Are Leica R Lenses "Truly" comparible to M Lenses

[Ronald M]

The differences are micro contrast or local contrast ( fine tone value separation) and not sharpness so much.
The other is subject isolation, i.e. how fast out of focus areas fall out of focus.
When I got my first Leica, wife could spot the Leica prints straight away.
If you do portraits and do not want to do much retouching of skin, Nikon is the way. Otherwise Leica is better.

 

[teddy]

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

Thanks guys, great conversation. To Godfrey - yes, what do I mean by "truly comparable"?

Well, bert26 here made a thread about the Summicron version 3, as to which one he should get because one is lower resolution than the other, etc.

The lenses in my collection are the Summicron 50/2 Collapsible, 50/2 DR, R 50/2 (1968) and the 50/2 type 2 (1984). I wish I could say that because I have the R 50/2 (1984) - that THIS lens is exactly the same in image quality or rendering as "suppossedly" the M 50/2 Type 3 or "current".

However from a lot of experience now with my Leica R and M lenses, I think that this is not really the case. I think that each lens is their own world, they each have particular characteristics. I can ALWAYS tell if somehone has shot with a 50/2 DR or Rigid for example. When it comes to the M 50/2 Type 3, I find it very very similar to the R 50/2 (current), but because I don't have it in my hands, and I don't know it intimately enough - I can't say that it would be comparable - or perhaps better said; identical in image rendering.

No doubts whatsoever though - I can tell when something was shot with a Leica most of the time.

 

[teddy]

The differences are micro contrast or local contrast ( fine tone value separation) and not sharpness so much.
The other is subject isolation, i.e. how fast out of focus areas fall out of focus.
When I got my first Leica, wife could spot the Leica prints straight away.
If you do portraits and do not want to do much retouching of skin, Nikon is the way. Otherwise Leica is better.

Interesting comment here Ronald, I don't use Nikon - but I like the experience that your wife has in seeing nuances of tonal rendering. I highly agree. I also agree that micro contrast, macro contrast and depth of field focus fall off is more refined in Leica and Zeiss and Scheneider lenses in particular. I don't want to open a can of worms, I'm just saying that it is a typical thing to find in the German lenses. You can also find these qualities in oriental and other brand makes ofcourse.

 

[Godfrey]

Thanks guys, great conversation. To Godfrey - yes, what do I mean by "truly comparable"?

Well, bert26 here made a thread about the Summicron version 3, as to which one he should get because one is lower resolution than the other, etc.

The lenses in my collection are the Summicron 50/2 Collapsible, 50/2 DR, R 50/2 (1968) and the 50/2 type 2 (1984). I wish I could say that because I have the R 50/2 (1984) - that THIS lens is exactly the same in image quality or rendering as "suppossedly" the M 50/2 Type 3 or "current".

However from a lot of experience now with my Leica R and M lenses, I think that this is not really the case. I think that each lens is their own world, they each have particular characteristics. I can ALWAYS tell if somehone has shot with a 50/2 DR or Rigid for example. When it comes to the M 50/2 Type 3, I find it very very similar to the R 50/2 (current), but because I don't have it in my hands, and I don't know it intimately enough - I can't say that it would be comparable - or perhaps better said; identical in image rendering.

No doubts whatsoever though - I can tell when something was shot with a Leica most of the time.

And there's the rub: Being "comparable" doesn't in any way say that two lenses are "identical". Heck, as someone else pointed out, it's rare that even two of the same lenses are identical in rendering behavior.

I call lenses comparable when they perform to an equally high standard of excellence, even if they are not identical in rendering behavior. For example, my Summicron-R 50/2, Summicron-M 50/2, and Summilux-R 50/1.4 are all excellent, comparable performers, but I can always tell which of the three was used for a photograph pretty easily, and particularly if the lens opening was f/2.8 or faster. They each have an excellent, unique rendering signature that I recognize easily due to long experience.

G

 

[Dralowid]

Irrelevant post...

I've used the 21 SA R on M and Sony. All I can say is that it was excellent on both. On the M it blocks everything and weighs a ton, on the Sony it just seemed very nice indeed. Maybe because it is big.

So no comparisons there. Compare it with a 21mm CV and it is not the same. It simply seemed sort of 'nicer'.

I have nothing else with which to compare it.

Scientific eh?!