Are the super wide R lenses the "sleepers" of the Leica line?

V

Vickko

Veteran
Local time
6:25 AM
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
2,827
Are the super wide R lenses the "sleepers" of the Leica line?

Are they good? Better than their M equivalents?

ie:
15/2.8 R
15/3.5 R
19/2.8 R
24/2.8 R
28/2.8 R

...Vick
 
swoop said:
By nature no wide SLR lens is better than a rangefinder equivalent.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if that is necessarily true. Engineers seem to be able to make up for the larger register distance with larger designs and better coatings. Also is sharpness and distortion your only criteria for measuring 'better' on a lens?
 
Mister E said:
I'm not sure if that is necessarily true. Engineers seem to be able to make up for the larger register distance with larger designs and better coatings. Also is sharpness and distortion your only criteria for measuring 'better' on a lens?
Click to expand...

ok, so SLR wide angle lenses are better due to computer aided design. Sell your Leica and buy them all. And a sack to carry them in.
 
Last edited:
To answer the OP's question, I'll agree with swoop and say none of those are better than anything out there for m-mount right now. They probably never were better.
 
Some of them might have nicer rendering than some or most of the M lenses. The R 35 Summicron was fairly well known for its signature.
 
parsec1 said:
Basic Physics .
Click to expand...

Lenses designed for short flange-to-film distances are usually better, true.

But your comment reminds me of the old joke about a physicist describing an elephant. "First, we assume that the elephant is spherical..."

It does not follow that the whole imaging chain for short-flange mirrorless systems necessarily produces better final images. That depends on the lens, but also the sensor. Highly telecentric lenses often do substantially better on digital sensors, which generally do a lot better with light hitting the sensor at high angles of incidence.

With film, these issues are generally not as dominant, and rangefinder/mirrorless lenses (at least, WA ones) have real advantages.

Once we go digital the situation is not so clear. The Kodak/Leica compromise -- and make no mistake, it's a compromise -- is to use eccentric microlenses on the M8 and M9 sensors. The result is good, but it is still not clear that an M9 with the best Leica glass is in practice a better imaging system than a hi-density FF DSLR with the best Nikon (e.g., the new 24/1.4) or Canon or ZE glass. At the least, the Leica/Kodak approach reduces the number of photons hitting the sensor, increasing shot noise and decreasing low light performance. It also introduces color shifts at the edges and corners of the image due to the interaction of oblique light rays with coatings and micro-lenses on the sensor.

The M9 and its lenses are more compact, though. I'll grant that much. And rangefinders sure are more fun to use, at least in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Actually, all of the R lenses are sleepers. The prices, considering the quality, are pretty amazing. I won't go into whether they're sharper than the M lenses or not. Trust me, they're plenty sharp enough.

I'm not a wide angle guy, so the only ones I've owned are the 50 Summicron, 90 Summicron and 90 Elmarit. All three were the best lenses I've ever used in 35mm photography.
 
Thanks

Some of the R lenses aren't so cheap. e.g. that 15mm f2.8 is $5K. A Vario-Elmarit ASPH zoom 70-180 is $4K.

But, I am glad to hear that they are excellent lenses.

....Vick
 
28`s are good. 24 is sharp withing the plane of focus. Edges suffer supposedly within the debth of field, although the center stays ok. Well known problem. 15 & 19 are good , but not outstanding.

As far a M wide that are true wide angle, not retro, like the 21 SA, the rear element is so close to the film, there is significant vignetting to F 16. I sold my new one within months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom