Looking for my first R lens for my CL

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

31 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

I think that I will start with the Leica designed but Kyocera made Vario-Elmar-R 4/35-70 macro. [...]

Too bulky for my tastes (505g) on the CL, i much prefer the M 28-50/4 (340g) from this viewpoint but if you envision buying a 680g lens like the Panasonic it is not a problem for you i guess. Anyhow the R 35-70/4 is a very good lens indeed. You may wish to download Leica specs and Puts' leaflet below if you don't have them already.  
https://www.overgaard.dk/pdf/Leica-35-70-f4- R-lenses.pdf
https://www.overgaard.dk/pdf/Vario-Elmar-R_35-70_mm_Technical_Data_en.pdf

Edited November 15, 2019 by lct

[nicci78]

Thanks for all advises.

@lct weight is also a concern for me. That's why I never bought the Lumix S 24-105mm macro. However 35-70mm is smaller. 

After reading all materials available on the internet. I am quite seduced by the Vario-Elmar-R 35-70mm macro. This is my rationale behind it. Even if its not impressive range is only 2x zoom.

But the range is very interesting as a Q2 sidekick. Being a super competent 28 & 35mm. It makes Super-Vario-Elmar-TL 11-23 and Vario-Elmar-TL 18-56mm  redundant over the 28-35mm range. 

The APO-Vario-Elmar-TL 55-135mm can be a nice combo for Q2. But I used to own it. Being a 85-200mm it proves too long to be versatile enough and its 1 meter minimum focusing distance is a deal breaker for me. So just imagine my surprise when I heard that praised APO-Telyt-R 180mm has a 2.7 m one ! Crazy 😓 That's why the 35-70mm minimum distance of 50cm and its macro position of 26mm seduced me. 

Vario-Elmar-R shares its DNA with the nice Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50mm. And the R offers nicer focal lengths of 50-105mm than MATE's 42-50-75mm. 

MTF graphs also show that performance is similar to Vario-Elmar-TL 18-56 in 35-56mm range. 

 

So I can get for less than 1.8kg a duo of cameras with range of 28-105mm with macro abilities. Of course if you think that it is a bad idea, please tell me. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by nicci78

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

23 hours ago, nicci78 said:

[...] I am quite seduced by the Vario-Elmar-R 35-70mm macro. [...] Of course if you think that it is a bad idea, please tell me.

My only concern is bulk on the CL but otherwise it is a very good zoom indeed. Just make sure the reversible hood and its hood cap are in the package as they may be more or less difficult to find alone.

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!

[jaapv]

I'll have a go at it as soon as Leica returns my CL. However, with the adapter it will be a huge lens on a small body. I have both the Vario-Elmar and the 18-56. I think the 18-56 is the better, and certainly the more practical and compact lens.

I do believe you are over-thinking this. The CL with its native lenses is such a fine system that R lenses seem redundant - better used on the SL. M lenses is a different story - the CL is a very  good body for those. Having said that, the Vario-Elmar 105-280 R is a favourite of mine on the CL.

[nicci78]

Of course I am overthinking it 😅 

I just got the R adapter and want to play with it 😎 I never used any R lenses so maybe it is the time to try them. 
I may even get one day the SL2. So not a bad time to get one or two. 
 

Let’s say that it is my R itch : an R-Adapter exists for M and L mount. But I never tried them. 

[ramarren]

Personally, I would never bother with buying a manual zoom lens. The EXIF data will never be exactly right and I don't know how the lens profiles would work either. If I were looking for a zoom lens, I'd buy one of the native zooms. 

For me, the magic is in the prime R lenses. They're fantastic. And why do I use them them instead of the TL or M lenses? Because for me they work better, and I love how they feel in use. Never mind the simple fact that I have a full complement of them, obtained at a ridiculously low price ... all of my R lenses combined barely cost me what a single TL zoom lens would cost.

G

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ok you convinced me. Too heavy anyway. And CL cannot know which focal is set and cannot applied the most suitable correction. 
But how work the ROM, didn’t it transmit the aperture and the exact focal length set ? 

Edited November 17, 2019 by nicci78

[jaapv]

6 hours ago, ramarren said:

Personally, I would never bother with buying a manual zoom lens. The EXIF data will never be exactly right and I don't know how the lens profiles would work either. If I were looking for a zoom lens, I'd buy one of the native zooms. 

For me, the magic is in the prime R lenses. They're fantastic. And why do I use them them instead of the TL or M lenses? Because for me they work better, and I love how they feel in use. Never mind the simple fact that I have a full complement of them, obtained at a ridiculously low price ... all of my R lenses combined barely cost me what a single TL zoom lens would cost.

G

The EXIF data are irrelevant, it is hard to miss that a shot was taken @ 400 mm equ , and what profile would one apply to a good zoom lens? I'm talking about the long ones here.  The only native long zoom for the CL is the 90-280 L. Most of the CL owners will use such a lens rarely. Why pay 6000$ for the 90-280 L when one can get the 105-280 R of similar quality for 2500 $ or the still excellent Olympus OM 50-250 for 100$?

[nicci78]

Ok standard R zoom is kinda silly for CL. 
But telephoto seems quite nice. Which R lens do you recommend for occasional birding ? 

[ramarren]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

The EXIF data are irrelevant, it is hard to miss that a shot was taken @ 400 mm equ , and what profile would one apply to a good zoom lens? I'm talking about the long ones here.  The only native long zoom for the CL is the 90-280 L. Most of the CL owners will use such a lens rarely. Why pay 6000$ for the 90-280 L when one can get the 105-280 R of similar quality for 2500 $ or the still excellent Olympus OM 50-250 for 100$?

 

16 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Ok standard R zoom is kinda silly for CL. 
But telephoto seems quite nice. Which R lens do you recommend for occasional birding ? 

That's fine, Jaapv, if you often use very long focal lengths for wildlife photography, etc. I almost never do. My Elmar-R 180mm f/4 fitted with 2x Extender-R for a 360mm f/8 lens, with a FF equivalent focal length of 540mm, is more than enough for my needs for such things. AND it has excellent rendering qualities that I like, and is a heck of a lot lighter, smaller, and less expensive than those big R zooms. Suits me fine, probably useless for you. 

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!

Here it is fitted to the SL. Works beautifully on that and on the CL. Eh ... good enough for me.

 

[jaapv]

35 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Ok standard R zoom is kinda silly for CL. 
But telephoto seems quite nice. Which R lens do you recommend for occasional birding ? 

Apo Telyt - R 280 - 4.0 or Vario-Elmar - R 105-280 + 2x APO=extender or any  third-party lens of at least 400 mm If you want to keep it cheap(ish) one of the older 400 mm R lenses or 280 Telyt-R + APO- extender.

[lct]

I must have tried my R 280/4 a couple of times on the CL but i feel hard to hold that 1,800g lens handheld in spite of my steady hands. I much prefer a lighter AF lens like my Nikkor 300/4 on a fast DSLR. YMMV. 

[jaapv]

MMDV

[nicci78]

4 hours ago, ramarren said:

My Elmar-R 180mm f/4 fitted with 2x Extender-R for a 360mm f/8 lens, with a FF equivalent focal length of 540mm,

And what do you think of APO-Telyt-R 180mm + 2x Extender.
Is it a problem to pair APO lens with non APO Extender ? 

[jaapv]

It is not a problem, but the APO extender is in a different IQ class. The lens is too slow to focus for birds as well.

[ramarren]

3 hours ago, nicci78 said:

And what do you think of APO-Telyt-R 180mm + 2x Extender.
Is it a problem to pair APO lens with non APO Extender ? 

I don't think it's a problem (although I'd always check the Leica compatibility list for the telextender before fitting it) BUT the APO extender is going to be a lot better performing than the non-APO extender. Why put a non-APO extender onto a lens that you've paid all that money for and toss half the quality away? 

The good news is that even the relatively inexpensive Elmar-R 180/4 produces very very nice image quality and even the very inexpensive non-APO extender works fine on the APS-C format. On the FF format in the SL, you need to stop down a bit to get adequately good quality across the field of view, but it's not so important with the smaller format.

As I said, I use such long lenses as this very rarely, I'm not a bit wildlife shooter, etc. What I have in the Elmar-R 180/4 does well enough. 

G

[nicci78]

I have tried several R lenses : 2/50 ; 2.8/135 ; 2.8/60 & 4/35-70

And I love the ergonomics. @ramarren you are right.
Only 135mm is too front heavy. And focusing is a challenge with shaky liveview. 
35-70 f/4 handles beautifully. Very compact. Does not extend when zooming or focusing. 
 

I have to checked the photos now. 

Edited November 19, 2019 by nicci78

[nicci78]

I reviewed my test photos.

• Elmarit-R 2.8/135mm does not worth it. Lots of CA.  
• Vario-Elmar-R 4/35-70. It is a mixed bag. Macro is really good, as good as Macro-Elmarit-R 60. But f/4 is not that good at 35mm. At other focal and aperture it is very very good. 
• Summicron-R 2/50 is nice, but Summarit-M 2.4/50 is far better
• Macro-Elmarit-R 2.8/60 is very good, but I am spoiled by APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 2.8/60 which is far better and did not need any macro-adapter-r to reach 1:1. 

 

So right now I am back to square one. I will test several more R lenses in the week. 

 

What I learned, is that long lenses really need monopod or IS. That a reason why I sold my APO-Vario-Elmar-TL 55-135mm. At 135mm the shaky liveview is not nice at all. It will be worst with long R lenses. So I will give up the long lenses option. Because I just want to be able to use them handheld from time to time. 

 

I will compare Summilux-R 80 vs Summicron-R 90 as portrait lenses. If neither fit me. I will give up the R lenses road and give back the R-Adaptor-M to the store. 

 

I start to really think that Lumix S 24-105 macro + S Pro 70-200 can be the zoom set up for the CL. Even if they are quite big and heavy. But they are more than ok compared to SL zoom lenses. For the fun I tried again the SL 24-90 with my CL. This is so fucking ridiculous. 😅 These Leicas are nice but kinda silly.

 

Edited November 19, 2019 by nicci78

[ramarren]

9 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

I reviewed my test photos.

• Elmarit-R 2.8/135mm does not worth it. Lots of CA.  
• Vario-Elmar-R 4/35-70. It is a mixed bag. Macro is really good, as good as Macro-Elmarit-R 60. But f/4 is not that good at 35mm. At other focal and aperture it is very very good. 
• Summicron-R 2/50 is nice, but Summarit-M 2.4/50 is far better
• Macro-Elmarit-R 2.8/60 is very good, but I am spoiled by APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 2.8/60 which is far better and did not need any macro-adapter-r to reach 1:1. 

So right now I am back to square one. I will test several more R lenses in the week. 

Hmm.

• I don't recall "a lot of CA" with the Elmarit-R 135/2.8. I'll have to check my files, can you post an example?
• Don't have a Summarit-M 50/2.4 but I do have a Summicron-M 50/2 ... compared to my Summicron-R 50/2, the results seem pretty darn similar, the R lens focuses closer, and the R lens on a macro copy setup at high magnification (> 1:1) produces amazing results. Can you post side by side examples of what you mean by "far better"?
• When I compared the Macro-Elmarit-R 50/2.8 against the TL60 lens, one of the things that struck me was how extremely similar the rendering and quality looked. For my purposes, the manual control (and the R lens's focusing and magnification scales) are far more useful to me. Again, I'd love to see side by side examples of what by "far better". 

To me, most of what I see are rendering differences rather than gross performance gains between my M and R lenses, and the TL lenses I've tried. I haven't got any TL lenses of my own, I've only borrowed those for testing from time to time. In the context of my use (I use AF only as a convenience when it's available and use a tripod or camera stand a good bit of the time with most of my R lenses), the R lenses do very well for me: I like the rendering and ergonomics. 

But of course, using whatever you find best/more suitable for your preferences is the only way to go. The TL lenses are also superb in the testing I've done with them. I'm just not willing to spend the money and buy more lenses when I already have lenses that do the job I want to my satisfaction.

As camera enthusiasts, we can spend a somewhat absurd amount of of time testing lenses and debating their merits on technical points. Personally, I get bored with that pretty quickly ... I just stop testing and go out to make photographs. 

G

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[robgo2]

On 11/13/2019 at 6:09 PM, ropo54 said:

The CL/TL w R80 1.4 works very nicely.

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!

I own the Summilux-R 80 f1.4. It is the finest portrait lens that I have ever used, but that is on a full-frame SL. As noted by the OP, the effective focal length on the CL is 120mm. This means that handholding the camera will require shutter speeds of 1/120sec or faster. Hence, shooting in low light situations can be challenging. If the CL had in-body image stabilization, the problem would be mitigated, but for that, we will have to wait for the CL2.