Leica R - what am I missing?

[removedacct3]

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?

 

[miha]

Mechanically they are all spectacular (apart of Sigma made 28-70 zoom and Minolta made 70/75/80-200/210 zooms, which are just, well, OK). I don't want to comment on how they perform optically. I have or had 28, 35, 50, 90 and 75-200, and would not want to go back to Nikon. And yes, most of them are overpriced today (but so are canon FD lenses).

 

[Nitroplait]

Quite a bit of the R lens price rise is driven by deep pocket cinematographers who can have them rehoused for cine cameras for less than what current Leica and Zeiss cine lenses cost.

I only have a few R lenses and while well made and competent optically, selected Nikon, Pentax (or other brands) lenses may well deliver equal or better results - especially if you can mix and match systems and generations.

Much of the Leica lure lies in their impressive history and that they mostly aspired to make the best possible glass at a given time with little regard for cost. We are many who wants a part of that.

 

[Paul Howell]

I was considering a R8, but the cost of a basic lens set was just too much for my pockets.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I was considering a R8, but the cost of a basic lens set was just too much for my pockets.

Every time I considered the Leica R series, the costs pushed me away. The added performance did not justify the added costs for me.

 

[blee1996]

I have quite a few Nikon lenses and a small Leica-R kit, so I have some practical yet non-scientific experience.

The Leica-R lenses I have are both 3-CAM, mostly used on Leica R5 and sometimes on Leicaflex SL. Both are "cheaper" lenses in the Leica-R lineup.
- 60/2.8 Makro
- 135/2.8

Nikkor lenses from the same era are well built and handles nicely. The Leica-R lenses have just a tad bit more premium feel to it. But optically I wouldn't be able to really tell the differences in practical use. I don't shoot USAF test charts.

Also the Leica R bodies have that little bit touch of premium feel. Both my R5 and SL are the "cheaper" bodies, but they are definitely some of the nicer camera bodies I have handled.

The following album contains all Leica-R produced images with the "cheaper lenses" and "cheaper bodies":

Leica R

Photos made by Leica R bodies and lenses, e.g. Leicaflex SL Elmarit-R 135mm f/2.8

flickr.com

 

[4season]

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

I've only had one R lens, IIRC a 3-cam 35/2.8 Elmarit-R with Series something-or-other filter threading, which I used with an R4sP body. The camera body was clearly based on a consumer-grade Minolta, but I ended up liking the combination more than expected: I liked the general size and shape (non-ratcheted film wind lever, a bit less so), and that lens had a good minimum focus distance. With the exception of one or two camera models, Minolta didn't compete directly with the the flagship Nikon and Canon bodies, but they were quite innovative in their own way, and were the originators of the Gliding Mirror System and Accu-Matte technologies which were adopted by Hasselblad.

Overall, I'd say my limited experience with the R system was an enjoyable one, though I wouldn't call it a game-changer.

 

[xkaes]

Mechanically they are all spectacular (apart of Sigma made 28-70 zoom and Minolta made 70/75/80-200/210 zooms, which are just, well, OK).

A cheap way to get some R glass is to buy Minolta Rokkor-X lenses -- admittedly you have to get a camera with a Minolta SR lens mount, but you'll save money there as well. In fact most R cameras had Minolta "guts": R3? --Minolta XE-7. R4/5/6/7? --Minolta XD-11.

Minolta sold many more lenses to Leica than the three listed above -- fixed & zoom -- such as the Minolta 24mm f2.8, 16mm f2.8 fisheye, and 35-70mm f3.5. They are all marked LENS MADE IN JAPAN, like this one, but at some point Leica "forgot" to add white paint to the engraving.

As to built quality, they are all top-notch. That's why Minolta had a five-year warranty on all of them.

When Leica sold their Elmar 80-200mm f4.5 it cost $1,200. Minolta's list price was $400 for their Rokkor. That's a stiff tab for German "quality control".

 

[Pioneer]

To be honest, I am not sure that you will find anything in the Leica R line that will meaningfully exceed your Pentax equipment. And considering the cost you may not want to do more than just talk about it.

I have a few Leica rangefinder lenses that I like but every lens manufacturer has produced a few "whoops" lenses as well as a few "wows." I can usually afford the whoops but not the wows.

At these prices I think I like my Minolta lenses a bit better.

 

[miha]

The Leica R system consists of 80 lenses, most of which were designed and made by Leica in either Germany or Canada. A few were indeed designed and/or made by Minolta (early zooms, two early wide-angles, one catadioptric lens), Schneider (early wide-angle lens), Kyocera (one or two contemporary zooms), and even Sigma (one contemporary zoom).

 

[Sirius Glass]

To be honest, I am not sure that you will find anything in the Leica R line that will meaningfully exceed your Pentax equipment. And considering the cost you may not want to do more than just talk about it.

I have a few Leica rangefinder lenses that I like but every lens manufacturer has produced a few "whoops" lenses as well as a few "wows." I can usually afford the whoops but not the wows.

At these prices I think I like my Minolta lenses a bit better.

I cannot find anything in the Leica R series that will meaningfully access my Nikon AF SLR or Hasselblads.

 

[miha]

LEICA R-System: Cameras: http://www.summilux.net/prospekt/pdf/3a_e.pdf

LEICA R-Lenses by Erwin Puts: http://www.summilux.net/perso/teiki arii/Leica_R_lenses.pdf

 

[Pioneer]

Thank you for this information and while I do enjoy reading what Erwin Puts writes, my personal experience with his material tells me that it is unlikely that he will tell us that most of the Leica R lenses are actually Minolta lenses.

But...I could be wrong.

 

[miha]

most of the Leica R lenses are actually Minolta lenses.

It's to the contrary but I guess you made up your mind already.

 

[Pioneer]

It's to the contrary but I guess you made up your mind already.

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.

 

[JensH]

...A few were indeed designed and/or made by Minolta (early zooms, two early wide-angles, one catadioptric lens), Schneider (early wide-angle lens), Kyocera (one or two contemporary zooms), and even Sigma (one contemporary zoom).

...even a Zeiss design in the 3.5/15mm.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[Xylo]

That's a stiff tab for German "quality control".

Especially when you consider that the reflex bodies were manufactured in Leica's Portuguese plant

 

[Xylo]

If I had them money and wanted top of the line lens, I would get a working Swiss Alpa 11e, and Alpa certited lens.

Or something by Angénieux.

 

[xkaes]

Especially when you consider that the reflex bodies were manufactured in Leica's Portuguese plant

And the vertical, metal, electronic shutter was designed by Copal.

 

[Xylo]

And the vertical, metal, electronic shutter was designed by Copal.

You just got to love a hodge-podge of parts that somehow works so nicely.

 

[Paul Howell]

Or something by Angénieux.

Alpa used a number of Angeineux lens, they tend to cost more than others such as Delf.

 

[Xylo]

I find it a bit sad that Angénieux stopped production so long ago. Their lenses were definitely some of the best out there at the time.

 

[Film-Niko]

Thank you for this information and while I do enjoy reading what Erwin Puts writes, my personal experience with his material tells me that it is unlikely that he will tell us that most of the Leica R lenses are actually Minolta lenses.

But...I could be wrong.

You are indeed wrong as the big majority of Leica R lenses were designed and produced by Leica themselves. Especially at the time in the 90ies when Leica developed many new, much improved (APO) lenses for the R system, there were lots of reports in European photo magazines about Leica and its production. Including detailed interviews with the Leica lens designers and factory visit reports.

 

[Film-Niko]

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?

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.