Jump to content

R-lenses vs modern M-lenses for the SL2


deekay

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, deekay said:

Yes, I am new to this.. What are the fundamental differences (practical use, use of SL2's features, IQ etc) between using an R-lens as opposed to a modern M-lens on an SL2? 

6 bit coded M lenses and ROM R lenses allow full functionality as they transmit lens data to the SL2 such as focal length and also allow a guesstimate of aperture.

With non coded/ROM lenses you will have to select the lens type manually each time you attach it ......... although you can restrict the menu choices to the ones you commonly use. 

Some M lenses..... even with the custom modified sensor on the SL2 have poor peripheral image performance, whereas the design of the R lenses allows them to function as well as native L mount lenses. 

Otherwise it is no different to using any manual lens on an L mount camera ..... you just lose AF and have to set aperture manually. You lose all the fancy AF and AF tracking capabilities and the marginal additional benefits of lens OIS added to IBIS .... if available in the lens used.

Leica specifically designed the SL range to be backward compatible and work well with almost all their back catalogue of M and R lenses. As a result optically very fine R lenses which could be had second hand for almost nothing 5 years ago have now become quite expensive, considering the age of most of them. R lenses size-wise tend to be somewhere between M and SL lens size ..... and most balance very well on the SL/SL2.

Also bear in mind some of the R lenses use very similar optical formulas as their M counterparts and are much cheaper ..... such as the M 75/1.4 and the R 80/1.4 ..... the former being highly sought after and expensive whilst the virtually identically rendering R equivalent is often overlooked. R lenses are also often in better condition as they have been sitting in a cupboard for many years with no cameras to use them on easily. Finding almost mint copies is relatively easy. 

Bear in mind that if you mix M and R you will need 2 adapters ..... and the official Leica branded ones are expensive. 

Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the helpful replies.

1. thighslapper: When you say that you have to set the aperture manually, what does that mean? Set the aperture using the aperture ring on the lens? 

2. I read on https://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/leica-r-catalog that "ROM lenses can be mounted on all R-cameras, but not on the Leicaflex/SL/SL2". I presume that this simply mean that an adapter is required for the SL2?

I've gathered that the Leica R-SL adapter works with these lenses:

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!


Which of these would be desirable lenses for the SL2 especially in the medium-long telephoto range?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another difference with L lenses is that with R and M lenses you will have to focus at the set aperture.

15 minutes ago, deekay said:

. I read on https://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/leica-r-catalog that "ROM lenses can be mounted on all R-cameras, but not on the Leicaflex/SL/SL2". I presume that this simply mean that an adapter is required for the SL2?


The Leicaflex/SL/SL2 are old Leica cameras from the 60’s and 70’s. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, deekay said:

1. thighslapper: When you say that you have to set the aperture manually, what does that mean? Set the aperture using the aperture ring on the lens?

Yes. The native L lenses work at open aperture and close to the set aperture only when taking the picture. 
 

As there is no link between the R and M lenses aperture and the Leica SL and SL2, you will have to focus at set aperture. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Leicaiste said:

Yes. The native L lenses work at open aperture and close to the set aperture only when taking the picture. 
 

As there is no link between the R and M lenses aperture and the Leica SL and SL2, you will have to focus at set aperture. 

Thanks, understood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One thing seldom mentioned is that modern M lenses are ASPH* design same as latest L lenses while R lenses with few notable exceptions**  are non-ASPH.  In some cases ASPH factor is responsible for so called "onion rings", i.e out of focus light blobs show concentric circles which can be ugly. 

For instance Summilux M 50mm ASPH which is an excellent lens has very  pronounced onion ring effect (at least my copy has).  Early picture samples taken with prototype Summilux L 50mm released prior to the actual lens release showed the same (there was debate about it several years ago here on LUF), this seem to have been fixed/reduced in the production model.  

Camera manufacturer marketing, any brand really, would like to convince us that latest lenses are the best ever, no doubt improvements come with every new generation but old lens designs are no slouch.

___

* ASPH, Aspherical lens elements produced by pressing molten glass ingot into the mould and polishing afterwards rather than laborious grinding.  Pressing process causes the rings.  It has been reported that Panasonic managed to overcome rings in ASPH lens production, so perhaps Leica who takes lot of credit for optical excellence ought to be grateful to resourceful partners.

**One R lens that is ASPH is APO Summicron M & R 90mm is the same optic cell in different mount, it is late 1990 design.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, deekay said:

Thanks for the helpful replies.

1. thighslapper: When you say that you have to set the aperture manually, what does that mean? Set the aperture using the aperture ring on the lens? 

2. I read on https://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/leica-r-catalog that "ROM lenses can be mounted on all R-cameras, but not on the Leicaflex/SL/SL2". I presume that this simply mean that an adapter is required for the SL2?
 

The 'Leicaflex/SL/SL2' refers to the original SLR incarnations made between 1964 and 1976. Ignore it. 

R & M lenses remain 100% manual in use ..... the R ROM and the M six bit coding only supply exif info about the lens to the camera enabling identification and other data the camera uses to optimise image quality etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested in what people think of very wide angle R or M lenses on the SL/SL2.  How does the rendering of the second version of the R 19mm lens on the SL/SL2 compare with the rendering of the more modern 21mm M lenses or the WATE? Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The WATE is very useful because of its tiny size. But the SL 16-35 is such a overwhelming lens (regarding IQ) that any other looks a bit pale compared.   If you need f 1.4 then the M lenses are wonderful. (No conflict with the rangefinder). But for wide-angle it is usually not required. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The SL 16-35 is an outstanding lens of modern style (clean, sharp into the corners) that will probably only be exceeded by the SL Summicrons at 28, 24, and 21 promised now for 2020 and 2021 release.  In fact, the challenge of outdoing the zoom is probably one reason the wide angle set of Summicrons are coming along so slowly.  I recall seeing comments that the zoom clearly outperforms the WATE (which appeared in 2008) and it may outperform the M28 Elmarit-asph (2008, but upgraded along with the M28 Summicron in 2015-18).  The interesting comparisons are with the M21 and 24 Summiluxes (2008) and the two Super Elmars (2011).  Those are the first designs clearly identified with the Karbe team.  There is also an M18 Super-Elmar, which appeared in 2008, but I couldn't find any information about its history.  I am fond of the M24 Elmarit-asph which appeared in 1998 and was still available with 6-bit coding around 2010.  And the excellent M28 Summilux (2015) is also a contender.  The only recent R design that might be considered comparable to the SL 16-35 is the Schneider collaboration that produced the R 15 Super-Elmarit asph in 2001, but I have that lens and know that it is sharp on center and impressionistic (softer) off center at all apertures.

So it would take Sean Reid, backed up by a full Leica store of loaner lenses to ever do a credible comparison between late M designs and the SL family of lenses.  The R contenders should only be selected if you like their rendering, not on the basis of sharpness across the field.  The M primes that I would consider using on an SL2 are the last 28 Summilux and the 21/24 Super-Elmars.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

The only recent R design that might be considered comparable to the SL 16-35 is the Schneider collaboration that produced the R 15 Super-Elmarit asph in 2001

Did you forget the "21mm–35mm f/3.5–f/4.0 ASPH. Vario-Elmar-R"? It was one of the last new R designs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention to zooms, and there were several highly rated late R zooms.  That note was really thinking out loud, and identifying some tests I would like to make.  Actually, I have the 21-35 that you mention, and I concluded a while ago that I preferred the Leica 21 and 35 M primes, so the lens has not gotten very much use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple of small points: most R lenses have built in retractable lens hood. This feature saves space, and the inconvenience of forgetting or losing the hood. 
R lenses allow closer focusing distance than M equivalents, a welcome feature in cine mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2020 at 8:02 AM, deekay said:

Thanks for the helpful replies.

1. thighslapper: When you say that you have to set the aperture manually, what does that mean? Set the aperture using the aperture ring on the lens? 

2. I read on https://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/leica-r-catalog that "ROM lenses can be mounted on all R-cameras, but not on the Leicaflex/SL/SL2". I presume that this simply mean that an adapter is required for the SL2?

I've gathered that the Leica R-SL adapter works with these lenses:


Which of these would be desirable lenses for the SL2 especially in the medium-long telephoto range?

If you want to extend your lens, the very fine 2x APO extender usually sells on ebay for ~$500-600 in good condition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/2/2020 at 8:11 PM, Artin said:

M lenses I feel are light and small, the modern M lenses are excellent choice and work flawless on the SL2 

R lenses are very well balanced also excellent , most are much less expensive then M counterparts , but there are quite a few late R lenses that are very expensive and superb on the SL2. 

notable are Apo 100 2.8 , 80 Summilx R , 50 Summilux R e60,  180 Apo  Summicron R , 15mm elmarite R , 280 Apo Elmar , 180 apo Elmar 

28 2.8 V2 ,  28-90.. VE .. 70-180 Apo VE , these are some of the finest R glass ever and are perfect on the SL2 ..

Just about all the M lenses are also very well supported and Image quality is just as good on the SL2 as it is on any M 

Love using M-lenses on SL2 ... however. Precise manual focusing requires opening aperture and then closing the aperture to working value before taking a shot. Since the aperture value is not visible in the EVF, I need to check the correct aperture on the lens before shooting. A bit annoying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, SrMi said:

... however. Precise manual focusing requires opening aperture and then closing the aperture to working value before taking a shot. Since the aperture value is not visible in the EVF, I need to check the correct aperture on the lens before shooting. A bit annoying.

@SrMi Just curious...is there a specific reason you do it like this? I´m usually fine with the EVF auto brightness compensation to be able to focus and didn´t see a need to open the aperture for focussing. Do I miss something?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Aktenschrank said:

@SrMi Just curious...is there a specific reason you do it like this? I´m usually fine with the EVF auto brightness compensation to be able to focus and didn´t see a need to open the aperture for focussing. Do I miss something?

It's not about light, but about depth-of-field.

With closed aperture, the depth of field is too large for precise manual focusing. To see the difference, you can try focusing (with magnification) wide open and with f/8. An angle viewfinder on SL2 would be great. I could check the aperture value while looking through the EVF.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...