Adaptall on R8?

[Calzone]

Not relevant to the issue of Adaptall mounts, but further to the comments above on R8 v\s R9.

R8 apparently had some early teething troubles, cleared up later in the production run. R9 seems not to have had any gremlins.

Electronics in a camera are always suspect. Sometimes circuit board shortcomings are discovered, like in one R, sometimes spare parts become unavailable, as with the DMR.

Lack of spare parts is bound to happen with any camera featuring integrated circuits until an enterprising soul caters to a microscopic market by making new pieces available (programmable ICs + circuit board+ mechanic).

A small, but useful difference between R8 and R9 is the unlocking button on the exposure method-wheel. It no longer moves when inadvertently touched.

Of course, even mechanical wonders can be abandoned by their makers (see the list of R-optics no longer repaired by Leitz), so, as the mechanics are more complicated, do not expect M-type longevity.

p.

P,

Thanks for the thoughtful post. You are correct that the R8 had a lot of bugs at one point, but it seems that time has filtered out the bad cameras with problems/issues. I kinda trust my R8 at this point.

Sherry informed me that Leica stopped offering repairs on M5's, SL, SL2... and somehow she acquired all the parts that Leica N.J. was excessing.

Cal

 

[mfogiel]

Elmarit 35 1st version has not been very highly regarded, but I doubt it could be so hazy. I bought the 2nd version, mainly for shooting wide open close up, where it in fact excels. Generally speaking, if I do not need to frame precisely from close distance, I prefer to use rangefinder 35mm lenses.

 

[Godfrey]

Tony,

My impression is that the Leica 24 Elmarit-R is not one of the better lenses in the R line-up. Not all Leica glass is great.

Cal

Cal, I own that lens. It's very sharp ... to the point that I can't tell all that much difference between it and the Elmarit-R 28 v2 which everyone raves about. Leica kept it in the catalog optically unchanged from 1976 to 2006 or so, where they updated nearly all the other lenses' optics at least once or twice along the way, so they must have been fairly satisfied with it.

The Elmarit-R 24mm lens design was shared with the Minolta Rokkor 24/2.8, but the Elmarit was manufactured entirely by Leica in Wetzlar. Having owned both, the Leica lens outperforms the Minolta lens by a good bit, and the Minolta lens wasn't bad either.

G

 

[Godfrey]

Damn I wanted Leica and I've received Holga...

It looks like this Elmarit-R 35/2.8 was dismantled for some reason and not re-assembled correctly. Or ... does it have a filter on it by any chance? It shouldn't be this bad.

My R 35mm lens is the Summicron-R 35mm f/2 ... It's an outstanding performer but a bit on the pricey side.

G

 

[Calzone]

Cal, I own that lens. It's very sharp ... to the point that I can't tell all that much difference between it and the Elmarit-R 28 v2 which everyone raves about. Leica kept it in the catalog optically unchanged from 1976 to 2006 or so, where they updated nearly all the other lenses' optics at least once or twice along the way, so they must have been fairly satisfied with it.

The Elmarit-R 24mm lens design was shared with the Minolta Rokkor 24/2.8, but the Elmarit was manufactured entirely by Leica in Wetzlar. Having owned both, the Leica lens outperforms the Minolta lens by a good bit, and the Minolta lens wasn't bad either.

G

Godfrey,

Thanks for the information as always. I went on the assumption that the low prices on the 24 Elmarit...

The prices on the 28 Elmarit-R are very steep because of rarity do you think?

Is the low cost of the 24 Elmarit-R due to abundant supply and the very long production run you mentioned?

Hmmm.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

Elmarit 35 1st version has not been very highly regarded, but I doubt it could be so hazy. I bought the 2nd version, mainly for shooting wide open close up, where it in fact excels. Generally speaking, if I do not need to frame precisely from close distance, I prefer to use rangefinder 35mm lenses.

First version was low contrast. It is the second and third versions that are reported to be good (same optics in V2 and V3: version 2 detachable hood; version 3 built in hood).

Cal

 

[jbielikowski]

It looks like this Elmarit-R 35/2.8 was dismantled for some reason and not re-assembled correctly. Or ... does it have a filter on it by any chance? It shouldn't be this bad.

My R 35mm lens is the Summicron-R 35mm f/2 ... It's an outstanding performer but a bit on the pricey side.

G

It is worn on the barrel, but glass is clean, and there are no signs of tinkering on the screws. And IQ is perfect on close to middle distance. Good thing it's leicashop vienna item, not a random evilbay scammer.

 

[Godfrey]

Thanks for the information as always. I went on the assumption that the low prices on the 24 Elmarit...

The prices on the 28 Elmarit-R are very steep because of rarity do you think?

Is the low cost of the 24 Elmarit-R due to abundant supply and the very long production run you mentioned?

I think some of the Leica "purists" were offended that Leica would use a Minolta lens design and, mistakenly, thought that Minolta was manufacturing the lens as well. Most of the "bad" reputation probably came out of that stuff.

Then there is the "Puts Effect" ... Erwin Puts in at least one article I recall rambled on in his inimitable way about how wonderful the 28mm v2 was compared to the 24mm even if when you look at test charts and pictures taken with the two lenses, the differences are so small as to be virtually machine-identifiable-only. Of course, Erwin's usual thing is to make the differences between lenses he likes and lenses he doesn't like sound like a mile, even if the one he doesn't like is still in the 99.9% best of every other lens manufacturer in the world. ;-)

And yes: I think the fact that Leica produced a lot of the 24s over a very long period of time (1974-2006, somewhat less than 20,200 lenses compared to 1993-2009 and 3,700+ v2 Elmarit-R 28s) means that R24 lens prices are kept in check by availability and R28v2 lens prices are boosted by rarity. The Elmarit-R 28mm v1 was made in much greater numbers (around 50,000 units, from 1970 to 1992) but it's not the one that has the superlative reputation; it has some easily recognized problems that the R24 and R28v2 do not have.

(Data from the Leica Wiki : http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Main_Page )

 

[Godfrey]

It is worn on the barrel, but glass is clean, and there are no signs of tinkering on the screws. And IQ is perfect on close to middle distance. Good thing it's leicashop vienna item, not a random evilbay scammer.

Well, I'd talk to them about it.

(Half of my R lenses came from sellers through Ebay, the other half from respected local and internet dealers. I've had no problems with any of them. Most Ebay sellers are honest, normal people. I sell a lot of gear via Ebay too. )

G

 

[jbielikowski]

Well, I'd talk to them about it.

(Half of my R lenses came from sellers through Ebay, the other half from respected local and internet dealers. I've had no problems with any of them. Most Ebay sellers are honest, normal people. I sell a lot of gear via Ebay too. )

G

Thats why I'm not very worried about it, too bad I have whole weekend of waiting for the reply.

 

[mfogiel]

If you are looking for a solid 35/2.8, then the CY Distagon 35/2.8 comes to my mind. I have used this lens on some cheap Yashica body during my dark years, when I did not have a darkroom and photo printers were not invented yet. It was great for the slides. Today, you can buy it with some good Contax body for little money. Alternative would be the Distagon 35/2 ZF, which is a great lens, albeit has more distortion than the RF Biogon. It focuses very close, about 15cm from the front element. The main drawback is the size.

 

[Calzone]

I think some of the Leica "purists" were offended that Leica would use a Minolta lens design and, mistakenly, thought that Minolta was manufacturing the lens as well. Most of the "bad" reputation probably came out of that stuff.

Then there is the "Puts Effect" ... Erwin Puts in at least one article I recall rambled on in his inimitable way about how wonderful the 28mm v2 was compared to the 24mm even if when you look at test charts and pictures taken with the two lenses, the differences are so small as to be virtually machine-identifiable-only. Of course, Erwin's usual thing is to make the differences between lenses he likes and lenses he doesn't like sound like a mile, even if the one he doesn't like is still in the 99.9% best of every other lens manufacturer in the world. ;-)

And yes: I think the fact that Leica produced a lot of the 24s over a very long period of time (1974-2006, somewhat less than 20,200 lenses compared to 1993-2009 and 3,700+ v2 Elmarit-R 28s) means that R24 lens prices are kept in check by availability and R28v2 lens prices are boosted by rarity. The Elmarit-R 28mm v1 was made in much greater numbers (around 50,000 units, from 1970 to 1992) but it's not the one that has the superlative reputation; it has some easily recognized problems that the R24 and R28v2 do not have.

(Data from the Leica Wiki : http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Main_Page )

Godfrey,

Thanks for the thoughtful post. This is very very helpful since I like 24mm FOV as well as 28. I owe you big time.

Cal

 

[jbielikowski]

Update- I snapped cheap 28/2.5 Tamron BBAR and A2 adapter, lens does mount properly but it won't stop down past f/5.6 and at full aperture metering shows f/1.7 so it could be used in AE with +1ev compensation. Not bad for less than 40euro but far from perfect.