Leica R - what am I missing?

[Pioneer]

"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.

Ahh, fast lenses are great fun. I don't know if the Hexanon is any better or worse but I know that my SMC Pentax A 50/1.2 is a hoot.

One thing about fast lenses, if you don't pay too much to start with you can almost always get your money back when you sell them on later.

 

[GregY]

The beauty of any of these 35mm SLRs is they're still reasonably priced in comparison with medium format cameras like the Mamiya 6MF, Plaubel Makina, or Rolleiflex 2.8F.....

 

[Sirius Glass]

The beauty of any of these 35mm SLRs is they're still reasonably priced in comparison with medium format cameras like the Mamiya 6MF, Plaubel Makina, or Rolleiflex 2.8F.....

Oh, come on, you left out Hasselblad! How could you?!?! For shame!

 

[Mark J]

Ha ! Good luck finding a course in optics that would educate you in the subtle differences between 1970's photographic lenses. That's what forums are for !

edit : sorry this was a reply to xkaes

 

[xkaes]

Ha ! Good luck finding a course in optics that would educate you in the subtle differences between 1970's photographic lenses. That's what forums are for !

edit : sorry this was a reply to xkaes

Mine certainly did -- not by examining f1.2 lenses, but by explaining how optics work. And if a course is not available, there are great books on optics, like "The Photographic Lens", by Sidney Ray, and others. Sure, you can try THIS or that FORUM, but you end up with 100 opinions. Make that a thousand and one.

 

[Mark J]

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 ....

More brain-dump from my experience :
The 19mm f/2.8 II suffers from corner vignetting even at f/8. We had one on loan from Leica ( swap ) while at Oberkochen in 1998. From careful inspection it seemed to be from the internal filter-holder aperture. This is a great shame, because in all other respects this lens is great and a major step up from the Type I . It is a lens that was up to current MTF/contrast standards when released. If you don't shoot slide film then it's probably acceptable.

On the 35's, I've owned late-model versions of both the 35/2.8 and the 35/2. Though the f/2 was useful and nicely contrasty, I found the f/2.8 superior, mostly in sharpness in the field, and this is borne out also in tests we did at the time. I sold the 35/2 for twice the amount I had paid for it, recently ! Neither of these lenses is as good as the superb Zeiss ZE/ZF 35 f/2 that came out in the early 2000's . I also have a 35/1.4 early-90's which is being prepared for sale ( stupid money, cannot be retained ! ) . This was the best of its bunch at the time but stopped-down, the 35/2.8 is still slightly better in the field.

The Leica 21mm f/4 Super Angulon retrofocus was designed by Walter Woltche , who later worked at Oberkochen and designed the anniversary 55mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 lenses for Contax, amongst many other designs. He was a superb lens designer and a very amusing and generous man. The 21 was a great lens at the time, but suffers from lateral colour in the field and would be outclassed in sharpness by most modern lenses. I have also owned a copy of the 19mm Type 1, and this was bigger but similar in correction, quite a bit of colour off-axis, but it was pretty impressive at f/2.8 considering its vintage.
ps. I think the Leica 21/4 was better than the Zeiss 18/4 which really had a LOT of off-axis colour.
The Contax 21/2.8 by Schuster was a massive step up from these early designs and used many elements of anomalous-dispersion glass to cure secondary-lateral colour. It is the sharpest lens I ever tested using my own film-based tests with sector targets, back in the 90's. I also had the pleasure of using Schuster's PC-ApoDist 25mm f/3.5 which was even more over-the-top in construction and was critically sharp across the frame already at f/3.5. Don't spend any time on EBay searching for one of these - there is only one in Oberkochen, and one floating around somewhere in Japan, which belonged to Kyocera.

The Leica 15mm f/2.8 is not a semi-fisheye. It is a rectilinear wide angle, though it may have 3% distortion, this would be typical of lenses in this class.

Talking about Fisheye 16mm f/2.8's , I have just remembered that this was also a Minolta design ( D'Oh ! ) that was built to better standards, with better coatings, by Leica. Silly me .

 

[Xylo]

It's a bit funny because to me Leica gear is a bit like the monolith in "2001: A Space Odyssey". When you look at it, you simply don't get it. But when you get your hands on one, then you understand why some people swear by them.

 

[cullah]

If I had them money and wanted top of the line lens, I would get a working Swiss Alpa 11e, and Alpa certited lens. Alpa did not make lens, they used the best lens on the market, tested and tweaked as needed to meet their standards.

 

[Mark J]

It's a bit funny because to me Leica gear is a bit like the monolith in "2001: A Space Odyssey". When you look at it, you simply don't get it. But when you get your hands on one, then you understand why some people swear by them.

You are dead right, and what a nice analogy. Anyone who enjoys fine equipment and has a few dollars/quid to spend should buy an R5 and something like a 35/2.8, and get to see how nice these cameras are.
The R7, that I have had to sideline, has been in and out of a cordura bag and a rucksack for 20+ years, and the black chrome has not worn off the corners.

 

[xkaes]

I have Leica SLRs and lenses -- on the cheap -- a Minolta XE-7 and XD-11. Throw in a Rokkor-X 70-210mm, 35-70mm, 24mm & 16mm and I'm all set.

 

[blee1996]

The two SLRs I use most are Nikon FA and Leica R5. For Nikon FA, I pair with 50/1.2 and 35/1.4. For Leica R5, I go with 60/2.8 macro. If I can afford 50/1.4 and 35/1.4 in Leica-R mount, I would have been only using the Leica R5.

I have used almost every brand's 35mm SLR, including the Minolta XD-11. You just have to use it to appreciate the fine details of R5 over XD-12. For not much money.

 

[Mark J]

I love the Minolta kit, it was the first system I really bought into, after Zenith and Yashica. I had the XD7 ( = XD11 ) and a 35-70 / 3.5 MD, then maybe it was a 35/2.8 MD, then both MD and MC 24/2.8's, I had the 58/1.2 MC already as a student in '87, then later the 85/1.7 MC, 100/2.5MC, and the MD 135/2.8. I still have the faster lenses and a late 300/4.5 ( must sell ! ).
Then I bought an R4s Mod2 in 1994 and everything changed and I got into the Leica kit ( but meanwhile from 1988, also 6x9 cm gear for B&W as well ) .

Nikon, I have always respected from the sidelines ( their wide-angles were ahead of the curve in the '70's ) but never liked the backwards focusing and bayonet, which is very hard to deal with if you use any other SLR's and MF gear.

 

[GregY]

Oh, come on, you left out Hasselblad! How could you?!?! For shame!

Superwide C prices seem like a bargain.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Superwide C prices seem like a bargain.

The C, CF and later versions are worth it.

 

[GregY]

The C, CF and later versions are worth it.

No question. All the Hasselblads seem like a good deal compared to Fuji GF670.....only the Hasselblad Xpan/ Fuji TX-1 is priced sky high

 

[Sirius Glass]

No question. All the Hasselblads seem like a good deal compared to Fuji GF670.....only the Hasselblad Xpan/ Fuji TX-1 is priced sky high

I agree. I did not by the XPAN early enough and now there are parts and service problems for them.

 

[RJ-]

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?

Hi ~ you're welcome.

The Leica R series lens development stopped abruptly; it is more likely that digital optics are sharper than these period traditional 1970s - 1990s Leica-R SLR lenses.

Some film photographers see this as a disadvantage and try to justify disparaging Leica R lenses by commentary on their relative lack of sharpness wide open....however every photographer who doesn't shoot on a Leica R seems to hold an opinion already... The cine videographers in this respect, are truer heirs to these lenses in appreciating their vintage optic characteristics.

Contrast at full aperture of most of the last generation of the Leica R-Summicron (f2s) and Summiluxes are all inferior to the later advanced generation Leica M mount lenses. These M mount lenses like the 35/2 Summicron Aspherical far surpass the Leica R SLR mounts. The micro-contrast of the R lenses are very interesting particularly for their age. Over the years, I've found the vintage Leica R lenses and more subtle multicoatings more appealing than Zeiss T* coatings however this is no different than say using a 150 year old Voigtlander Heliar lens and adoring the draw of the lens versus using a modern Otus lens, technically correct and optically sterile.

Here's my ex-35/2 M Asph. It is clinical sharp and high contrast at f2. I found it unbearably clinical and was so relieved to get rid of it despite its rarity as a LTM/M version. Its contrast is higher and the sharpness across the field of the image far 'superior'. It is an example of the very lens I would never wish for again. It is an example of the very lens which technical paper reading photographers adore.

The Contax lenses have more contrast and pop in colour slides and their T* coating is unrivalled. The subtle hues of the Leica R glass and its definite vintage classic coloration appeal a lot. Either stable stands out from the masses of sharp contrasty lenses flooding the photographic market these days. Other Japanese makers using Hoya glass make excellent coatings (like Fuj's Electron Beam Coatings). Perhaps I wouldn't take the view that contrast or sharpness should determine a leap into the Leica R stable. If anything, these are values which suggest looking the other way

 

[Xylo]

It is clinical sharp and high contrast at f2

That's pretty much why some people now put black mist filters in front of their modern DSLR lenses...

 

[Pioneer]

That's pretty much why some people now put black mist filters in front of their modern DSLR lenses...

Interesting. Soft filters have been around quite awhile. I bought a Pentax Spotmatic with a Takumar 50/1.4 lens a couple of years ago that had a Soft image filter on it. I don't know but I suspect that filter is at least as old as the lens on the camera.

 

[removedacct3]

Some film photographers see this as a disadvantage and try to justify disparaging Leica R lenses by commentary on their relative lack of sharpness wide open....however every photographer who doesn't shoot on a Leica R seems to hold an opinion already... The cine videographers in this respect, are truer heirs to these lenses in appreciating their vintage optic characteristics.

My initial motivation to inquire about Leica R lenses was the exact opposite: the R lenses are considered sharp and contrasty wide open. Not only during the heyday of film photography, but even today.

What I did not know yet, but which has now been emphasized several times in this discussion, is that the prices of R lenses are partly the result of filmmakers having the lenses converted. That's new to me.

 

[Mark J]

I'm guessing that the cine people like them partly for their precise and fairly heavy-duty construction ?
Also, judging by those with massive price hikes, it looks like it's the fast ones that are mostly in demand - 35 f/2, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4 E60 , 80 f/1.4 late models ... and probably a few more. So I guess it's also a Bokeh thing ?
On the other hand if you look at a lens like the Apo 80-200/4 ROM, which is optical more or less perfect to modern standards, the price is only £700 on EBay and still dropping.

 

[Xylo]

Interesting. Soft filters have been around quite awhile.

I know, but the black mist filter is a bit different as it doesn't bleach out the image like other soft filters do.
There's also a company that makes what looks like a step-up ring with holes around it. It's intended for the user to string bailing wires from hole to hole in order to disrupt the light path and flare characteristics of the lens. Light just bounces on the shiny metal wires. They say it's great for portraits.

 

[RJ-]

My initial motivation to inquire about Leica R lenses was the exact opposite: the R lenses are considered sharp and contrasty wide open. Not only during the heyday of film photography, but even today.

What I did not know yet, but which has now been emphasized several times in this discussion, is that the prices of R lenses are partly the result of filmmakers having the lenses converted. That's new to me.

The Leica R lenses were certainly marketed as at the top of the 'sharp' range in the 1970s - 90's SLR lenses by Leica. By comparison to the apochromatic and low dispersion glass innovations, particularly for Japanese SLR lenses, the Leica R lenses aren't particularly far out in front of the field. They are 'sharp' (high definition, high resolution at the corners for the most part) but not that many Leica R photographers care - it has way more than this to offer

This kind of 'sharpness' criteria thinking is as flawed as the 1866 rectilinear lens design, wiping out many niche optic variations. Sharpness as a gross assumption (it is nice now and then..), does not reflect how we see, nor does it reflect why the Leica R lenses are sought by cine photographers.

Digital cinemakers value the Leica R lenses not for one or other mere technical feature: - not sharpness; nor edge correction, nor colour alone. In a mass market of many sharp lens choices, the subtlety of the colour hues; the way the lens flares and the 3-dimensional draw for motion subjects takes on a foremost priority. The bokeh may very well be in there but again - it's not a reduction to one or other characteristic. There are many bokeh lenses way superior to Leica R lenses, just as there are 'sharp' lenses.

Nor do Leica R lenses value hypersaturated colours nor sharp edge to edge definition: these values are the way of the mass market. Nor is the build quality of the Leica R lenses which digital cine makers go for: all too often; cine video makers destroy the aperture blades by declicking the aperture to make it silent during aperture draws to avoid jarring steps during fade outs; many use electronic motor driven gear changes to drive the focus for the lens helicoid which grinds the helicoids to their death. The front element rings are all too often hijacked with matte boxes and overhead shades and hoods and the rear mounts adapted for L, EF, Arri cine mounts and butchered beyond the original Leica R bayonet since adapters involve a degree of play. The more successful ones like the Simmod modification (USA) and specialist optics (London/UK) raise the cost of these lenses dramatiaclly.. It would take a brave film photographer to even want to own a post-cine modified Leica R lens - it may not focus to infinity; the helicoid may be loose; the aperture blades fall apart when turned to f16 or stuck. It's imperative to check the Leica R lens history - if it comes from a film photographer it is less likely to be butchered or dismantled. This is one reason why the original non-modified film Leica-R lenses are high in demand: the number of existing quality vintage Leica R lenses is shrinking and they are no longer in production, nor are they being reproduced by TT Artisans and the like. They are becoming rare and discontinued.

These non-photographic factors sadly come in to why the Leica R lenses has a lot of attention beyond its small user group/cult following.

 

[xkaes]

There's also a company that makes what looks like a step-up ring with holes around it. It's intended for the user to string bailing wires from hole to hole in order to disrupt the light path and flare characteristics of the lens. Light just bounces on the shiny metal wires. They say it's great for portraits.

Beseler sold the same sort of thing for use under any enlarging lens -- in the filter tray. It could be used with B&W or Color -- negatives or slides -- full exposure or partial. I have one -- like undoubtedly many other Beseler users, too -- but I never have used it. They probably called it a "SOFT" something or other.

 

[Xylo]

Beseler sold the same sort of thing for use under any enlarging lens

Proof that nothing is really new these days...