A Leica R just for the glass?

N

nightfly

Well-known
Local time
6:01 AM
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
1,986
I'm a pretty happy Leica M user but I keep seeing Leica R glass used for ridiculously low prices. Don't know much about them but just perusing used ads it seems like you could pick up an R4 relatively cheap.

I know the early R4s are supposed to be crappy but the later ones are OK (after what year or serial number?) Anyone have any thoughts on this? I don't need another camera but the glass is pretty much the same right? How much louder and more cumbersome is an R? Would it compliment an M pretty well or are they basically just mediocre SLRs? I guess an R6 would be better but then you are getting into real money and the bargain nature of it sorta goes away.
 
I have an R4 with a 50 Summicron. It's by far the best lens I own. I wish I had a comparable lens for my M cameras. With the exception of a 40 Rokkor, which is a wonderful lens, a CV 25, and formerly a CV 40, all of my M lenses are a little older (early 50's to early 60's). My R 50 Summicron produces nicer prints to my eyes. I rarely use my R4 anymore though, because I prefer the rangefinders. I intend to search for a long lens for the R4 in the near future so that I can more easily take photos of my children playing sports. This is one area where I find the SLR more appropriate. I have had no problems with my R4, it's not a late one nor an early serial number. If you discount the pentaprism, the body is the size of an M2. Of course, the lens diameter is quite larger than an M lens. Anyhow, my two cents. Good camera, great glass, excellent value if you're looking for good end results and don't have to, or can't, shoot with a rangefinder.
 
R6 and later have better mirror dampening so you get sharper pics. There are no well known serious issues with R6 and later cameras unless you require autofocus.

R glass is as good as comparable M glass. The 35 2.0 needs updating. 21 4.0 replaced by 19 and is better. 24 yuck. 21/35 35/70 70/210 80/200 new 50 1.4 60 2.8 and any apo lens are fantastic lenses.

I suspect a digi R is on the way and lens prices will go up.
 
Probably will resist the R as I prefer my M-4P it's just that all the glass is so damn cheap comparatively. It's like CV glass on an M = Leica glass on an R.
 
If you have a Canon EOS SLR or DSLR, you can use Leica R glass with an adapter. There are now adapters that allow the Canon body to provide AF confirmation through an audible beep and an indicator in the viewfinder.

I've picked up a 90mm Summicron-R and am also looking for a 50 Summicron or Summilux for my Canon 5D.

However there are some issues with certain body/lens combinations as the mirror may hit the rear of the lens.
 
Only SLR I own currently is a Pentax MX. No desire for another one really, especially not a giant Canon. Probably just save my pennies for some Leica glass for my M. The new 28mm Elmarit is small and "only" $1500. Compare that to an R4 for $200-300 and a used 28mm Elmarit for like $400-500. Even used Elmarits for an M are like $800-1200. At those prices a new one is looking good.
 
This is a very broad generalization, but most of the R lenses arent not quite as good as the equivalent M lenses due to the construction limitations that an SLR brings. Having said that, they are still great lenses and they are availble cheap.

See my R Lens Price Guide here:

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/b.htm

Dan
 
I owned an SL2/MOT once, traded it for a 21/2.8 demo elm-something. The SL2 will take just about every lens and is a great user. The Leica reflex line was never earth shattering, but most are solid cameras with great glass.

Depending upon what you look for in a lens, you might find better lenses in the Nikon or Canon (just a guess on Canon) lines. There is something to the Leica lens look though that I do not think you will find anywhere else.

B2 (;->
 
The best of the current R lenses are as expensive or moreso than the M lenses. The R telephotos are better in some cases. The 100mm APO is astoundingly good, as are the 180mm f/2 and 180mm f/2.8 APO. The 280mm f/4 is considered by many to be the best lens that Leica makes. On the wide end, the 19mm is truly excellent. The latest zooms are great too. I have been using the 28-90mm on the DMR and it has been my most used lens even though I have a few primes. It is just a superb performer. All that said, I would say that in the normal lens range, the M lenses are better. The 35/1.4 ASPH is better than the 35/1.4 R, the 50mm lenses are better on the M, though the latest E60 50mm Summilux is really nice. The 75mm lenses are better than the 80mm summilux, and I would imagine the 90s are basically the same, though I don't have any for either the M or R. Overall, I don't think the R system is a great bargain unless you stick to the older lenses and are only comparing with the M system's older lenses.
 
StuartR said:
The best of the current R lenses are as expensive or moreso than the M lenses. The R telephotos are better in some cases. The 100mm APO is astoundingly good, as are the 180mm f/2 and 180mm f/2.8 APO. The 280mm f/4 is considered by many to be the best lens that Leica makes. On the wide end, the 19mm is truly excellent. The latest zooms are great too. I have been using the 28-90mm on the DMR and it has been my most used lens even though I have a few primes. It is just a superb performer. All that said, I would say that in the normal lens range, the M lenses are better. The 35/1.4 ASPH is better than the 35/1.4 R, the 50mm lenses are better on the M, though the latest E60 50mm Summilux is really nice. The 75mm lenses are better than the 80mm summilux, and I would imagine the 90s are basically the same, though I don't have any for either the M or R. Overall, I don't think the R system is a great bargain unless you stick to the older lenses and are only comparing with the M system's older lenses.
Click to expand...

In general you are 100% right, with two exceptions. The 100 Apo MacroR, which long held the distinction of being the best lens in its focal length group is getting a bit long in tooth and has been surpassed by the Apo 135/3.4 M, not to mention the Apo Summicron M 2.0/90 and the Summilux 80R is exactly the same design as the Summilux 75M with identical quality and fingerprint.

Btw I have been using R4, R5 and R7 for a long time in the past and there is no reason to describe the R4 as crappy. The only thing one can say is that the viewfinder layout and LEDS are a bit dated and that the evolution in electronics shows, especially in flash control, but basically there is little to set these cameras apart. The unloved RE (why? the reviewers stupidly wrote it into the ground - where have we seen that before ;))is another great choice.
 
Last edited:
Jaapv, perhaps I had a bad sample, because when I borrowed the 80mm summilux, it looked much worse than my 75mm summilux. Perhaps it is the difference in being able to handhold it better on the M. As for the 100mm apo macro, even if it has been around for awhile, I much prefer its general character to the 90/2 APO ASPH. I have yet to see a shot from the 100 that is technically bad. It has gorgeous bokeh, astonishing sharpness and great resistance to flare. Add to that the fact that it focuses to 1:2 without any adapters and it is a dynamite lens.

Here's a shot with it:

yellow-leaf.jpg


100% crop (DMR)

yellow-leaf-crop.jpg


foggy-sun.jpg
 
This thread seems to have a lot of expertise on the non-M Leicas, so I will ask - would anyone have an idea where to find a diopter piece for the Leicaflex SL? I have a Canon diopter on the way, they say it can be made to fit the SL but I am still hoping to find the real thing (-2 or -3).
 
You might try Don Goldberg, or maybe ritzcam.com or KEH.

My Leica SLRs are an SL and an SL2, and several of the most commonplace 2 cam lenses (contemporary with the bodies, and a generation or two removed from current). Very fine quality, as you'd expect. Seeing the results of that 100 APO macro makes me want one, but those are real money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom