Third-party lenses

[Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/4/2021 at 3:36 PM, Anbaric said:

That hardly anyone bothered making lenses in Leica R mount back when the system was live probably tells us all we need to know. Today, the market would be much, much smaller. Anyone who wants a similar experience to a Leica R body with a larger choice of lenses can just pick up a Minolta XD or XE, of course...

Wrong! The whole point of Leica was the lenses. What I am talking about is filling gaps in the R line that have always been there. Leitz turned to Minolta and Schneider to help them. Part of the reason that the Leicaflex system was not as popular with pros was the meager assortment of lenses. Just four lenses were available when the Leicaflex debuted in 1964. Four! Nikon had more than that, I believe, and added many more quickly. It wasn't until 1972 that there was an adequate selection of Lenses for the Leicaflex. There was hardly any point in making cheap lenses for the Leicaflex, because those who bought them wanted the Leica lenses!

Edited December 5, 2021 by Ornello

[Stef63]

On 11/30/2021 at 9:06 PM, Ornello said:

I notice quite a number of third-party lenses being offered for Leica M mount. It would seem that a market exists for R mount lenses, as there are thousands of R-mount cameras.

I come back to your original post because a lot has been said in this thread. Could the reason be that third party lens makers today focus on the M mount because the M mount is still alive with all the digital M camera’s still being produced and newer models brought to the market year after year?  Yes there were thousand of R-mount camera’s produced but who still uses them today?  Maybe a few nostalgic people who love film. The R series is a dead end product already for a very very long time.  

Prices of R lenses go indeed up, but not because they are still in high demand to be used  on R bodies but because they are very viable options with an M or L converter to be used on an M or SL or L-compatible body.  And what lens maker would choose to produce an R compatible mount when the majority of their customers would use an M or L adapter with it.  It seems logical then to go native M or L like Cosina, Panasonic, Sigma etc are doing.

Please stop believing that there is still a market for new R-mount lenses today.  

Edited December 5, 2021 by Stef63

[Advertisement]

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

[Anbaric]

52 minutes ago, Ornello said:

The whole point of Leica was the lenses ... There was hardly any point in making cheap lenses for the Leicaflex, because those who bought them wanted the Leica lenses!

Well yes, I completely agree. But there's even less point in making cheap lenses now, because most of the remaining users still want the Leica lenses, the system is discontinued, and the popular focal lengths were eventually covered by Leica themselves or Tamron Adaptall-2. Your best bet for anything else might have been back when Cosina/Voigtlander made the prestige manual focus SL lenses in all the popular mounts (notably not including Leica R). If you'd gathered together a few hundred like-minded R fans to guarantee sales, you might have got them to do a limited run in your favourite mount. Today, only a handful of manual focus third party lenses are made in any SLR mount, mostly Nikon F and EOS, and excluding much more popular mounts than Leica R. I don't think even companies like 7Artisans are bothering with anything other than mirrorless and Leica M. And anyone who wants to use a specific vintage SLR lens for which there was no Leica R equivalent can probably pick up a compatible body for the price of a dozen rolls of film.

[Ornello]

16 hours ago, Anbaric said:

Well yes, I completely agree. But there's even less point in making cheap lenses now, because most of the remaining users still want the Leica lenses, the system is discontinued, and the popular focal lengths were eventually covered by Leica themselves or Tamron Adaptall-2. Your best bet for anything else might have been back when Cosina/Voigtlander made the prestige manual focus SL lenses in all the popular mounts (notably not including Leica R). If you'd gathered together a few hundred like-minded R fans to guarantee sales, you might have got them to do a limited run in your favourite mount. Today, only a handful of manual focus third party lenses are made in any SLR mount, mostly Nikon F and EOS, and excluding much more popular mounts than Leica R. I don't think even companies like 7Artisans are bothering with anything other than mirrorless and Leica M. And anyone who wants to use a specific vintage SLR lens for which there was no Leica R equivalent can probably pick up a compatible body for the price of a dozen rolls of film.

I didn't say 'cheap' third-party lenses, now did I? Schneider and Zeiss lenses are not cheap!

[Ornello]

16 hours ago, Stef63 said:

 Yes there were thousand of R-mount camera’s produced but who still uses them today?  Maybe a few nostalgic people who love film. 

According to Don, lots of people! and I am one of them!

Edited December 6, 2021 by Ornello

[Anbaric]

38 minutes ago, Ornello said:

I didn't say 'cheap' third-party lenses, now did I? Schneider and Zeiss lenses are not cheap!

Well, cheap(er) than a new Leica lens. But what specific lenses do you want? Are you interested in any of the few third party manual focus SLR lenses currently in production in any mount? If you want something that isn't currently made, there's no chance they're going to make it in Leica R if they won't make it in Nikon F. If you want something that is currently made, why not pick up a cheap but high quality body with a mount that fits it?

[Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

56 minutes ago, Anbaric said:

Well, cheap(er) than a new Leica lens. But what specific lenses do you want? Are you interested in any of the few third party manual focus SLR lenses currently in production in any mount? If you want something that isn't currently made, there's no chance they're going to make it in Leica R if they won't make it in Nikon F. If you want something that is currently made, why not pick up a cheap but high quality body with a mount that fits it?

The Zeiss wide-angle lenses in the Milvus series are what comes to mind.

https://www.zeiss.com/consumer-products/us/photography/milvus/milvus-2815.html

Edited December 6, 2021 by Ornello

[adan]

Have you contacted Zeiss directly about the possibility of building Milvus lenses in R-mount?

(I doubt Zeiss pays any attention at all to what is posted on a Leica-R forum ).

Maybe they can, based on adapting the ZF.2 Nikon-mount design (already has an aperture ring and lever). It would take some work (the aperture rings run in opposite directions on Nikon and Leica R, and the stop-down levers may not be in exactly the right place, and of course you need a couple of other cams/levers, and the R mount flange). Ask them how much it would cost for one conversion - or for 1000 lenses - or for 10000.

They may well say "Yes - and the price will be €7275 for one conversion, and €4235 each for 1000 lenses, and €2995 each for 10000 lenses."

(Or they may say "No - the Milvus XXmm rear element will not clear the mirror of a Leica R/SL."  Don't forget the Minolta R lenses 16/24mm, that would not work on original Leicaflexes because the mirrors hit the glass. It may come down to a fraction of a mm.)

Then they will ask you how many firm orders you have in hand. "Many!" will not be an acceptable answer - they will expect a solid number to take you seriously.

But you can contact Don Goldberg and ask for his R customer list, or, if he won't give you that, ask him if he is willing to put out an email to his customers, with your email address for responses, asking if anyone wants whatever Milvus-R(s) you want (15, 18, 21, 25, 135 f/2.0, etc) in R-mount. Or see if Leica is willing to share their registry (doubtful - but you never know).

That way you can go back to Zeiss and tell them "I have firm commitments for 517 lenses, or 2350 lenses, or 11417 lenses." And Zeiss can quote you a final price per lens, for that total order size.

That is how to do business.

[Ornello]

38 minutes ago, adan said:

Have you contacted Zeiss directly about the possibility of building Milvus lenses in R-mount?

(I doubt Zeiss pays any attention at all to what is posted on a Leica-R forum ).

Maybe they can, based on adapting the ZF.2 Nikon-mount design (already has an aperture ring and lever). It would take some work (the aperture rings run in opposite directions on Nikon and Leica R, and the stop-down levers may not be in exactly the right place, and of course you need a couple of other cams/levers, and the R mount flange). Ask them how much it would cost for one conversion - or for 1000 lenses - or for 10000.

They may well say "Yes - and the price will be €7275 for one conversion, and €4235 each for 1000 lenses, and €2995 each for 10000 lenses."

(Or they may say "No - the Milvus XXmm rear element will not clear the mirror of a Leica R/SL."  Don't forget the Minolta R lenses 16/24mm, that would not work on original Leicaflexes because the mirrors hit the glass. It may come down to a fraction of a mm.)

Then they will ask you how many firm orders you have in hand. "Many!" will not be an acceptable answer - they will expect a solid number to take you seriously.

But you can contact Don Goldberg and ask for his R customer list, or, if he won't give you that, ask him if he is willing to put out an email to his customers, with your email address for responses, asking if anyone wants whatever Milvus-R(s) you want (15, 18, 21, 25, 135 f/2.0, etc) in R-mount. Or see if Leica is willing to share their registry (doubtful - but you never know).

That way you can go back to Zeiss and tell them "I have firm commitments for 517 lenses, or 2350 lenses, or 11417 lenses." And Zeiss can quote you a final price per lens, for that total order size.

That is how to do business.

I think we all could agree that Leitz/Leica never did have much to offer for either M or R cameras until the late 80s in the sub-28mm WA department. Leica did design a couple of 21mm lenses for M (an f/2.8 and an f/1.4), but I was never a fan of the 19mm Elmarit-R (I owned one of the first version lenses). Why 19mm? Why not replace the Schneider 21mm SA? They did it for the M cameras, and there were no 21mm frame lines. Five of the seven WA lenses for R cameras shorter than 28mm were not Leitz designs. (24 & 16 fisheye were Minolta; 15mm 3.5 was Zeiss; 15mm 2.8 was Schneider; 21mm was Schneider).

Edited December 6, 2021 by Ornello

[adan]

7 minutes ago, Ornello said:

Leica did design a couple of 21mm lenses for M (an f/2.8 and an f/1.4)

Four at least: 21 f/2.8 pre-ASPH, 21 f/2.8 ASPH, 21 f/1.4 ASPH (current), 21 f/3.5 ASPH (current)

Why 19mm for the R? I already explained that.

And yes, Leica tended to outsource super-wides - they took a special expertise.

But my question remains.

If you want additional non-Leica R lenses - why are you weeping and moaning on a Leica forum, instead of reaching out to someone who can actually help you?

[a.noctilux]

30 minutes ago, Ornello said:

I think we all could agree that Leitz/Leica never did have much to offer for either M or R cameras until the late 80s in the sub-28mm WA department. Leica did design a couple of 21mm lenses for M (an f/2.8 and an f/1.4), but I was never a fan of the 19mm Elmarit-R (I owned one of the first version lenses). Why 19mm? Why not replace the Schneider 21mm SA? They did it for the M cameras, and there were no 21mm frame lines. Five of the seven WA lenses for R cameras shorter than 28mm were not Leitz designs. (24 & 16 fisheye were Minolta; 15mm 3.5 was Zeiss; 15mm 2.8 was Schneider; 21mm was Schneider).

How about this one, Elmarit-R II 19mm

sorry second hand only 😉.

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'd buy one of those ( maybe they become scarser with time, I don't know )

[Ornello]

46 minutes ago, adan said:

Four at least: 21 f/2.8 pre-ASPH, 21 f/2.8 ASPH, 21 f/1.4 ASPH (current), 21 f/3.5 ASPH (current)

Why 19mm for the R? I already explained that.

And yes, Leica tended to outsource super-wides - they took a special expertise.

But my question remains.

If you want additional non-Leica R lenses - why are you weeping and moaning on a Leica forum, instead of reaching out to someone who can actually help you?

Your 'explanation' for the 19mm doesn't seem to account for the fact that Leica didn't do it in the M lenses. I think it was simply a choice that Mandler made, perhaps to avoid ruffling feathers at Schneider. The 21mm SA-R f/4 was very popular (I have owned several). It was produced from 1968 to about 1994. Serial numbers after about 315 are multi-coated (and it does make a difference!). Lenses with many elements like this tend to benefit more from multi-coating.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Ornello

[Ornello]

27 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

How about this one, Elmarit-R II 19mm

sorry second hand only 😉.

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'd buy one of those ( maybe they become scarser with time, I don't know )

I know already! I mentioned above that I once owned a copy of the first version! This lens (2nd version) doesn't allow filters to be screwed onto the front, and since I have long been a fan of IR, I never bought one of these. The built-in filters are rather limiting.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Ornello

[Anbaric]

4 hours ago, Ornello said:

The Zeiss wide-angle lenses in the Milvus series are what comes to mind.

https://www.zeiss.com/consumer-products/us/photography/milvus/milvus-2815.html

Of course, a Nikon FM or something that would fit on the F-mount version of that one would cost something like 5% of the price of the lens...

[Ornello]

2 hours ago, Anbaric said:

Of course, a Nikon FM or something that would fit on the F-mount version of that one would cost something like 5% of the price of the lens...

I would not use a Nikon under any circumstances.

[Anbaric]

34 minutes ago, Ornello said:

I would not use a Nikon under any circumstances.

How about a Canon?

[Ornello]

46 minutes ago, Anbaric said:

How about a Canon?

Yeah, probably. What really puzzles me is that film sales are up, but no new film cameras are being produced (save the Leica M-P). I believe that Leica in particular would have been better off not to have killed off the R system. After all, the reflex camera is easier to use than the CRF. How is it that M cameras are doing well given that they have no autofocus systems? Leica were clueless about how to sell and market the reflex cameras. They decided to forgo all the finder crap that Nikon had in favor of a simpler, brighter finder, but they never explained why. Nor did their ads ever mention the mirror damping system (so far as I know). Their ads were hopelessly inept. The Leicaflex was light-years beyond the Nikon in actual engineering, but the average 'pro' did not know or even care. Of course, the average pro was not the most intelligent of creatures. I dealt with 'pros' when I worked in photo retailing. One time a 'pro' was buying Polycontrast paper, and I was asking him about what filter he used most often (or something like that), and he said 'My negatives are so good I don't need to use any filters'.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Ornello

[masjah]

9 minutes ago, Ornello said:

Yeah, probably. What really puzzles me is that film sales are up, but no new film cameras are being produced (save the Leica M-P). I believe that Leica in particular would have been better off not to have killed off the R system. After all, the reflex camera is easier to use than the CRF. How is it that M cameras are doing well given that they have no autofocus systems?

The reason that Leica killed off the film R system is that they were losing money on it hand over fist. Regrettably, had they not done so, it would have bankrupted them - they almost went under anyway.  The reason that the M cameras are doing well is that the non autofocus rangefinder system is of the very essence of the  system, and it is that essence that  devotees love; within the more limited genre of "M style photography" a rangefinder is probably easier to use than a manual focus SLR.  There were sufficient devotees to continue the production of the M system in the relatively tiny numbers being made.The other important factor here is that it turned out to be possible to preserve that M essence within a digital body (albeit initially in the cropped sensor size of the M8). On the other hand, the SLR always had a much broader range of applicability, and autofocus was of its essence in the evolution of the SLR. At the time there was no way that Leica could have capitalised the development of an autofocus range of R lenses.

[Ornello]

17 minutes ago, masjah said:

The reason that Leica killed off the film R system is that they were losing money on it hand over fist. Regrettably, had they not done so, it would have bankrupted them - they almost went under anyway.  The reason that the M cameras are doing well is that the non autofocus rangefinder system is of the very essence of the  system, and it is that essence that  devotees love; within the more limited genre of "M style photography" a rangefinder is probably easier to use than a manual focus SLR.  There were sufficient devotees to continue the production of the M system in the relatively tiny numbers being made.The other important factor here is that it turned out to be possible to preserve that M essence within a digital body (albeit initially in the cropped sensor size of the M8). On the other hand, the SLR always had a much broader range of applicability, and autofocus was of its essence in the evolution of the SLR. At the time there was no way that Leica could have capitalised the development of an autofocus range of R lenses.

I assure you I would never be happy with a Leica M camera. They are too restricting. Leica were clueless about how to market the reflex cameras. Autofocus is not essential to reflex systems. I use my SL2s all the time, and rarely have problems with focussing. See here:

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!

A digital camera that could take both manual R lenses and autofocus lenses (without an adapter) would have been better than killing off the R altogether, or perhaps making two models. Used copies of some R lenses have risen to astronomical levels (19mm Elmarits of either type, for instance).

 

Edited December 7, 2021 by Ornello

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[adan]

7 hours ago, Ornello said:

Your 'explanation' for the 19mm doesn't seem to account for the fact that Leica didn't do it in the M lenses.

Erwin Puts' Leica Lens Compendium accounts for it very well. The R lens could be larger than the M lens (for the usual reasons, scale to the body, and to avoid blocking the rangefinder windows). A 19mm f/2.8 for the M would have been too big, with 1975-80 technology.

Quote

 

2.8/21 Elmarit-M, 1980

"...shows family resemblances with the 2.8/19mm for the R, which was also a Midland design.....The M-version could not grow to the physical dimensions of the R-19, and this restricted the designers somewhat. The M-21 is of similar quality to the R-19, which has a still wider angle of view." pp. 139-140.