leicaAngst
Member
So, I'm browsing various secondhand Leica sites, and I can't help but notice the difference in cost of equivalent M and R lenses. It seems a lens (e.g. 35mm Summicron) in R mount commands less than half the cost of the M lens.
1. Now, I know the optical formula of each lens will be different (given the different focal plane distances of RF v SLR) but is it mainly down to the mystique and romance of M that justifies the higher prices, or is there a noticeable difference in build quality and/or image quality between M and R?
2. It seems that R lenses should work better on MFT than the M equivalents, because they'll be more telecentric (given the greater focal plane distance) particularly in the case of wide angle lenses. Is this born out in real world results?
Cheers, lA.
1. Now, I know the optical formula of each lens will be different (given the different focal plane distances of RF v SLR) but is it mainly down to the mystique and romance of M that justifies the higher prices, or is there a noticeable difference in build quality and/or image quality between M and R?
2. It seems that R lenses should work better on MFT than the M equivalents, because they'll be more telecentric (given the greater focal plane distance) particularly in the case of wide angle lenses. Is this born out in real world results?
Cheers, lA.