the original R, but I do have the R5. It actually surprises me. The adapted m lens (zm 50, zm 35, and even zm 21mm) all performed really well. When I torture test using the 21mm, I don’t even see edge color shift. The resolution is as good if not better than my M240.

I don’t know why to be honest, there is no focal length specific adjustment for R5 like the one on M. The only explanation I can suspect is the new sensor stack filter on R5, which uses some cancellation magic. Canon declare R5 has higher resolution than even their own 5DSr. And this adaptation results may be the side benefits.

Anyways, thought I would share.

Interesting thank you. Would you mind to share a 21mm pic with that combo?

[kopuschen]

a quick shot this morning. This is 25% top right corner (not the entire image, would be too large).

zm 21mm @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!

[lct]

Thank you, may i ask if you focused on the corner?

[kopuschen]

Good point. I refocused at center for f/2.8 and f/5.6. See below.

Note this is top right 25% of the original.

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!

[padam]

I can confirm this as well, as I've recently got an R5, too. The sensor cover glass on the R5 and R6 became thinner, 1.25mm over the 1.6mm that was on the R or RP cameras, which seems to have eliminated some of the purple edges and smearing.

[padam]

The performance ranking generally goes something like this in the order of sensor stack thickness plus micro lens optimisation, AA filter, etc.:
Leica M10-R 0.9mm (UV and IR filtration layers have been merged together, so even better than past M cameras)

Leica SL2 1.2mm (same improvements as above)

Nikon Z 1.1mm
Canon R5/R6 (newer) 1.25mm
Sigma fp 1.3mm
Panasonic S 1.45mm
Canon R/RP (older) 1.6mm
Sony 2.0mm (although with the BSI sensors performance has been improved somewhat and yes I also found the original A7S to be the better than the rest)

The degradation is most severe with 35mm or wider, still present on 50mm, while my 75mm f/1.4 functioned perfectly with basically everything. For some reason,  lenses without an aspheric element seem to perform a bit better. Symmetrical designs like Biogon are the most problematic.
You can find a lot of adapted rangefinder tests with Sony bodies on phillipreeve.net , I don't expect the A1 to suddenly become different as it was designed with the E-mount lenses in mind. It is also possible to use a front filter to reverse the smearing effect.

Of course there are always certain combinations where an M lens matches quite well with a certain body and all this data wasn't collected from a single source, so it may not be dead-on accurate.

Edited February 21, 2021 by padam

[aokajiya]

Hi Kopuschen,

I was wondering which adapter you used to attach your m-lens to the R5? I've been using the Design Optics TTArtisan M-EOSR and I see heavy vignetting in the corners with my 35mm summilux. I haven't seen anyone else complaining about this particular issue, so I wonder if I just got the wrong adapter?

 

 

[hdmesa]

2 hours ago, aokajiya said:

Hi Kopuschen,

I was wondering which adapter you used to attach your m-lens to the R5? I've been using the Design Optics TTArtisan M-EOSR and I see heavy vignetting in the corners with my 35mm summilux. I haven't seen anyone else complaining about this particular issue, so I wonder if I just got the wrong adapter?

 

 

If I may, did you previously use lens detection/corrections when using the 35 Lux on an M? Since that will correct for vignetting, the differences you're seeing between platforms may be exaggerated.

That said, the performance of any of my M lenses on the R5 at infinity is disappointing. The corners are soft – even stopped down – even with the CV 35 and 50 APO lenses. However, at close distance wide open, all my M lenses are usable and perform similarly as they do on M.

For adapters, Novoflex or Kipon would be better choices, but given the poor performance of M lenses at infinity when not used on an M or SL body, I wouldn't bother trying a different adapter.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M