Which Leica R lenses are particularly unique? For use on Canon EOS

[leicamr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My version of the Summicron was 3-Cam ROM. Pretty 'current.'

 

I know from reading on the super-credible dpreview forums that many people report sample variation with the Canon 50/1.4. Some say their copies don't get "sharp" until 2.8 or 4. Mine is excellent by f2, and Yah, it was equal or better than the Summicron at f2. And, it wasn't so bad at 1.7 or 1.8 or whatever it is, which the cron doesn't even offer.

 

....

 

Sample variations. The number of times I hear this. This is another reason why I use Leica R and M glass, they meet Leica's specification 99% of the time! I quote 99% because I am sure that some forum members will now advise me of their experiences of variations in Leica lens models.

 

My regular R glass of choice as follows 19 f2.8 latest, 28-90 Vario, 100 f2.8 APO & 180 f2.8 APO. When I fancy fixed lenses instead of the zoom :- 28 f2.8 latest, 28 PC, 35 f2, 50 f1.4 latest, 90 APO, 180 f2, 280 f4, x1.4 & x2 converters. All used on R8 and R8 / DMR.

 

I do own a Nikon 17-55 f2.8 and 70 - 200 f2.8 VR. Both excellent lenses, but Leica blows them away! Short and sweet.

 

Happy snapping.

 

Mark

[Advertisement]

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

[carstenw]

I haven't tried that many R lenses, but owned the 80 Lux, and it is still my favorite lens ever. The Noctilux on an M8 is similar though. I would just keep and use the 80 Lux for a while, were I you. The latest 50 Cron is so nice to use and so cheap that I would recommend just getting one. Other than that, the latest 50 Lux and the latest 35 Lux are meant to be very good too, but I don't know them. The latest 28 Elmarit is also great, and the latest 19 is awesome. The 15 is phenomenally expensive, as are the larger teles, but these are specialist lenses.

 

What focal lengths do you enjoy?

[derek_stanton]

Sample variations. The number of times I hear this. This is another reason why I use Leica R and M glass, they meet Leica's specification 99% of the time!

 

Well, my experience with definitely includes 'sample variance' in a Leica-M lens. I bought a new 50Lux-ASPH, and it was the worst lens i've ever used. Soft, like a chocolate teapot. Softer, by far, than my Jupiter-3. I returned it to Leica twice, and after about four months, it was eventually replaced. I've never had any issues with Canon or Nikon lenses. So, my lone experience with a new Leica lens was horrible. I've bought about ten Nikon and Canon lenses, and none were ever problematic.

 

I think, though, that sample variation is something that's only detected if there's a truly significant problem. How many people actually compare two samples of the same lens? Lots of people can be 'happily' shooting with lenses that aren't "99% at spec" and never know it. And, my assumption is that with Leica lenses, especially, people are more willing to 'trust in Leica' and give them the benefit of the doubt, operating with the faith that whatever has the Leica name on it is automatically the best it can possibly be.

[AlanG]

Last year my assistant bought a Canon 24 TSE and felt it was not as sharp as the copy I have. He returned it to Canon for adjustment and now is really pleased. I never checked out the Super Angulon 28 PC because I also have a Nikkor 28 PC, but find I rarely use it since I got the 24. By the way, DXO will remove the 24 TSE's CA.

 

I buy my lenses from a local store that lets me set up my camera tethered to a computer to test the lenses before I buy them.

 

Throwing something else into the mix, I have an old Nikkor 35 2.8 PC lens (used on Canons) that is really excellent. And that is a very useful focal length for architectural exteriors of homes and other subjects where a 24 might cause too much distortion. (Especially weird roof lines.)

[leicamr]

Well, my experience with definitely includes 'sample variance' in a Leica-M lens. I bought a new 50Lux-ASPH, and it was the worst lens i've ever used. Soft, like a chocolate teapot. Softer, by far, than my Jupiter-3. I returned it to Leica twice, and after about four months, it was eventually replaced. I've never had any issues with Canon or Nikon lenses. So, my lone experience with a new Leica lens was horrible. I've bought about ten Nikon and Canon lenses, and none were ever problematic.

 

I think, though, that sample variation is something that's only detected if there's a truly significant problem. How many people actually compare two samples of the same lens? Lots of people can be 'happily' shooting with lenses that aren't "99% at spec" and never know it. And, my assumption is that with Leica lenses, especially, people are more willing to 'trust in Leica' and give them the benefit of the doubt, operating with the faith that whatever has the Leica name on it is automatically the best it can possibly be.

 

Derek, that is why I stated 99% as nothing is 100%. I believe if a Leica lens has an issue then it will be a fairly obvious one. I have never sample tested lenses and don't intend to. All of my M glass was perfect on my M6's and M7, then one day I bought an M8! 50% of my lenses required focus adjustments when they were sent in for coding. They too were as soft as a teapot and as useful as a chocolate teapot. All is well now though. I hope your replacement 50 Lux now performs as expected.

 

A few weeks ago the British Journal of Photography had an article on the range of Nikon lenses. I won't pass comment here, but worth a read if you can get a copy.

 

Mark

[derek_stanton]

Derek, that is why I stated 99% as nothing is 100%. I believe if a Leica lens has an issue then it will be a fairly obvious one. I have never sample tested lenses and don't intend to. All of my M glass was perfect on my M6's and M7, then one day I bought an M8! 50% of my lenses required focus adjustments when they were sent in for coding. They too were as soft as a teapot and as useful as a chocolate teapot. All is well now though. I hope your replacement 50 Lux now performs as expected.

 

A few weeks ago the British Journal of Photography had an article on the range of Nikon lenses. I won't pass comment here, but worth a read if you can get a copy.

 

Mark

 

Yes, Mark, i noted the "99%." I wasn't picking on your 'stats.' I only responded further because i'm not so confident that the figure is that high in reality. I don't want to be contentious, but my limited technical comprehension won't let me understand how if a "Leica lens has an issue then it will be a fairly obvious one." Why would that be more true of a Leica lens than any other? It seems that if quality control is tight, it's either going to be 'right' or it isn't. If it's 'wrong,' why would it be less wrong with Leica?

 

Either way, i test all my lenses for precisely that reason, as well as others. I test, also, to find out what the true 'value' of a lens or system is. If i buy Leica or Zeiss or whatever, based on reputation or because someone else raved about it, i would still have no idea whether i could get a better value, better performance, or more efficiency from something else. A case in point: My R8, with 35 and 50 Summicrons and 80 Summilux. I might have gone on shooting that stuff for years, but when i compared those three lenses to my Canons, i decided the Canon performance was as good or better in each situation, for considerably less money, and the Canon offered AF and a more affordable and consistently upgradeable digital platform. So, the R8 had less 'value.' I don't like spending money without practical cause.

 

Whatever. We're still all in the same camp. We just have different degrees of 'loyalty.'