2nd Thoughts about R glass on SL2--what am I missing?

[rjsphd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Upfront, the little I know about R lenses is what I have gleaned here and there on this fabulous forum.  It is not much.

I have come into possession of the Leica R/L converter and started my quest for the next gotta-have-it lens.  But now the search is paused.

24-280mm are covered in my bag with Leica zooms and the 35 and 90 summicrons.  I have no complaints.

For occasional macro shots aren't I better off with a more modern lens like the relatively inexpensive Sigma 70mm ART?  and for ultrawide, isn't the Sigma 14 or 14-24 a more modern, less expensive and very fine alternative to Leica R ultrawides?

Perhaps I am missing some real R gems.  If so, please share.  

But if not, I guess I'll be parting with the converter...

 

 

[Ivar B]

If you need macro, the 70mm Sigma Art is a good choice. Autofocus is not among the fastest but not bad either, and optically it is superb. Great value, too.

[nico4444]

A dedicated macro lens has a variety of uses beside macro photography and I see them as versatile lenses. The R 60 2.8 is a great lens and you can find them used easily, so that might be a decent introduction to R glass for you, and I strongly recommend the R 100 f2.8.

As for ultrawide, I would look at modern glass only, because these lenses have improved considerably over the years and I don't see why one would get a vintage ultrawide angle lens with a ton of compromises over a modern one that has no issues.

Your current setup are modern lenses, so unless you looking for a more vintage rendering in your images and, of course, manual focus, R glass or any other vintage glass make little sense. I think it is a better decision to simply sell the R-adapter-L and not look back for what the R system can actually offer you.

[caissa]

Why did you buy an adapter if you have no lenses for it ? What am I missing ?

If you have R lenses from earlier times, then you will know what you can achieve with them. Where they are better than M lenses. But if you have the money to buy the latest Apo lenses then the 30 or more years between them will be visible (in the lab, not necessarily in the field). So the R lenses are smaller and much cheaper. But have no AF. For example for macro this is no drawback.

But I have the impression you have never used any R lenses and so have no idea what to like about them. For me it is also the memories - of photos taken long ago. E.g. with the simple, small and inexpensive Summicron R 50. (The first lens for many older Leica users.)

Edited September 5, 2020 by caissa

[scott kirkpatrick]

The R 80 Summilux has a rendering quite unlike the L Summicrons or any of the zooms.  And they made a lot of them so it is not terribly expensive.  The R 90 Summicron has a nice rendering as well, not quite a crisp as the new L Summicrons.  The new L lenses can focus surprisingly close, but if you want to go down to 1:2 or closer the R lenses and extension tubes provide something that Leica hasn't offered in an L lens.  I have an R 15/2.8 wide angle, which is faster than the L zooms available.  But it needs to be stopped down so I wouldn't recommend it.