Leica R-Lenses on my D800 - Worth it?

[Seraj]

So I've never thought Nikkor glass was BAD, I rather like my 50 1.4, but I am planning to expand my kit to take advantage of the awesome imaging quality of the D800 which I am lucky enough to own. Now that I've entered the world of RF's etc, my first M on its way I guess I was curious if its worthwhile to invest in some R-Glass and grab an adaptor.

I was looking to either pick up a portrait lens or a wide angle next for my 800...

Either the 85mm 1.4
or the legendary 14-24 2.8.

Or perhaps some R-variants with an adaptor. Thoughts?

 

[BobYIL]

Follow this thread.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1968656&postcount=10

 

[Range-rover]

Wow, I'm a little disappointed in that.

range

 

[Pirate]

I have used my Hasselblad lenses on my D700 and the shots were great.

 

[Range-rover]

With Zeiss lenses that should be.

Range

 

[x-ray]

I purchased the Zeiss 25 f2, 35 f2 and 100 macro f2. I wanted something I could shoot wide open but was very disappointed. The 25 never got sharp in the corners and the 35 was ok but not great stopped down to f8. The 100 had terrible purple fringing wide open but was very sharp even wide open. The fringing did clean up very well in LR4.

I wound up sending them back to the dealer. The performance was no better or as good as my Nikon glass (16-35G, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 VRII and 85 1.8 G all new current lenses). Actually I'm very pleased with my Nikon glass. On two occasions I've had the opportunity to shoot the 14-24. This is a fantastic lens as well.

I failed to mention I also picked up a 24 pc-e and 85 pc (older version) and find both to be exceptional lenses. The 24 is as good as I've seen in a wide and the 85 is tack sharp too. Both as well as the 85 1.8 G are very sharp in the corners.

I purchased a 28 1.8 G and returned it. It had a strange and what I considered excessive curvature of field. The lens was very cheaply made and manual focus was very sloppy. In my opinion it certainly wasn't worth $699. Im not hard on equipment but do use it. I would not expect the 28 to last more than 2-3 years. When I returned it I expressed my disappointment in Nikon for making such a flemsy poorly made lens.

 

[Rayt]

It isn't that the Leica/Zeiss are "bad", just that the latest Nikon, Canon, etc., lenses are designed for digital.

 

[Spicy]

The time to buy R mount lenses for use with an adaptor was up until about 6 hours ago. They will not be as cheap as they were for quite some time, if ever again.

 

[x-ray]

You're right. The Nikon glass is designed for these high performance sensors. The Zeiss an Leica R are old designs. Curvature of field was fine in the film days because film in the camera curled and was never totally flat plus film emulsions have depth and digital sensors do not. The D800 is the most brutal camera on lenses I've seen.

I always thought my vintage Nikkors vere special till I mounted them on the D800. My prized 24 f2.8 and 105 f2.5 absolutely stunk. My old 35 f2.8 and 28 f3.5 lenses were OK which surprised me but weren't excellent. The only old lens that excelled was my 50 f3.5 micro. It's excellent even by today's standards. One other lens that did well to my surprise is my 25-50 f4 from the 70's. It was very good at every focal length and very good fro 5.6 down. At f8 it was quite good.

 

[nobbylon]

I purchased the Zeiss 25 f2, 35 f2 and 100 macro f2. I wanted something I could shoot wide open but was very disappointed. The 25 never got sharp in the corners and the 35 was ok but not great stopped down to f8. The 100 had terrible purple fringing wide open but was very sharp even wide open. The fringing did clean up very well in LR4.

I wound up sending them back to the dealer. The performance was no better or as good as my Nikon glass (16-35G, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 VRII and 85 1.8 G all new current lenses). Actually I'm very pleased with my Nikon glass. On two occasions I've had the opportunity to shoot the 14-24. This is a fantastic lens as well.

I failed to mention I also picked up a 24 pc-e and 85 pc (older version) and find both to be exceptional lenses. The 24 is as good as I've seen in a wide and the 85 is tack sharp too. Both as well as the 85 1.8 G are very sharp in the corners.

I purchased a 28 1.8 G and returned it. It had a strange and what I considered excessive curvature of field. The lens was very cheaply made and manual focus was very sloppy. In my opinion it certainly wasn't worth $699. Im not hard on equipment but do use it. I would not expect the 28 to last more than 2-3 years. When I returned it I expressed my disappointment in Nikon for making such a flemsy poorly made lens.

Completely agree. I use the 24-70, 70-200 VRII and 85 1.4
I went through a phase of 35, 50, 60 and 90 R lenses converted for use on my D700 and although superb, consistent in colour and bokeh, they didn't get used much because of the ease of use with the Nikon lenses. The Nikkors mentioned are terrific and I really can't see the point of using M/F and stop down metering when they are this good.
I sold all my M/F Nikkors including 28 2.8 Ais and 105 2.5 as they were no better than the before mentioned zooms.
I converted all my R glass back and now only use with film on my Leicaflex SL.

 

[Seraj]

Well that answered that! Thanks guys!

 

[Archlich]

The argue point is, according to many, you got the "taste" or "signature" with R glasses over the Nikkors, and resolution doesn't matter...