Leica glass on R-D1

R

RFJapan

Newbie
Local time
6:37 PM
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
10
Hey, been a while since I posted. For various reasons which are too boring to go into, I no longer have my R-D1 but I intend to get hold of another one in the not too distant future (I do live in Epson's home country, after all!)

What I wanted to ask about was using Leica glass on the R-D1, specifically in comparison to using it on Leica's own RFs (i.e. the M8, 8.2 and 9).

Leica glass has a huge reputation, which may or may not be deserved. When I had my M8 I had a Leica 50 (Summicron, I think) and a Voigtlander 50 (the f 1.5). On the M8 I was buggered if I could see the difference, but I'm not one of those people who blows up an image to 1000 per cent to spend hours staring at the pixels.

So when I pick up my next R-D1, I was considering putting some Leica glass on it, assuming I can find a lens which doesn't require remortgaging one's property, selling members of one's family into slavery or auctioning off one's internal organs. That being said, I could probably get another Voigtlander 1.5 for eight times less.

Anyone who's used Leica and non-Leica glass on Leica RFs and the R-D1, could you justify the greater price of the Leica, or do you / did you find that the difference is not enough to justify the considerable price difference? We're talking about a 6MP camera here, which could imply that some of Leica's top lenses might actually be "too powerful" for it.

Any which way, like to hear some ideas.
 
I use Leica, Konica, C/V glass on an RD-1 and don't see much difference in IQ.

What is an issue for me, however, is vignetting that can occur with some wide lenses. For instance, my 28mm Elmarit works much better than my C/V 28mm Skopar. The Elmarit gives even exposure out to the corners, while the Skopar falls off quickly.

So I think the answer comes down to specific lenses, not brands.
 
I'm no expert, but I suppose the main optical difference between Leica M lenses and many others in the high-quality range is the fact that they are very sharp even when opened fully. This seems to be a major selling point in their marketing literature. And I have confirmed that by trial & error.

I've had my R-D1 for about a year, and I'm still stunned by the quality of the 6MP files it produces with the Leica lenses.

I have never used any of the Voigtländer lenses, but I can surely vouch for the Ms. I got my lenses at a very good price 2nd hand, so when I bought an R-D1, I didn't need to add anything. If I had to build a new system from scratch with my own scarce funds, I'd definitely consider the Voigtländer lineup. I don't think I could ever justify the price of a new Leica M lens without winning the lottery.

I also have a Nippon Kogaku 35mm, which is just as 'good' as my Summicron 35. Incredibly sharp with beautiful colour rendering. But the Summicron has better ergonomics, so I usually grab that.
Then again, I'm pretty sure I could show you a stopped-down image from my $10 Jupiter 8, which looks every bit as nice on a computer screen as one shot with a $2000 Summicron. So it also depends on your intended output medium, I guess.
 
Last edited:
I have only one Leica-Lens, yet, an Elmar 5cm/f2.8 from 1957, and several CVs and Minoltas. Despite its age, the Elmar is an incredible performing lens both on the R-D1 and the M9. I can't say why, but the images from the Elmar are really impressive compared to some of the modern CVs. I guess, if I could afford all my focal length in Leica-lenses, I would do this instant.
 
I think it depends on which lenses you are talking about and how much you are willing to pay for that extra marginal quality you get with Leica.

I would highly recommend the canon 35mm f/2 ltm on the R-D1 at a price of $500. Whether you want to get the real summicron, that is up to you whether you want to spend 4x the price for V4.

The zeiss 25mm f/2.8 is a stellar lens on the R-D1 and gives an almost 35mm equivalent. If you do not need the speed, this lens is great if you can find one.

My favorite 50mm is my summilux pre-asph. whether it was worth the $1500 is really up to each user, if you cannot see a difference in the photos between most lenses then why make yourself spend the premium...
 
My preferred lens for the RD1 was the M Rokkor CLE 40mm f2. If you found the optically identical. Leica Summicron c 40mm f2 you would have the same results. Maybe the CLE has better contrast and flare control do to multi-coating. The other lens of note fro the RD1 is the Leica Summicron DR 50mm f2. It is the only DRF that can mount that lens without modification. Other than that I would spend my money elsewhere if I had to ask? Sounds by your post that you are not much of a gear junkie. Get what you can afford and works well and shoot. I think that 40mm is perfect for the RD1 if you are a "normal lens" shooter. My RD1 is gone but, I still use the 40 on my m8 and M5.
 
RFJapan said:
...When I had my M8 I had a Leica 50 (Summicron, I think) and a Voigtlander 50 (the f 1.5). On the M8 I was buggered if I could see the difference...
Click to expand...
If you did not see the difference on your M8, you will not see it either on a R-D1.
 
I have to second Andy, I found the Summicron C 2/40 (the Leica equivalent to the M Rokkor) very rewarding.

Sharp from fully open on, with a nice, charming Leica bookeh, and even now quite underestimated - with luck you can get this fine lens for around 200 EUR.

It works perfectly on my Epson R-D1 and was my favourite everyday lens. Go for this one, and you have rock solid Leica quality for a bargain price.

Ja, and don't forget that good (!) lenses will be sometimes a lifetime companion - cameras are subject of change more often. So a good lense is something which will spend many years of fun.

Cheers, Andreas
 
Last edited:
I have used a 50mm Summicron, and I can say the colours & details definitely stand out on the R-D1. I guess this the Leica "POP".....
 
Re: R-D1 vs M8.2 perhaps you shoot jpegs folks but with the same lens and raw converter significant differences in color rendition are not easy to perceive IMHO with IR-cut filter on at least. Never did side by side comparos though.
 
I've used a few 1930s-1940s Leitz LTM lenses on my R-D1. Like the 35mm Elmar, Summitar and Summar The results all have a few things in common. Lack of Leica glow, sharp and some great colors.

To me, the 35mm Elmar certainly doesn't look as sharp when used on a regular LTM body.
 
Really, I've not had a bad lens on my RD1. I do tend to fall back to my 40/2 m-rokkor though. It's a fantastic all-around lens for this camera.
 
I found out I mostly use my summicron 40c on Rd1.
It's tiny, sharp and IMO a good compromise for framing.
But I would not regret to carry a Jupiter 8 with shade if I wanted a lightweight and cheap glass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom