I want a Leica R4 -- what's wrong with me??

[Pablito]

I know the lenses are good, but I never saw the appeal. A lot of plastic on the R4.

 

[p.giannakis]

Best of the R4's is the R4S Model P. All the bugs were corrected

Yes, this is something to watch out for. Leica R4 with serial numbers below 1.600.000 are infamous for unreliable electronics. If you buy one, make sure that it is above that s/n.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Reading this I just checked UK prices they are virtually giving them away. £100 to £150, shame about the lens prices though.

 

[Dralowid]

The fewer the cams, the cheaper the lenses, hence the appeal of the SL etc

 

[Ronald M]

R6 or 6.2 are far better. Don`t miss the R4 one bit.

Whole problem is they are old not to serviceable. DAG is where you go.

24 is a minolta lens with strange depth of field off axis. I sold mine. And it is a known problem because of floating elements

 

[Addy101]

"strange depth of field off axis"? Do you mean it suffers from field curvature? How is it a known problem with floating elements? A quick Google search didn't reveal anything.

Anyway, the Minolta 24/2.8 that was the basis for the Leitz 24/2.8 was considered one of the best 24mm's around. There is a reason why Leica choose it instead of developing their own. Leica marketed this lens until 2006 (Overgaard) while Minolta replaces it in 1981 with another lensdesign (The Sybersite). It is a Minolta design, but a Leica lens.

 

[Maiku]

I will feed your gas.

APUG has a sale of Leica R cameras and lenses for sale.

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum379/144415-leica-r-bodies-lenses.html

Good luck.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

The fewer the cams, the cheaper the lenses, hence the appeal of the SL etc

Indeed and when you hit the ROM lenses, well!!

 

[SSvindal]

Are there any adapters and such for the leica R system? The bodies are decently priced but the lenses, no way! So I was thinking (hoping) that I could get an SL2 and use my canon FD lenses on it or nikons. Can't seem to find anyone on ebay?

 

[rbsinto]

Like all Leica rangefinder equipment, I feel their SLR line was over-priced and over-hyped, but if you like the stuff, can afford to make the switch, and it makes you happy, then knock yourself out.

 

[dee]

I favour the poor person alternatives - SR1s / SRT / XD7 with Rokkors !

 

[nikonosguy]

If you happen to wear glasses, you may want to consider the R5. It also has a higher top shutter speed of 1/2000.
I am content with mine, although I sometimes struggle with focussing the 35 Summicron. The longer lenses are fine. Not sure how the 24 Elmarit would work.

Love my r5 with 24 elmarit, also have a 50 cron, 90 elmarit, 180 elmarit, 28 extender, it's a great system

 

[Larry Cloetta]

The fewer the cams, the cheaper the lenses, hence the appeal of the SL etc

Er, no. That would not be the reason for the appeal of the "SL, etc". The reasons for the appeal of the "SL, etc." over the early R series, is the better viewfinder, closer production tolerances, better build quality, simplicity, and how it feels in actual use. A poll of owners of "SL, etc" bodies as to why their camera had the appeal it does to them is not likely to turn up a lot of responses along the line of " I don't really like the SL2 body, but I can use cheaper lenses on it." Later lenses tended to be better lenses optically, which is a bigger contributor to their higher current prices than the number of cams they have. People who buy "SL,etc" bodies are doing so because they have reasons they prefer those bodies, not because they think the lenses will be cheaper. Like everybody else, they're buying the best glass they can afford. Nobody gets into R glass because the lenses are inexpensive.
At least, I hope they don't.

 

[skopar steve]

Had the R4sP with 50 and 35cron's and the 180 3.5 Later added an R8. Never had a problem with them, but adding lenses to the kit was impossibly expensive. Face it, you won't be happy with anything else. Whatever gets you out shooting film and enjoying it is a good thing.

 

[jbielikowski]

Yeah, beware of early SN bodies, mine was bugged, but except that I love the ergonomics and VF. You can hunt down cheap Adaptall2 glass (adapters could be pricey) and use with great results.

 

[giganova]

Thanks for all the encouragement! I pulled the trigger and ordered an R4 with serial 160X from Robert's Camera. At $100 plus half a year of warranty, it's not much of a risk. If I like shooting with it, I will also get an R6 (mechanical shutter! 😀) and use the R4 as my backup camera. Good thing is that a lot a "people with money" bought Leica Rs in the 80s due to Leica's "prestige" but ended up almost never using them, so there's tons of R cameras out there in near mint condition.

Lenses are another story though, as they are very expensive. However, now that film makers are upgrading to larger sensor cameras, the Leica R lenses are in high demand (mostly for 4K cameras) and should hold their values pretty well.

So what's the verdict of the 24mm f/2.8 vs the 28mm f/2.8? Prices seem to be very similar (around $700). My Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AI-S was my main lens for the past year or so and I love the field of view, but I've never had a 28mm and can't compare.

I'll be in Leica's Vaterland Germany soon and will be hunting for lenses. Hopefully the weak EUR will help me find some bargains.

 

[giganova]

Let me rephrase my last question. Of the affordable R wide-angle lenses, which one would you get for travel photography (people, buildings, landscapes)?

• 24mm f/2.8: seems to go for around $700 on Ebay. Love the wide field of view.
• 28mm f/2.8: $675 average price on Ebay.
• 35mm f/2: that's the only R wide-angle lens I ever had (back in the 80s). Even though it was -- by far -- the cheapest R lens, I remember it being insanely sharp and well built. Goes for around $500 on Ebay.

 

[nikonosguy]

i have a 24/2.8 I'd be willing to let go of if you go that way...

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Let me rephrase my last question. Of the affordable R wide-angle lenses, which one would you get for travel photography (people, buildings, landscapes)?

• 24mm f/2.8: seems to go for around $700 on Ebay. Love the wide field of view.
• 28mm f/2.8: $675 average price on Ebay.
• 35mm f/2: that's the only R wide-angle lens I ever had (back in the 80s). Even though it was -- by far -- the cheapest R lens, I remember it being insanely sharp and well built. Goes for around $500 on Ebay.

If you want the most useful answer to your question, I'd suggest going over to fredmiranda.com (can I say that?) and looking at the "Leica R series lenses" thread on the Alternative Gear and Lenses page. There is now 345 pages on that thread, photos tell everything you might need to know about the lenses you are inquiring about, but there is a vast amount of useful R lens information in the thread as well--much more than I've found on any of the Leica sites. If you aren't in a huge hurry, and really want to understand what the best R lens choices are, it's actually worthwhile taking a look at all 345 pages. I know that sounds ridiculous. You'll thank me later.

I've not had the 24mm so can't comment. There are two very, very different versions of the 28mm, with very, very different prices. The affordable one is 'ok', and that's the one you see for sale most often. It's the second version that one would lust after, but they go for around $2K. A comparison of photos taken with each easily explains the price difference. Talk about insanely sharp, and great colors.
The 35 cron is a lovely lens, though nice copies are not cheap. Much cheaper than the VII 28, however.
Of the choices you listed, I'd personally go for the 35 cron R, but I like the focal length to begin with.

 

[giganova]

If you want the most useful answer to your question, I'd suggest going over to fredmiranda.com (can I say that?) and looking at the "Leica R series lenses" thread on the Alternative Gear and Lenses page.

Thanks for the lead -- great thread!