Is the Leica R a "real Leica" and more questions

[RezaLoghme]

As a new owner of a 601 SL and a Novoflex adapter, I am currently investigating the purchase of some vintage R lenses after having just bought a 80-200mm Vario-Elmar. R bodies (except 6 or 9) can be bought for small money, compared to the RF models. Some lenses, in particular the early ones, are quite cheap, too - or the prices are simply "normal", compared to what some people might call a hype about M series.

Some R lenses can be had for 200,300,400 EUR, but there are still many models which are traded for four figure prices. While I am really more of a "bargain basement" shopper, there must be people who go out and say "gee, today I am going to buy a 1500US$/EUR lens for an extinct camera system with a somewhat slow shutter release and some fairly antiquated electronics.

Personally, I find the R7 charming and quite timeless, but when reading some posts, not everybody thinks that way. "Portugal Leica", "Canada Leica", "Minolta Leica" and so on. Some people only see the M as a "real Leica".

While I fully understand that technology has moved on, is a 50mm/2.0 R Summi-Whatever really not an up-to-date lens anymore? I have never read the same about M lenses from the same vintage, with all the extra complications and resulting limitations that RF lenses come with.

What do you think?

 

[Don_ih]

The Leica R-mount lenses are not being bought by people who use them on Leica R-mount cameras. They are being bought by people who adapt them to digital -- that's what's pushed the price up.

 

[MattKing]

In response to the 1st question raised:
Of course.
Just as the Leica name on the lenses on some digital fixed lens Panasonic cameras is real.
It is a brand name associated with a wide variety of products. Some of those products have high value, while others not so.
There are some reasonable inferences one can gain from seeing the brand name attached to a particular item, but unless one is in need of a particular characteristic - e.g. a lens fits and offers full feature compatibility with something else - there is little reason to purchase something based on the name.
Unless of course one enjoys having and using something with that name.
This is, of course, outside of the world of the collector, where the desirability of a name is not directly related to issues like quality or usability.

 

[Milpool]

As a new owner of a 601 SL and a Novoflex adapter, I am currently investigating the purchase of some vintage R lenses after having just bought a 80-200mm Vario-Elmar. R bodies (except 6 or 9) can be bought for small money, compared to the RF models. Some lenses, in particular the early ones, are quite cheap, too - or the prices are simply "normal", compared to what some people might call a hype about M series.

Some R lenses can be had for 200,300,400 EUR, but there are still many models which are traded for four figure prices. While I am really more of a "bargain basement" shopper, there must be people who go out and say "gee, today I am going to buy a 1500US$/EUR lens for an extinct camera system with a somewhat slow shutter release and some fairly antiquated electronics.

Personally, I find the R7 charming and quite timeless, but when reading some posts, not everybody thinks that way. "Portugal Leica", "Canada Leica", "Minolta Leica" and so on. Some people only see the M as a "real Leica".

While I fully understand that technology has moved on, is a 50mm/2.0 R Summi-Whatever really not an up-to-date lens anymore? I have never read the same about M lenses from the same vintage, with all the extra complications and resulting limitations that RF lenses come with.

What do you think?

I’m a Leica R fan. I grew up using them because my father always had one. After having used various screw mounts and a M3 and M4 my father decided to go with the R3 when it was released. He loved that camera. Then it was stolen. Insurance paid for a new R4 at the time. That’s the one I learnt with (when I finally bought my own camera I went with a Nikon F3HP). Years later my father eventually got a R9 which I like more than the R4 only because it has a high eyepoint finder and mirror lockup.

The Summicron-R lenses are what I had access to. Short focal length rangefinder lenses sometimes perform a little better than SLR lenses (distortion, for example) due to the more symmetric designs but it’s not a hard and fast rule. I don’t know if the M lenses of R vintage are generally better than their R equivalents or not.

 

[Paul Howell]

For a lot less money you can get a Minolta X 700 and a brace of Minolta MF lenses. A few R lens started as Minolta designs, like the 80 to 200 while the Minolta 35 to 70 started as a Leica design. Minolta made all their own glass. All of the late model Minolta MC lens will resolve Tmax 100 at 200 LPM. I have a X700, 101 and 301, meters still work, the motor dive on the X700 does not have auto rewind,, still a good shooter. If you want a R, I would get an 8.

 

[Mark J]

The Leica R-mount lenses are not being bought by people who use them on Leica R-mount cameras. They are being bought by people who adapt them to digital -- that's what's pushed the price up.

Specifically, I believe that the big-money R lenses ( like the 35/1.4 , 50/1.4 E60 and 80mm f/1.4 ) are being bought up for use in movie-making.

 

[RezaLoghme]

For a lot less money you can get a Minolta X 700 and a brace of Minolta MF lenses. A few R lens started as Minolta designs, like the 80 to 200 while the Minolta 35 to 70 started as a Leica design. Minolta made all their own glass. All of the late model Minolta MC lens will resolve Tmax 100 at 200 LPM. I have a X700, 101 and 301, meters still work, the motor dive on the X700 does not have auto rewind,, still a good shooter. If you want a R, I would get an 8.

Well i am talking about R mount, so Minoltas wont be of much help...

 

[Mark J]

The Summicron-R lenses are what I had access to. Short focal length rangefinder lenses sometimes perform a little better than SLR lenses (distortion, for example) due to the more symmetric designs but it’s not a hard and fast rule. I don’t know if the M lenses of R vintage are generally better than their R equivalents or not.

Generally most of the M wides were better in sharpness than the R wides, the more symmetrical construction allows better distortion and more importantly less lateral colour in the field. However the earlier R lenses were still good in their time. I have owned both the Minolta MC 17 f/4 and the Leica 19/2.8 Mk.1 , and the Leica was definitely better. The disadvantage of the smaller wides for M is that there's more brightness roll-off in the corners.
The gap was closed after the late '80's when designs like the R 19/2.8 Mk.II and the 28/2.8 II had more effort put into special glass types, and achieved better field sharpness.

ps. the R7 has a mirror lock-up too, it's done by a separate cable release ( if memory serves correctly ) .

 

[Milpool]

Interesting - I didn't know the R7 could do that.

Generally most of the M wides were better in sharpness than the R wides, the more symmetrical construction allows better distortion and more importantly less lateral colour in the field. However the earlier R lenses were still good in their time. I have owned both the Minolta MC 17 f/4 and the Leica 19/2.8 Mk.1 , and the Leica was definitely better. The disadvantage of the smaller wides for M is that there's more brightness roll-off in the corners.
The gap was closed after the late '80's when designs like the R 19/2.8 Mk.II and the 28/2.8 II had more effort put into special glass types, and achieved better field sharpness.

ps. the R7 has a mirror lock-up too, it's done by a separate cable release ( if memory serves correctly ) .

 

[Mark J]

In the end I had to go and double-check - but yes, it's under the lens bayonet release, on the right side.

https://125px.com/docs/manuals/camera/35mm/leica/leica_r7_user_manual.pdf

 

[xkaes]

Several of the early R lenses were designed and made by Minolta. These are inscribed "MADE IN JAPAN". There is probably a list somewhere.

Likewise, several of the R cameras were designed and made by Minolta & Copal & Leica.

http://www.subclub.org/minman/leica.htm

 

[Mark J]

It's surprising how many times this subject has been launched as a thread, with almost the same postings

How many people on the thread have used a Minolta MC lens and a Leica R lens of the same design ?
I will throw my hat in the ring with the 24mm.

 

[xkaes]

Why would you think that the Minolta 24mm and the Leica 24mm would produce different results? Same thing with the 16mm f2.8 or 80-200mm f4.5 or 75-200mm etc. The design and the glass are 100% Minolta. Leica chose those lenses because they were so damn good!

 

[MFstooges]

Because it is LEICA. The red circle turns head ya know

 

[RezaLoghme]

I am particularly interested who - today - is willing to spend a four figure sum for a lens for a camera system that is 1. obsolete and 2. never had the bragging rights/stable resale value such as a M.

Someone who

- sees behind the "Its just a Minolta in a posh frock" story, so the cameras are actually better than their current reputation

- is a colour-blind Leica fanboy, so in realty the cameras are not really having a chance against all the modern Japanese or Leica M gear

- has already a large R kit, so is "invested" and has a system that works for them

?

 

[Radost]

I have many Rs apart from my R3 and SL all - r4s,r5,r7,re developed sticky mirror shutter delay.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Yes the sticky/slow mirror is a well know issue.

Anyway, bacl to my question - who spends $$$$ on a $$$ camera?

 

[Don_ih]

I am particularly interested who - today - is willing to spend a four figure sum for a lens

You've already been told: people who use them on digital. If something gives you the results you want, it's not obsolete.

 

[guangong]

Genuine Leicas ended with the demise of E. Leitz. The owners of the name “Leica” license it to a variety of companies who manufacture cameras and lenses, others who make measuring instruments (found at local Home Depot), microscopes, etc. This does not imply inferior products. Voigtlander lenses is a similar example.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Genuine Leicas ended with the demise of E. Leitz. The owners of the name “Leica” license it to a variety of companies who manufacture cameras and lenses, others who make measuring instruments (found at local Home Depot), microscopes, etc. This does not imply inferior products. Voigtlander lenses is a similar example.

AFAK some Leica photo products are indeed made in Germany. So the question is what is "genuine", like Mercedes Benz cars which are assembled around the world, with parts coming from suppliers around the world.

But my point was that the R system seems to live on, despite its perceived or real shortcomings.

 

[Mark J]

Why would you think that the Minolta 24mm and the Leica 24mm would produce different results? Same thing with the 16mm f2.8 or 80-200mm f4.5 or 75-200mm etc. The design and the glass are 100% Minolta. Leica chose those lenses because they were so damn good!

Because I owned and used both of the lenses, so I don't just need to rely on 'thinking' that they do or don't differ.
In fact there's a big gulf in performance between the MC 24mm and the Leica R 24.
The base design is the same, but we have big differences due to 1. Lens coatings 2. internal blackening and 3. Manufacturing tolerances.
To be fair, the Leica R is a much later build.
So, the Minolta 24 MC that I had was not very sharp in the field, and although it had a nice colour balance, the colours were muted and there was a fair bit of flare into the light.
I also owned the MD 24/2.8 at the same time. I sold off the MC lens and retained the MD.

The Leica R 24 , despite being the same design as the MC, is noticeably better than both of the Minolta lenses. It is a lens that always delivers the goods, sharp almost from full aperture, very contrasty, and with strong colour saturation. You can shoot it with the sun in the picture, with complete confidence.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Because I owned and used both of the lenses, so I don't just need to rely on 'thinking' that they do or don't differ.
In fact there's a big gulf in performance between the MC 24mm and the Leica R 24.

Thank you so much; I always prefer facts from own experience over opinions.

While the Minolta/Leica story is somewhat relevant, I am more interested in the later half of R's lifecycle, when the lenses

Is it ok to post this?

https://www.summilux.net/perso/teiki%20arii/Leica_R_lenses.pdf

Otherwise pls remove.

So, I did not know that there was a R Summilux 50mm/1.4. Sounds like a quite serious lens. Which commands serious money. Cine guys aside, who puts that on a somewhat aging R3? Or do they end up on digital bodies, wouldnt other options not be cheaper?

P.S.: Great pics in the pdf, I love Leica lenses most when the lettering is Colgate white and not cataract yellowish.

 

[xkaes]

The Leica R 24 , despite being the same design as the MC, is noticeably better than both of the Minolta lenses. It is a lens that always delivers the goods, sharp almost from full aperture, very contrasty, and with strong colour saturation. You can shoot it with the sun in the picture, with complete confidence.

Despite your "confidence", you supply no "evidence" -- so it's just your opinion/preference. I sold my 24mm MC ROKKOR-X when I actually ran some simple resolutions tests comparing it to a Vivitar (Kiron) 24mm f2.0. I couldn't notice any difference.

 

[RezaLoghme]

From the "compendium":
"In the beginning, Minolta supplied the glass elements and Leitz did the assembly. Later, when Minolta stopped production, Leica continued to produce the lens."

But the Leica/Minolta cooperation is maybe something for another thread, especially when implying that one brand is somehow "better" than the other.

I am interested in Leica's R range because of its "stepchild" nature. From what I read, and from what my own R5 delivered, the R series was good, but not "good-good" when compared against the top of the range SLRs from Japan. When handling a R5, it is nice but in its details much less refined than a V-Series Hasselblad, or a modern M Leica. I have no problem with the R cameras being the Ferrari Mondial or Porsche 924 (with Audi engine). The are nice products in their own rights and don't do any harm.

 

[Mark J]

There were two Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4 lenses. The earlier one, from Mandler, probably, is often called the 'E55' one. it's similar and probably comparable to the best of the Nikon & Canon 50/1.4's with 7 elements ie. it's a bit of a trade-off between full-aperture performance and field performance when stopped-down - which was handled in slightly different ways by each company. The later 'E60' one is a bit of a peach, it has 8 elements and is a good step up in sharpness at full aperture. I loaned that one in 1998. It's a shame they are costing stupid money these days - they are probably a bit scarce given their short run. I'd say it's the nicest 'Compact' 50/1.4 design out there. Later you could cite the EF 50/1.2 and maybe Nikon 50/1.4 G as comparable. Then came the monsters with 10 to 13 elements, but they don't fill the same niche, for me.

Ref. the R bodies, I moved from Minolta ( XD7 ) to a Leica R4 in around 1994. I considered other brands, but in the end they were similar in layout to the XD7 and not too big. I didn't need all the extra features ( and weight) of the Pro cameras from Nikon & Canon. They were sufficient in features, & build on the R's is really nice, the controls are really nice, I've used one of my R7's for over 25 years , and the shutter dial is just as solid and feels the same as it did when I bought it ( second hand ) . The XD7 is very nice, but over time the shutter dial gets wobbly.
The problem with the R bodies is they are rather difficult to fix ( ie. find repairers ) if they go wrong - and spare parts are only available from other bodies. My R7's both have faults now. On the plus side there are still lots of very lightly-used ones out there.