Wider R lens recommendations

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yesterday I sauntered into the local Leica store and eyed an R9 in decent shape and on a lark, picked it up for US$500 plus another $100 for an R8 motor drive, both in working order  

I have a neat collection of longer R lenses (90 and beyond) bought a decade ago for use on my Nikon DSLRs. I’ve since undone the Leitax mounts and they’re back to R. I’m less familiar with the R 35’s or the available affordable wide-to-normal zooms (they even had a 35-70/2.8 for $13k, 50 Summilux E60 for $3500 and a plastic/fantastic Angenieux 35-70/2.5-3.3 for $1100! Never seen any of these before in the flesh).

Seeking some sage recommendations. 

[Keith (M)]

For mid-focal length my 60mm Macro Elmarit-R is excellent for general use and then shows its versatility by also being an excellent macro performer.  My other favourite is the 21-35mm Vario Elmar-R, great for landscapes and travel etc.

[Advertisement]

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

[james.liam]

2 hours ago, Keith (M) said:

For mid-focal length my 60mm Macro Elmarit-R is excellent for general use and then shows its versatility by also being an excellent macro performer.  My other favourite is the 21-35mm Vario Elmar-R, great for landscapes and travel etc.

That 21-35 is a pricey bit of kit. Looking for something more modest in cost

[earleygallery]

I have the 1st version 35 Summicron R which is a lovely lens. Quite a heavy lump of metal and glass though! It performs better in some respects than the later version apparently. Remember you need a 3 cam lens if buying an earlier design.

The 24mm R is a Minolta design, as is the 35-70 f3.5. The later f4 version was Kyocera. 

You can also buy a Tamron Adaptall R mount and use some of their excellent wide primes - I have their 24 and 28 which are both excellent lenses and available for not much more than the price of a Leica plastic lens cap. The Tamron 17mm is another lens I'd like and they are still very sought after. 

[gbealnz]

Yes, the 35 Summicron is my favourite, as mentioned though a lump of brass and glass.

50 Summicron is dirt cheap, and exceptional.

I had the 24 Elmarit, and it was OK, but it didn't fit with my SL, so it went.

I'm considering the old 21mm f4,  but as James said, the Tamron 17mm is another option.

Gary

[Lux50]

The 35/2.8 Elmarit-R (3rd version) with built in lens hood is a light and nice performing lens. Reasonable in price. Disregard the previous 2 versions with detachable hoods.

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Lux50 said:

The 35/2.8 Elmarit-R (3rd version) with built in lens hood is a light and nice performing lens. Reasonable in price. Disregard the previous 2 versions with detachable hoods.

Seconded - I have one, it is a pleasure to use and produces excellent results.

[Guest JMF]

The 28 Elmarit R v2 is excellent and can be had at a very fair price.

[masjah]

22 hours ago, james.liam said:

That 21-35 is a pricey bit of kit. Looking for something more modest in cost

Yes this is true; there are several around in the UK for about £1500. But bear in mind what you would need to pay in more modestly priced fixed focal length lenses to span that range, and it doesn't seem so bad. So I guesss that the first question you need to ask is: What focal lengths, or range thereof, do I need for my work? and proceed from there.

[ramarren]

My sum up to 100mm: 

ON the ultra-wide end, I've been very happy with the Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5 and Elmarit-R 19mm f/2.8 v1. I never used the latter on the R8 but since both are 3 cam lenses I think they're both compatible with the R8/R9. 

I've had the Elmarit-R 24mm f/2.8 and Elmarit-R 28mm f/2.8 ... despite the often-mentioned fact that the 24mm is a "Minolta design" (which it is), I found it to perform beautifully and on par with the 28mm v1. The later 28mm v2 is supposed to be a better performer, but it usually sells for twice to three times as much as my v1 ... and the v1 is already a fine performer. I sold the 24 when I sold off some of my excess because it's incompatible with the Leicaflex SL. 

The 3cam but pre-ROM version of the Summicron-R 35mm f/2 is a fine lens. Nothing to compare it against directly other than a couple of M Summicron 35s, but I'd say it's about on par with the best pre-ASPH 35mm M lens. 

I have both a very early Summicron-R 50mm f/2 and the earlier version Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4. The 'Cron performs better wide open and at high magnifications (with the Focusing Bellows-R) in a technical sense, but I love the Summilux-R 50mm as a broad-use lens. A simple twist of the aperture ring runs it from a beautiful "sharp edges in a glowy field" look to razor sharp across the board. It's one of my most used lenses, on both R, (now sold) SL, and CL bodies. 

The Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm f/2.8  is another "use all the time" kind of lens ... much more crisp imaging than the 'Lux 50 but always pleasant. I use it and the Macro-Elmar-R 100mm (bellows mount) for most of my close up and copy work, and the 60 for a lot of general purpose shooting too.

The first version Summicron-R 90mm f/2 3-cam lens is an all around fantastic lens, just like the 'Lux 50. Buy and never let go... 

I use these lenses now on Leicaflex SL, Leica R6.2, and CL bodies, having sold my SL and R8 bodies off a while back. 

[T.E.]

I like my Vario Elmar 35-70 f 4.0. It never disappoints me. Only downside: screw-on hood makes use of filters a constant pain. Affordable lens by Leica Standards.

[wlaidlaw]

I have been impressed with the results from the 24/2.8 Elmarit-R and like both the coverage and rendition for street scenes. These lenses got a somewhat "iffy" reputation in their early days, as they were apparently assembled from a kit of Minolta glass. The lens seems to have been improved a fair bit with the later ROM versions, which I have. It is not quite as good as my Zeiss Biogon ZM 25/2.8 but only from a little softness in the corners when used wide open and fractionally greater barrel distortion. You can find these at about half what the 21-35 costs. Given the weight of my R9 and motordrive, I also did not want the additional weight and bulk of the wide zoom. It is essential IMHO to use the correct bayonet, rectangular orifice, Leica hood for the 24. These hoods can be quite pricey if they are bought on their own. 

Wilson

[ramarren]

16 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

I have been impressed with the results from the 24/2.8 Elmarit-R and like both the coverage and rendition for street scenes. These lenses got a somewhat "iffy" reputation in their early days, as they were apparently assembled from a kit of Minolta glass. The lens seems to have been improved a fair bit with the later ROM versions, which I have. It is not quite as good as my Zeiss Biogon ZM 25/2.8 but only from a little softness in the corners when used wide open and fractionally greater barrel distortion. You can find these at about half what the 21-35 costs. Given the weight of my R9 and motordrive, I also did not want the additional weight and bulk of the wide zoom. It is essential IMHO to use the correct bayonet, rectangular orifice, Leica hood for the 24. These hoods can be quite pricey if they are bought on their own. 

Wilson

The design was by Minolta, not sure about the glass itself (Leica buys glass from a variety of sources and Minolta had an optical glass forge...), but the Elmarit-R 24mm lenses were all assembled in Wetzlar and the mounts were all made there for sure. The lens design was never changed from the lens' first release in 1974 until it was discontinued in 2006, only the mounts were updated for the different generations. 

I find much myth and silliness associated with this lens, most of which I think was driven by the shock and horror from Leica enthusiasts that Leica would stoop to using a Minolta lens design. Leica engineers are fundamentally very practical ... If a design works, they'll consider and use it. The very fact that the same optical design was a good seller in their R catalog for 30+ years says to me that the Elmarit-R 24mm was at least a very decent lens.

[SteveYork]

I echo the praise of the 35mm Elmarit R -- small, light and relatively affordable.  Very good optics.  Back in the film days, it got high ratings in magazine testing, although I've read mixed reviews for digital use.  My understanding is that the second and third versions of this lens are optical equivalents, and I have used both in the past, but never the first version, which sometimes gets a bad rap.  For convenience sake I only own the third version now (E55 with builtin hood), my only wide in a R mount.  Along with the 50mm Summicron, 60mm Elmarit, and 90mm Elmarit, I beleive these 4 lenses are the "best bang for the buck," as we say where I live.  

Edited April 9, 2019 by SteveYork