Are Leica R Lenses "Truly" comparible to M Lenses

[teddy]

This has probably been asked before, but could anyone say that Leica R lenses are truly comparable to their M lens counterpart?

Like the Collapsible Summicron 50/2, DR, V3 to their Leica counterpart Type 1 (1968) and Type 2 (1974).

My apologies if these dates are incorrect, but I believe this is an interesting question?

 

[Mudman]

I've got the 50mm v3 m and the 80's 50mm R. I'd say they're very comparable.

 

[Godfrey]

This has probably been asked before, but could anyone say that Leica R lenses are truly comparable to their M lens counterpart?

Like the Collapsible Summicron 50/2, DR, V3 to their Leica counterpart Type 1 (1968) and Type 2 (1974).

My apologies if these dates are incorrect, but I believe this is an interesting question?

Just exactly what do you mean by "truly comparable"?

All of my R lenses are superb performers, and perform as well as all of my M lenses to my eye. Some of them perform slightly differently in rendering or bokeh, or whatever, but that's the joy of it: differences in lens performance and imaging qualities are why I pick one over the other for certain uses.

G

 

[Ste_S]

Just exactly what do you mean by "truly comparable"?

All of my R lenses are superb performers, and perform as well as all of my M lenses to my eye. Some of them perform slightly differently in rendering or bokeh, or whatever, but that's the joy of it: differences in lens performance and imaging qualities are why I pick one over the other for certain uses.

G

I'd also say most lenses from the the major manufacturers are 'truly comparable' to M series lenses to most people's eyes.
I'd imagine most people wouldn't be able to pick photos shot with M glass out of a pile of photos shot with something else.

 

[leicapixie]

When the 1st Leicaflex was released, the 50mm Summicron the best, sharpest, perfect contrast was considered the best 50mm ever! see old tests..
The 35mm, the 90 and 135mm all stellar.
Large lenses compared to M-mount then..

When i printed in darkroom, i always knew it was a Leica lens..

 

[Freakscene]

The 80 R Summilux produces images that look a lot like those from the 75 M Summilux, otherwise, generally, no, they have their own look. I slightly prefer the 80 to the 75, but it’s marginal.

But apart from the S and L lenses that have all been designed in a short space of time with similar technology and targets for performance, Leica lenses are quite variable, especially across eras, but sometimes even within a given time period - especially when transitioning from traditional to aspherical and non-floating elements to floating elements designs.

Marty

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

I love the results from my 80 Summilux, the 50 and 35 Summicrons too. They seem to me to be classically Leica, but as I lack the equivalents Ms I can hardly judge. But they are my favourite SLR lenses on their own merits, which is a little irksome as there are many cheaper makers out there!

 

[Rob-F]

I agree with Freakscene. You have to consider each lens individually. There's no blanket answer that applies to all lenses. The 24mm R lens, for instance, is no the same lens as the 24mm M. The R version, a very good lens, was designed by Minolta, who also made the lens elements. Leitz made the mount, installed the glass, and did the final assembly that makes so much difference.

Get a copy of Leica lens compendium by Erwin Puts. This book discusses each lens, M and R, on its own merits. And they all have merits!

 

[Rayt]

I never compared the two. I used the M for b/w and R for color. You should try one for yourself. I recommend the cheapest R lens the 135/2.8 as the most underrated portrait lens for color.

 

[Godfrey]

I'd also say most lenses from the the major manufacturers are 'truly comparable' to M series lenses to most people's eyes.
I'd imagine most people wouldn't be able to pick photos shot with M glass out of a pile of photos shot with something else.

Again, what do you mean by "truly comparable"?

Yours is a typical statement from people who don't have Leica lenses and don't want to spend the money. Once upon a time when I said the same thing to a 50+ year old photographer when I, a very young photographer, was overjoyed with the photos my Nikon F and Nikkor lenses were making and couldn't afford Leica lenses, he said to me, "It took me 30 years of looking at photographs to finally understand why these Leica lenses were worth all the extra money. Perhaps when you've spent enough time teaching your eyes how to see, the differences will be more apparent."

He was right. 😀

G

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

I never compared the two. I used the M for b/w and R for color. You should try one for yourself. I recommend the cheapest R lens the 135/2.8 as the most underrated portrait lens for color.

It's also lovely in black and white. A great lens, and somewhat easier to use than the M equivalent (which I do have and is very good too!)

Elmarit 135mm R2.8

Elmarit M 135mm f2.8 (on an M3 - the only Leica RF with a big enough viewfinder to make it big enough to use)

 

[BillBingham2]

Each lens design has it's own qualities, some better than others.

Nikkor 28/2.8 AIs is a world class lens, the ones before and after, meh. With respect to Leica, take the Summicron 35mm M, so many versions, each has different strengths, though few (if any) have weaknesses.

If you have a look (the way the lens renders) that you prefer it's a matter of personal testing. Take time, a bit of money, but in the end it's worth it. Unlike GAS it has an end point. Buy and lens, test it, if you like it, stop, if you don't, sell it and buy a different one.

Keep in mind, while the QA on Leica glass is world class, there are differences even in new samples, not to mention used ones.

Don't let the search for perfection stop you from creating great photos!

Stay safe out there.

B2 (;->

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The wider lens is the more distortion it is going to give on SLR comparing to same focal length on RF. 80 are 135 are not in this category. But started from 50 and wider.
At least this is what I read.

I have tried enough SLR lenses to say from my experience, I see zero benefits in R.
I had F mount Helios-51H and it was superior to Crons-M. On film. 🙂.
Any of my Canon L zooms are as good as M lenses. Film and digital. I also have old F mount lenses and used to have couple of FTn mount lenses. Just as good as M lenses, IMO.

Mind you, I'm not lens tester on inflatable dolls and Belies bottles. I just look at photos taken under same circumstances and of similar objects. And compare.

 

[Shac]

Some Leica M & R share the same optical design (e.g. 2nd version of 50/2 R and 4th version of 50/2 M; 2nd versions of 90/2.8 R & M) - however, there may be slight difference due to the different design requirements of R & M lenses

 

[Huss]

I find my R lenses to be most excellent. I find my M lenses to be most excellent.
I find the difference is the M lenses are much smaller, and they fit on the M cameras.
I do have an adapter to use the R lenses on my M, but after the novelty wore off (it took about 20 minutes...) I didn't see the point.

 

[DwF]

Sticking around the house more now, I've been wanting to go through old slides. This gives me curiosity to look for pics made with the R6 I had for a year or so and what I recall was the 28 f2.8 As I recall that 28 was superb, and never much of a fan of SLR cameras, I really enjoyed the R6.

 

[Godfrey]

I find my R lenses to be most excellent. I find my M lenses to be most excellent.
I find the difference is the M lenses are much smaller, and they fit on the M cameras.
I do have an adapter to use the R lenses on my M, but after the novelty wore off (it took about 20 minutes...) I didn't see the point.

When I bought the M-P typ 240, the point of the R Adapter M was that I could now use the M-P to do close-up, tabletop, and long lens work with my R system lenses and accessories. This was obsoleted by the acquisition of the new Leica SL in 2015, and later the Leica CL in 2018 when I sold the SL.

It was never sensible to use the R lenses on the adapter in place of M lenses for every day photographic use ... and not because the M lenses are somehow better or whatever. The R lenses are simply not as good an ergonomic fit for use with the M body and no adapter makes them so.

But ... you'll be hard pressed to find a 200 or 300mm lens in M-mount, if you only need something like that occasionally, and all the solutions to do macro and close up work with native M lenses are a kludge at best. The digital M fitted with an EVF and an R Adapter M makes a lot of excellent work possible, without having to buy a different camera.

G

 

[Ste_S]

Again, what do you mean by "truly comparable"?

Yours is a typical statement from people who don't have Leica lenses and don't want to spend the money. Once upon a time when I said the same thing to a 50+ year old photographer when I, a very young photographer, was overjoyed with the photos my Nikon F and Nikkor lenses were making and couldn't afford Leica lenses, he said to me, "It took me 30 years of looking at photographs to finally understand why these Leica lenses were worth all the extra money. Perhaps when you've spent enough time teaching your eyes how to see, the differences will be more apparent."

He was right. 😀

G

For evert anecdotal statement there's a contradictory one. There's those photojournalists who swopped from Leitz to Nikkor glass during the Korean war, and David Douglas Duncan's editor who thought he was shooting large format after swopping from Leitz to Nikkor glass.

Like I said, put a pile of photographs on the table and no one would be reliably able to pick out those shot on Leitz glass.

In 1950, an encounter took place that immensely changed the fate of Nikon and NIKKOR lenses. At the beginning of June that year, David Douglas Duncan, who was a LIFE magazine photographer, Horace Bristol, a Fortune magazine photographer and Japanese photographer Jun Miki visited the Ohi Plant of Nikon Corporation (Nippon Kogaku K.K. at that time). What had prompted their visit was Mr. Duncan’s portrait taken by Jun Miki, who was then the only Japanese LIFE photographer with a NIKKOR P.C 8.5cm f/2 lens. Mr. Duncan was so surprised by its sharpness that he suggested visiting Nikon Corporation, arranging it with a single phone call that would ultimately have great consequences.

At the plant, Nikon personnel showed them a lens performance comparison between the Leitz and ZEISS lenses, which were carried by Mr. Duncan and Mr. Bristol at that time, and NIKKOR lenses, by using a test projector. Directly after they saw the outstanding performance of NIKKOR lenses, they purchased them for Leica on the spot. Then, carrying the lenses with him, Mr. Duncan traveled to the battlefront of the Korean War on June 25th. His magnificent photographs created a major impact among American journalists, who were asking “Why is this image so sharp? Did he carry a large-format camera?” Then The New York Times reported Nikon’s excellence with the headline “Japanese camera”. This drew the world’s attention to Nikon and NIKKOR lenses, which provided a unique opportunity for the Japanese optical business to greatly expand its horizons.

 

[Godfrey]

If you insist on looking at spec sheets and test results to evaluate the way a lens performs, you will never see photographs.

G

 

[Canyongazer]

FWIW Department.

During my 30 year career teaching photography I spend twenty of them teaching fashion photography, a one semester, every other year elective for photography majors.
Every other week we would gather and I would project slides for critique from those the students had made the previous week.

For head shots, same models, same lights, same studio, same film
Almost every time someone would say, "Oh, this batch is Steven's", as soon as his first one or two hit the screen.
He shot with a Leicaflex and a short Leica tele, I forget which, 90mm Elmarit R most likely.