Using R lenses on MF body

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I like to use my old R lenses on digital bodies. They have been used on MFT (Fuji and Panasonic), APS-C (Canon), FF (Canon), FF mirrorless(Nikon Z and Leica SL)

On all of these they really performed well. Apart from MF and the fixed diaphragm they are often better than current lenses on these bodies. Now, I have read a few of my R lenses cover wider than FF without vignetting. So in theory they could work on a digital MF sensor, so a digital mirror-less MF should work. Has any of you tried it?

My candidates are:

• PA Curtagon 35mm F4.0 R: It has a 57mm focus plane area
• APO Telyt 280mm F2.8 R : not sure how large, but more than FF
• Any more?

Edited March 11, 2023 by dpitt

[frame-it]

7 minutes ago, dpitt said:

I like to use my old R lenses on digital bodies. They have been used on MFT (Fuji and Panasonic), APS-C (Canon), FF (Canon), FF mirrorless(Nikon Z and Leica SL)

On all of these they really performed well. Apart from MF and the fixed diaphragm they are often better than current lenses on these bodies. Now, I have read a few of my R lenses cover wider than FF without vignetting. So in theory they could work on a digital MF sensor, so a digital mirror-less MF should work. Has any of you tried it?

My candidates are:

• PA Curtagon 35mm F4.0 R: It has a 57mm focus plane area
• APO Telyt 280mm F2.8 R : not sure how large, but more than FF
• Any more?

i use elmarit R 60, elmarit R 180 , Telyt-R 250 on GFX50r, and also 50mm summilux-M, 90mm apo summicron-M and several m42 lenses.

some M related info here

 

[Advertisement]

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

[dpitt]

@frame-it Thank you for the link about M lenses.

I did not know the M lenses would do so well on MF. I am really pleased to see many people using M lenses on SL and MF systems. But I wonder why the R lenses do not get used this much. They are larger, but that should not matter much because of the weight of the body. Also the R lenses are still much more compact compared to native L or MF lenses. And technically the R lenses look more suited for MF use AFAIK.

Edited March 11, 2023 by dpitt

[frame-it]

1 hour ago, dpitt said:

@frame-it Thank you for the link about M lenses.

I did not know the M lenses would do so well on MF. I am really pleased to see many people using M lenses on SL and MF systems. But I wonder why the R lenses do not get used this much. They are larger, but that should not matter much because of the weight of the body. Also the R lenses are still much more compact compared to native L or MF lenses. And technically the R lenses look more suited for MF use AFAIK.

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/search/?q=gfx&quick=1&type=forums_topic&item=286217

[davidmknoble]

I have not had the chance to try this on the S system, but the R APO Telyt 280mm f/2.8 is supposed to work well on the medium format system.

https://www.apotelyt.com/camera-lens/leica-apo-telyt-r-280mm-28

The other lens you mentioned does not really have the strength for medium format, in my opinion, and I am not aware of a good way to use it.  It is for tilting, but the front of the lens is not wide.

[hepcat]

On 3/11/2023 at 2:12 AM, dpitt said:

@frame-it Thank you for the link about M lenses.

I did not know the M lenses would do so well on MF. I am really pleased to see many people using M lenses on SL and MF systems. But I wonder why the R lenses do not get used this much. They are larger, but that should not matter much because of the weight of the body. Also the R lenses are still much more compact compared to native L or MF lenses. And technically the R lenses look more suited for MF use AFAIK.

R mount bodies have a Flange Focal Distance of 47mm.  S mount bodies, because of the mirror box have a Flange Focal Distance of 53mm effectively precluding the R lens use on the S bodies.  Fortunately, the Fuji GFX is, of course, mirrorless and with a Flange Focal Distance of 26.7mm allows for a great many SLR lenses to be used with adapters, as well as M lenses.   When I decided to switch from my Phase One XF and Credo 40 back, I considered Fuji seriously but I decided that at this point a 24mp 24x36 L mount sensor was sufficient for anything I do these days and still allowed for all of my legacy glass (Leica R, Konica Hexanon, and Yashica DX) to be easily adapted.  What made up my mind for me was picking up a slightly used Panny S1 WITH a Panny S 24-105 for $1400.   I use my R glass almost exclusively on my L mount body though.  I only have two native L-mount lenses, that 24-105 that came with it, and the "free" 85mm f/1.8 that came with my S5 on a clearance deal from Panasonic.

The choice was a no-brainer.   It would have been interesting to see how my R mount lenses perform on the GFX 33x44 sensor though.

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

39 minutes ago, hepcat said:

..It would have been interesting to see how my R mount lenses perform on the GFX 33x44 sensor though.

I just acquired a SL with adapters (non electronic) to use my M and R lenses and sort of give my R8+DMR a rest. I still have to do a shootout between those 2 bodies, but the SL results are promising. I have no native L lens yet, and I am not sure I will ever need/want one. I love how my M and R lenses perform on the SL and prefer MF most of the time. Also, I think the L flange distance should allow for much smaller and lighter form factor than we see in the  current L lens lineup. Even my R lenses with the adapter beat almost any native option in that department.

Have a look here for the GFX + R lenses (there are more tests to be found on the site):

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/two-leica-r-mount-180s-on-fujifilm-gfx-50s/

[hepcat]

2 hours ago, dpitt said:

Also, I think the L flange distance should allow for much smaller and lighter form factor than we see in the  current L lens lineup. Even my R lenses with the adapter beat almost any native option in that department.

The issue with the bulky L mount lenses is, of course, that pesky Flange Focal Distance as compared to the focal length of the lenses.  The distance from the optical center of the lens to the focal plane doesn't change just because there's no mirror box.  The mechanical adapters for the R and other SLR lenses are essentially a substitute for the mirror box depth.  That's not entirely correct as the sensor lies further inboard in the mirrorless cameras than does the film plane, but you get the idea.  And the bulk on the native L mount lenses of course, comes from both the autofocus mechanisms and the image stabilization stuff.    While I absolutely love my R lenses adapted to my S1, I've gotta say that the convenience of the 24-105 coupled with the lens' image stablization on an IBIS body is amazing.  I've hand-held test shots at two full seconds.    If you're shooting black cats in a coal bin, the IS lens with an IBIS camera is revolutionary.

Great comparisons on the GFX body, BTW.   I looked at both the 180s and the Summicron-M 90 posts.  Well done!  And thanks! 

[dpitt]

3 hours ago, hepcat said:

The issue with the bulky L mount lenses is, of course, that pesky Flange Focal Distance as compared to the focal length of the lenses.  The distance from the optical center of the lens to the focal plane doesn't change just because there's no mirror box.  The mechanical adapters for the R and other SLR lenses are essentially a substitute for the mirror box depth.  That's not entirely correct as the sensor lies further inboard in the mirrorless cameras than does the film plane, but you get the idea.  And the bulk on the native L mount lenses of course, comes from both the autofocus mechanisms and the image stabilization stuff.    While I absolutely love my R lenses adapted to my S1, I've gotta say that the convenience of the 24-105 coupled with the lens' image stablization on an IBIS body is amazing.  I've hand-held test shots at two full seconds.    If you're shooting black cats in a coal bin, the IS lens with an IBIS camera is revolutionary.

Great comparisons on the GFX body, BTW.   I looked at both the 180s and the Summicron-M 90 posts.  Well done!  And thanks! 

To be clear. These GFX comparisons are not mine. They are from Jim Kasson. And it is a great site indeed.

I was comparing the size of the L lenses with the size of M lenses. The Leica M lenses have to be built very compact because they would interfere with the RF system otherwise, so I think these are the most compact lenses possible for the M flange distance.There is an enormous difference in size compared to the L line up. Of course the M lens is MF only, but the flange distance of M and L are almost the same. And of course I  expect IOS and AF to take up a bit of space, but not so much as to bloat a 35 mm Summicron M size to what you see for the L now.

My point is that if Leica would take a M lens as a base and build AF and OIS on top of that you could get a 35mm AF prime about the size of a 50 Summicron R. Maybe it does not make commercial sense to do so, but I think it might be technically feasible.

[hepcat]

3 hours ago, dpitt said:

I was comparing the size of the L lenses with the size of M lenses. The Leica M lenses have to be built very compact because they would interfere with the RF system otherwise, so I think these are the most compact lenses possible for the M flange distance.There is an enormous difference in size compared to the L line up. Of course the M lens is MF only, but the flange distance of M and L are almost the same. And of course I  expect IOS and AF to take up a bit of space, but not so much as to bloat a 35 mm Summicron M size to what you see for the L now.

My point is that if Leica would take a M lens as a base and build AF and OIS on top of that you could get a 35mm AF prime about the size of a 50 Summicron R. Maybe it does not make commercial sense to do so, but I think it might be technically feasible.

To be fair, my Lumix S 85mm f/1.8 is about the same size, diameter-wise as my Summicron-R 90mm.  It's roughly the length of a mirrorbox longer.  The AF mechanism hasn't significantly bloated the lens. I haven't had any M lenses for seven or eight years,  however comparing it to a LTM Canon Serenar 85mm,  it's only a little larger in diameter.  The real size penalty comes with OIS in the zooms.   That said, I haven't any experience with any of the other L mount lenses; except that a year or so ago  I did hold an L mount AF Lumix 50mm f/1.4 on an SL2 body,  and it did seem unreasonably large for a 50mm f/1.4.

[dpitt]

2 hours ago, hepcat said:

To be fair, my Lumix S 85mm f/1.8 is about the same size, diameter-wise as my Summicron-R 90mm.  It's roughly the length of a mirrorbox longer.  The AF mechanism hasn't significantly bloated the lens. I haven't had any M lenses for seven or eight years,  however comparing it to a LTM Canon Serenar 85mm,  it's only a little larger in diameter.  The real size penalty comes with OIS in the zooms.   That said, I haven't any experience with any of the other L mount lenses; except that a year or so ago  I did hold an L mount AF Lumix 50mm f/1.4 on an SL2 body,  and it did seem unreasonably large for a 50mm f/1.4.

I looked up the S series of lenses and they seem reasonably sized.I can consider them an exception to the rule. Still a bit bloated compared to the M series,  but very market conform compared to Sigma, Canon and Nikon counterparts. The M series Summicron 50 mm F2 for example is only 43mm long (distance front to bajonet flange) and has a filter size E39, and is only 53mm in diameter at the widest point. It even has a built in hood...

The 35mm  Summicron F2 is only  34mm long and also has E39 filters! Add some AF and OIS to these lenses and you could have a very small gem of a lens. 

The difference between theretical minimum size and actual size is probably caused by the choice to re-use AF and OIS platforms from other manufacturers that have normal to big sized lenses as well...

Edited March 13, 2023 by dpitt

[calvin83]

Both Leica Summicron-R 50/2.0 v1 and v2 barely cover 44x33mm sensor with vignetting at the corners when focused at infinity.

[davidmknoble]

4 hours ago, calvin83 said:

Both Leica Summicron-R 50/2.0 v1 and v2 barely cover 44x33mm sensor with vignetting at the corners when focused at infinity.

I’ve not had trouble with vignetting using the Summicron-R v2.  If you have a deep rimmed filter it may be possible.

[IkarusJohn]

APO Elmarit-R 180/2.8 on a Hasselblad X2D, with Novoflex HAX/LER adapter, electronic shutter and IBIS.

 

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!

[IkarusJohn]

And another

 

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!