Leica R - what am I missing?

[Mark J]

I really hope you don't actually believe that but I really have no way to convince you otherwise. Perhaps I should have said "a lot" instead of "most of", but either way Minolta made a HUGE contribution to the Leica SLR development program. Nothing wrong with that as Minolta is a very good company and has produced some excellent products over the years.

I really do have a ton of information, in books and on computer, put out by Mr. Puts. I read a LOT. He is very informative but he is also somewhat of Leica mouthpiece. He reminds me a lot of Paul Wolfe from the 30s. Both men; very good writers, but also inseparable components of the Leica publicity and marketing machine. I like them both a lot but I would not consider either of them to be unbiased sources.

A good friend of mine ( Reg Jonas ) was head of optics at Midland for many years until he retired recently. I myself also went for an interview at Leica in Solms in 1997 before joining Zeiss instead. On both counts I can confirm that Leica designed and built their own lenses. The only exception I can think of is the R 24/2.8 which was a design shared by Leica and Minolta, starting in the 70's. Having owned both versions, the Leica one was much better, I assume because of the tighter tolerances, but also the better coatings this 1990's example had compared to the older MC 24/2.8 I had. Leica R lenses were exceptional in their time in the 70's/80's & early 90's , though they have been surpassed in recent years by many lenses for modern 20+ Mpix applications. In their time their strong points were better stray light control and colour saturation, and exceptional consistency around the FOV resulting from their tighter tolerances ( this is confirmed by tests in Color Foto magazine, if you can find back-issues ) .
Leica also made their own glass for many years, in the Wetzlar area, they had some very high index lanthanum flints and a couple of unique borate flints ( KZFS ) than nobody else had access to.

 

[xkaes]

The only exception I can think of is the R 24/2.8 which was a design shared by Leica and Minolta, starting in the 70's.

There are several other "exceptions", as I've mentioned above. There's no need to debate this. Leica designed and made most of their R lenses. That's obvious.

You can easily determine if an R lens was made by Minolta, because it is engraved "LENS MADE IN JAPAN" on the barrel -- as in the example 80-200mm f4.5 Vario-Elmar in the earlier photo I posted.

At one time I had a 80-200mm f4.5 Rokkor-X and 24mm f2.8 Rokkor-X -- they were both being sold as Leica R lenses, as well. I used them on my Minolta XE-7 which was being sold at the time as a Leica R3.

On a side note -- I no longer have either of those lenses. They were beauties, but I've "graduated" to a 70-210mm f4 Rokkor-X and a Vivitar (Kiron) 24mm f2.0 instead.

 

[Mark J]

Oh yes, I was thinking too much about the primes.

 

[ph]

sirs.,

I can support the praise lavished on R- optics. I was lucky to enter the R lens price collapse when the R9 never got a successor. And laterhave secured good examples of the Leica (=leitz succesor)- designed Rs with the useless Rom contacts but otherwise functional machinery.

People compalin about the R8-9 size, but it is not much bigger than my current monster-sized Nkon Z. The "Leitz"R lenses work fine on it. Even the ancient MInolta designed 16mm, while the Leitz 180 Apotelyt is far more compact and probably much tougher and long lasting than current autolenses and certainly fit for over 40 Mpix sensors.

p.

 

[Paul Howell]

My understanding is that Leica parted ways with Minolta, both in bodies and lens, by the time of the last Leica film cameras all the new were designed and built by Leica, might have something to do with Minolta losing a $100,000,000 parent infringement suite by Honeywell over AF tech. The prices for R and 9s are reasonable, not so much with lens.

 

[Mark J]

Interesting. I liked and used the R bodies of the Minolta era, because I was using an XD7 before, and liked the ergonomics and set of functions - the Leicas were just a higher quality and finish of something I already liked.

The lens prices are a problem. They were always expensive, but this has got worse now that the movie enthusiasts have latched on to them. So, there's no argument in their favour on a value-for-money basis.
The 180/3.4 was a stand-out lens from the earlier years ; there's plenty written elsewhere about how this lens came about. It was one of several uses of their special proprietary phosphate crown. I owned one for a while but could never find enough subjects that needed a 180mm EFL !
The 100/2.8 Apo Macro is a special lens , and its s/h cost has not increased in the 25 years since I bought my copy. There was a Color Foto test in the mid-90's of all available 90 or 100mm macro lenses, I have it saved somewhere. The Leica lens was found to be sharper and more contrasty at f/2.8 than any of the other lenses were at ANY aperture. This included the Zeiss Contax.

One other lens not mentioned above that I have used for 25 years and stands up in the digital era is the 35-70/4 ASPH. This lens is sharp at f/4 on all focal lengths with limited vignetting.
Of the few that are 'affordable' and very good, I can recommend the later version of the 35mm f/2.8 , it is sharp and contrasty, has the built-in hood and is a little gem to use.

 

[xkaes]

Maybe, maybe not. It turned out to be a drop in the bucket for Minolta -- as reported in the Washington Post. Kinda like Microsoft having to pay STACKER $150 MILLION for the same sort of theft -- Disc compression software.

"Minolta was reported to have earned about $1 billion in sales from its Maxxum line of autofocus cameras.

Honeywell accused Minolta of willfully pirating four patents and asked for $174 million in back royalties and an unspecified sum for breach of contract. Honeywell said it disclosed trade secrets to Minolta in 1979 as part of negotiations to put a Honeywell autofocus part in Minolta cameras. Instead of completing the deal, Honeywell said, Minolta took the technology and went off on its own.

After 6 1/2 days of deliberation, the jury found infringement on three of four patents, but cleared Minolta of intentionally stealing the technology. As a result, U.S. District Judge Alfred M. Wolin did not award Honeywell triple damages, as he could have if the jury have found willful infringement."

 

[Nitroplait]

I really do have a ton of information, in books and on computer, put out by Mr. Puts. I read a LOT. He is very informative but he is also somewhat of Leica mouthpiece. He reminds me a lot of Paul Wolfe from the 30s. Both men; very good writers, but also inseparable components of the Leica publicity and marketing machine. I like them both a lot but I would not consider either of them to be unbiased sources.

In partial defence of late Mr. Puts.
I do understand what you are saying, but within the Leica eco system, I find his lens evaluations and comparisons in his extraordinary Compendiums quite accurate and as objective and factual as one can expect - at least in the cases where I know the lenses from personal experience.

I allow myself to extrapolate that experience and therefore trust his other comparative assessments (within the Leica universe).

When he expanded beyond Leica, his bias was very apparent and almost amusing at times - but I have no doubt he meant what he said.
It is not my understanding he was on the Leica payroll but he probably wouldn't have gained access to the Leica archives and data had Leica not see benefit in letting him.

On the subject of Minolta's involvement in Leitz product development; I think it is likely covered down to the usual anal detail by Leica scholars and thus possible to have verified if a specific R lens has Minolta dna by asking in a Leica collector forum.
You cannot trust the "Made in ..." entirely as some Leica R lenses with Minolta glass produced in Japan where assembled in Germany. Just like many parts and sub assemblies of camera bodies where (and still is) done in Portugal and finally assembled in Wetzlar/Solms in order to get the Germany label.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

With the R lenses you have to differentiate between the older ones, and mainly the newer ones designed in the 90ies / early 00ies. At that time Leica invested a lot in new, improved lens designs and created some truly outstanding lenses, like e.g. the
- 19 mm f/2.8 Elmarit-R 2nd version – 1990
- 28 mm f/2.8 Elmarit-R 2nd version – 1994
- 90 mm APO-Summicron-R ASPH – 2002 (spectacular lens)
- 100 mm f/2.8 APO-Macro-Elmarit-R (spectacular lens)
- 180 mm f/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R – 1998 (spectacular lens)
- 180 mm f/2.0 APO-Summicron-R (spectacular lens)
- 280 mm f/4.0 APO-Telyt-R (spectacular lens)
- 280 mm f/2.8 APO-Telyt-R
- 400 mm f/2.8 APO-Telyt-R
- modular APO-Telyt-R 260/400/560 head
- modular APO-Telyt-R 400/560/800 head

Zooms with a prime-lens quality:
- 21 mm–35 mm f/3.5–f/4.0 Vario-Elmar-R zoom – 2002
- 28 mm-90 mm f/2.8-4.5 Vario-Elmarit-R ASPH
- 70–180 mm f/2.8 Vario-APO-Elmarit-R zoom
- 35–70 mm f/2.8 Vario-Elmarit-R ASPH
- 105–280 mm f/4.2 Vario-Elmar-R zoom

Side note:
As you are already mainly invested in Pentax, you may have a look at the new Irix lenses. Excellent quality, manual focus lenses available with Pentax K mount. And very affordable.

This is a useful list. Thanks.

 

[Hassasin]

I believe Leica parted ways with Minolta at the R4 electrical issues debacle and subsequent Mod2 of same being released, with R5 being all Leica from that point on.

 

[GregY]

The only Leica R I owned was an R3 with an apo-telyt 180 3.4.... paired with my Leica Ms with shorter lenses. The lens was great and i didn't keep it long enough for the R3 to fail.

 

[Pioneer]

In partial defence of late Mr. Puts.
I do understand what you are saying, but within the Leica eco system, I find his lens evaluations and comparisons in his extraordinary Compendiums quite accurate and as objective and factual as one can expect - at least in the cases where I know the lenses from personal experience.

I allow myself to extrapolate that experience and therefore trust his other comparative assessments (within the Leica universe).

When he expanded beyond Leica, his bias was very apparent and almost amusing at times - but I have no doubt he meant what he said.
It is not my understanding he was on the Leica payroll but he probably wouldn't have gained access to the Leica archives and data had Leica not see benefit in letting him.

On the subject of Minolta's involvement in Leitz product development; I think it is likely covered down to the usual anal detail by Leica scholars and thus possible to have verified if a specific R lens has Minolta dna by asking in a Leica collector forum.
You cannot trust the "Made in ..." entirely as some Leica R lenses with Minolta glass produced in Japan where assembled in Germany. Just like many parts and sub assemblies of camera bodies where (and still is) done in Portugal and finally assembled in Wetzlar/Solms in order to get the Germany label.

You really do not have to defend Mr. Puts. I actually enjoy a lot of his writing and find him very informative. I have his compendiums and will definitely agree with your assessment of his reviews. I relied a lot on his discussions of various Leica lenses in those books when assembling my own small assortment of Leica equipment. But once you step outside the Leica specific information and start comparing other systems I almost always go to other sources.

 

[xkaes]

I believe Leica parted ways with Minolta at the R4 electrical issues debacle and subsequent Mod2 of same being released, with R5 being all Leica from that point on.

Leica made design changes from the very first R3 -- like adding spot metering to the Minolta XE-7 -- and some exterior coverings, dials, etc. They did the same with the R4/5/6/7 -- all based on the Minolta XD-11 -- with various changes. But they all used the same electronic Copal shutter -- which was manufactured by Minolta -- and that doesn't mean that they didn't use lots of other body parts made by Minolta as well.

That should not be a surprise. At the same time, Zeiss was having several of its Zeiss-designed T* lenses manufactured in the Tomioka (AKA, Yashica) lens factory in Japan. Those lenses are also engraved "MADE IN JAPAN".

 

[Mark J]

Copal in any case became the industry standard for SLR shutters, didn't they ?

Anyone who has used the R4/5/6/7 as well as Minolta XD7/11 knows that the Leica bodies are more solidly built, have nicer-feeling controls, more durable finish ( eg. the body-blackening ) and a quieter shutter with some recoil-compensation. It's just a shame that the electronics can fail in time , I think the R7 is worst on this, the contacts ( or maybe circuit ) under the shutter dial & metering selector start to fail. R6 will be different of course, you can see that from the s/h price !

 

[Hassasin]

Leica made design changes from the very first R3 -- like adding spot metering to the Minolta XE-7 -- and some exterior coverings, dials, etc. They did the same with the R4/5/6/7 -- all based on the Minolta XD-11 -- with various changes. But they all used the same electronic Copal shutter -- which was manufactured by Minolta -- and that doesn't mean that they didn't use lots of other body parts made by Minolta as well.

That should not be a surprise. At the same time, Zeiss was having several of its Zeiss-designed T* lenses manufactured in the Tomioka (AKA, Yashica) lens factory in Japan. Those lenses are also engraved "MADE IN JAPAN".

I don't believe there was any more collaboration with Minolta from R5 on. None of the R series feel like Minolta XD, feel much more refined. All I read about was Leica taking things completely into their own hands when R4 was having too much "recall" value, and in fact moving production back to Germany from Portugal (at the time it actually still meant something). I understand Leica was putting in updates over Minolta's XD from the get go also.

 

[Hassasin]

Copal in any case became the industry standard for SLR shutters, didn't they ?

Anyone who has used the R4/5/6/7 as well as Minolta XD7/11 knows that the Leica bodies are more solidly built, have nicer-feeling controls, more durable finish ( eg. the body-blackening ) and a quieter shutter with some recoil-compensation. It's just a shame that the electronics can fail in time , I think the R7 is worst on this, the contacts ( or maybe circuit ) under the shutter dial & metering selector start to fail. R6 will be different of course, you can see that from the s/h price !

I have R4 v.2//5//6//7, and not once have I had any electronic issues. In fact I am not aware electronics have been unreliable after that R4 v.1. Maybe just a lucky guy I am

 

[Mark J]

I have worn out an R7, but maybe I need to read-up more on the others. Repairers are now very scarce and the parts need to be scavenged from other bodies. However it may be that the faults only come with long usage, rather than the passage of time. There are lots of lightly-used R bodies out there, going down in price all the time.

 

[Mark J]

ps. I love the R7, the ± stops zone meter and the half-stops on the shutter dial are a real boon to fast (manual) usage as I was, then, using slide film.

 

[RJ-]

Over the years I have build up an extensive collection of Pentax SMC (first bajonet mount) lenses, Pentax F lenses, Pentax FA Limited lenses and Hexanons. I am very pleased with them and with the camera's as well. But every once in a while I read or hear a raving review about Leica R lenses. The general consensus seems to be that the R camera's are decent, but the R lenses are truly spectacular. Perhaps overpriced, but nevertheless spectacular.

Never ever had any experience with Leica, I sometimes wonder .... what am I missing?

Does someone with first hand knowledge has any thoughts to share?

I work with both the Leica R system and the Contax (Kyocera/Yashica) Zeiss lenses. We share some of these (but we don't advertise this lol) in our public darkroom so I can offer some student feedback.

Perhaps the German optics is what you may be missing out on since the glass which you've described using is Japanese (mostly Hoya) glass; whether it's specifically Leica R glass is another level.

Both Contax S2/S2b manual cameras and the Leica R6.2 are well beyond mere 'decent' cameras. Nothing in the Pentax chassis stable other than the LX will come close to either. We still keep a Pentax Spotmatic for the students and they are always amazed at the Takumar SMCs and the poetic images which the Pentax lenses bring out. Only one of our students has touched a Leica R6.2 with a 80mm Summilux f1.4 lens for her A level college portfolio and was stunned by it. She was fortunate to get a hold of it when one of our battery operated SLRs packed up despite new batteries, needing a mid-roll film change. The R6.2 was rather heavy for her hands and she preferred the smaller Contax cameras like the S2 and the Aria eventually. Other photographers just use the Spotmatic with standard 50/1.7 and the 1970s solidity is a pleasing balance however amazing the Leica R6.2 feels. I don't care for anything automated and thus we have a very limited range of battery dependent cameras. Dampening of the Leica lenses; the build, the weight all feel hefty and substantially superior to the Contax Zeiss build which is outstanding for the students compared to the Pentax glass and rather worn barrels.

Overall, the myth around the Leica brand perhaps is unhelpful; particularly for film photographers discovering Leica R glass way too late in this current climate. I still use the Leica R system for its lenses - particularly 2 lenses: the Leica Elmarit-R 19mm f2.8 (v1 or v2) and the Summicron-R 35mm f2.0 (v1 & v2) - both are peerless lenses. Everything about them - build; its size, its form factor, its optics and its rendering. It's just enough to melt for.

As an SLR comparson, the Contax C/Y Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 is optically brilliant but completely of the wrong ergonomics and rather unbearable as a regular lens to carry. I relinquished my 21/2.8 and settled for the Leica R 19/2.8 which is less than half the length of the Zeiss. The cost of the 19/2.8 now isn't really worth considering for a film photographer ~ that boat has sailed and if you're not on it, it's probably worth learning to forget. Similarly - the Summicron 35mm f2.0 has such a fantastic focus shift (on SLR this is visible; on rangefinder it is appalling to work with) across the field effect as a landscape lens. The size of the lens is similar to a Contax C/Y 35/2.8 for the extra stop which is indispensible. Whereas the Contax C/Y 35/2.8 was designed as a lightweight mountaineering friendly lens, its plastic barrel suffers significantly over the decades beyond its market intended use. The Leica Summicron 35/2 has such a robust construction it's no surprise to see these distinctive lenses retain their appeal.

When it comes to the 50mm Summicron-Rs and 50mm Summilux-R lenses, I can't say I notice anything outstanding about these Leica R lenses. The Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 and 50/1.7 perhaps I prefer for their stronger contrast and T* coating. The Leica Elmarit-R 60/2.8 shares the same outstanding field correction and incredible MTF and real life usage as the Zeiss 60/2.8. For the 85mm short portrait lens comparison, the Leica Summilux-R is shorter at 80mm f1.4 compared to the Contax Zeiss C/Y 85/1.4. Neither are 'better' than the other. The Leica 80/1.4 unfortunately happens to cost about 4x more than the Contax 85/1.4. Leica R 135mm lenses are prone to delamination (don't ask why - but the problem comes up disproportionately more) for their age. The Apo- versions of the longer 100mm+ Leica R lenses are outstanding but harder worth the cost now. Some of their focal lengths, like the 180mm f2.8, outclass the way older designs of the Zeiss Olympia 1970s derived Sonnar 180/2.8.

As a mostly wide-angle photographer, the Leica-R 19mm Elmarit-R f2.8 and the Summicron-R 35/2 lenses are really stunning to the point of feeling excited about film photography all over again. The Leica-R Super Angulon 21/4 was designed by Schneider Kreuznach of Germany, whose optical advances in the ultra-wide angle field is second to none, particularly in large format photography. Its design is easier to use than the Contax C/Y 18/4 lens with its rather unusual front element filter although the lens suffers in most areas compared to the Contax C/Y 21/2.8 Distagon. In terms of semi-fisheyes, the Leica R 15mm f2.8 I've never tried however this is going to be the spectacular lens for denting the wallet. I use the Zeiss Distagon 16/2.8 which is better than a 3rd party wide angle lens or anything from Yashica (Japan) and enough to repel anyone who doesn't enjoy semi-rectilinear imaging. The optical design of the Leica-R 16/2.8 shares the same heritage from Zeiss (or is that the 15mm f3.5?).

The fine points are nothing to fret over in any case. Perhaps try a Contax SLR with a Zeiss lens if you are looking for something different from the Takumars and excellent Hexanons. If not, taking more images with the lenses and looking beyond the labels and manufacturer - which the students who use film in our darkroom do - puts the camera brands into relief.

Kind regards

 

[Patrick Robert James]

All manufacturers made fantastic glass. Some made more than others. Some cameras were better than others. Konica is a good example of crap cameras with good lenses for example. Is a Leica lens really that much better than any other? Not really. In the history of photography more great images were made with practically everything else because practically everything else was what photographers used. Way back Leicas and Rolleis were the ones to have, then Nikon came along, then Canon autofocus blew them all away. Leica is a bit of a fetish object though. Not many people go online and ask about Canon being the best.

One thing I've noticed over the years is the images from my Minolta autofocus lenses look an awful lot like a Leica image which makes a lot of sense. You can snag a Minolta with a 50 1.7 for peanuts.

I use a converted Pentax-M 50/1.4 on my M Leicas. Better lens than the Summilux. The only reason why I would use a Summilux over it would be to say I used a Summilux so I'd get more likes on Instagram, but I don't care too much about that so I keep using the Pentax.

In the end though if getting a Leica makes you enjoy photography then go ahead and do it. Life is short. I doubt you will regret it. Keep in mind though that for every person buying a Leica, there is a person selling it. What does that tell you?

 

[xkaes]

Keep in mind though that for every person buying a Leica, there is a person selling it.

Are you trying to say a Leica is a boat?

 

[Hassasin]

Keep in mind though that for every person buying a Leica, there is a person selling it

This is some as saying for every person believing earth is kind of roundish there is a person definitely saying earth is flat.

 

[Pioneer]

This is some as saying for every person believing earth is kind of roundish there is a person definitely saying earth is flat.

Wait a minute!! Are you trying to say its' NOT flat??

 

[removedacct3]

I work with both the Leica R system and the Contax (Kyocera/Yashica) Zeiss lenses. We share some of these (but we don't advertise this lol) in our public darkroom so I can offer some student feedback.

Perhaps the German optics is what you may be missing out on since the glass which you've described using is Japanese (mostly Hoya) glass; whether it's specifically Leica R glass is another level.

Thank you, thank you very much for this extensive contribution! Very helpful!

One of the supposed qualities of Leica R lenses would be the contrast and sharpness at full aperture. Compared to others, significantly more contrasty and also sharper. Can you say something about that?

... Konica is a good example of crap cameras with good lenses for example. ...

Like some other members of the forum (Hello Pioneer!), I am also afraid that my LX camera will one day be permanently broken. I have two of them. Fingers crossed that it will take a long time before they give up the ghost. While looking for an all-mechanical alternative, besides de MX, I came across Konica and their famous line of Hexanons. When I look at the T3N and MX side by side, it is a no-brainer which one I like best. The shooting experience of the MX with its impressive viewfinder is unsurpassed. Internet wisdom tells me that the MX will last a long time, but I am sure that the T3N will outlive them all. Not a crappy camera at all. Quite the opposite I would say. Big and heavy, but with a very gentle feel to it. That thing is something special. But I agree with you, the difference between a T3N and its successor the T4 is night and day.

Like many others here, I also feel that I only need one more lens to complete my collection. This fool is saving up for a Hexanon 57mm 1.2. Internet rumors have it ... wide open it is sharp and contrasty.

 

[xkaes]

This fool is saving up for a Hexanon 57mm 1.2. Internet rumors have it ...

"Rumor have it". That's all they are. It's just as good as my Rokkor 58mm f1.2 or other f1.2 lenses. They are the same at f1.2 compared to other f1.2 lenses, but are softer than at f2.0, or f4.0. Take a course in optics.