Expensive conversions of R lenses to RF coupled M - why bother when there is an equivalent M lens?

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Recently I have seen a number of permanently M mount converted R lenses on the market. Some of these are RF coupled and some are not. There is a 50 Summilux-R/II on Facebook marketplace at the moment for a mere £3,000. I really cannot understand why anyone would buy this, when for around two thirds of that price, they could buy the far smaller 50 Summilux III e46 M lens, which has pretty similar optical performance to the series two Summilux R. I only paid around £1600 for one of the quite rare L39 mount versions of the e46 S-III lenses, in mint condition and it is my 50mm lens of choice on both film and digital M cameras. I recognise that prices for this lens have climbed over the two years since I bought it. The R version of the 50 Summilux with its conversion mount, is a pretty big lump to have on the front of your M camera. I know as I have been using the 21-35 R lens on my M10-R for the last few days and it is not a particularly well balanced combination. 

Can anyone else understand why one would put a lot of work and money into converting an R lens, where there is a readily available, equal performance purpose designed M lens, at a considerably lower price point. Fair enough converting lenses like the various R zoom and telephoto lenses, where there is no M equivalent and I do use as I mentioned, the 21-35 and also the 80-200 on M cameras with live view for non-RF focusing. However, this is just with the R to M adapter and not a permanent modification, as I still use them on my R bodies for film and with the R to L adapter on my SL601. 

Wilson

Edited March 25, 2021 by wlaidlaw

[Advertisement]

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

[PFM]

I think it's done mostly for the bragging rights. "Look what I have here!"  Now if someone would make an adapter that retains the rangefinder focusing with R lenses that would be something.

PF

[msh58]

If you want to use the R-lenses on a digital body it makes much more sense to by an SL2, SL2-S, or the original SL (cheap now) plus the R-Adapter L. R-lenses are very nice on an SL body.

[masjah]

24 minutes ago, msh58 said:

If you want to use the R-lenses on a digital body it makes much more sense to by an SL2, SL2-S, or the original SL (cheap now) plus the R-Adapter L. R-lenses are very nice on an SL body.

You can do things just as well on a digital M with an EVF and an R Adapter M,  as with the original SL. With IBIS though, the SL2 is another matter. 

[pgk]

It is now possible to get a variety of lenses 'converted' to M mount with RF coupling. I see no problem with doing this as it gives a lens new life. The cost of doing so can be high though and so it may exceed the cost of a similarly specified alternative. This is up to the buyer or owner of the lens is it not?

[wlaidlaw]

Paul, 

Of course it is up to the owner of the lens and no doubt one could get a Pratika or Chinon lens expensively converted to RF coupled. My point was: Does it make sense to do this, especially with R lenses, when there is not infrequently already an optical analogue in M mount like the example I quoted with the 50 Summilux R-II and the 50 Summilux M-III. The M lens is much smaller than the converted lens, will slightly out-perform its retrofocal equivalent and will be cheaper into the bargain. I was not arguing against the use of non-RF lenses with adapters, which I often do myself on live view M cameras. 

Wilson

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

My point was: Does it make sense to do this, especially with R lenses, when there is not infrequently already an optical analogue in M mount like the example I quoted with the 50 Summilux R-II and the 50 Summilux M-III. The M lens is much smaller than the converted lens, will slightly out-perform its retrofocal equivalent and will be cheaper into the bargain.

Financially it doesn't! But there can be other reasons for such conversions. I'm contemplating an RF coupled mount for a 42mm Summer at the moment. The cost will far exceed the cost/value of the Summar, but I will then have a copy of one of Barnack's lenses, as used in one of his prototypes, which is usable on an M body. I'd struggle to see the logic in an expensive R conversion myself but some may have specific reasons for wanting a lens to remain in use on an M. I suspect that not everything comes down to the absolute value/cost/worth in such cases. All that said, an SL or other mirrorless is an easier and cheaper way to go for sure!

A universal M mount which can be relatively easily adapted to specific focal length lenses is not beyond the bounds of possibility - it would require spacers/adapters for each lens together with profiled cams which could be fitted for absolute focal lengths - but would require sufficient demand which might be the sticking point.

[wlaidlaw]

Paul, 

Effectively I have such an adapter/focusing mount for Contax RF lenses with coupling to an M mount camera, made by Amedeo Muscelli. Obviously the prerequisite is that the flange focal distance of the lens you want to make RF coupled must have a flange focal distance of greater than 27.80mm, to allow for the adapter. I am not a great fan of this adapter as it focuses the "wrong/Contax way round" compared with Leica. I believe his latest adapters focus in the "correct' rotation direction. 

Wilson