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.
rustysheepdog
Member
I think it's really down to demand, which is governed far more by perception than by the reality of how good the lenses are. The sad truth is that the Leica reflexes never set the world ablaze, irrespective of their quality. But now folks are starting to adapt Leica R lenses to a variety of DSLRs I think we'll see thje prices go up - but never to the levels of the M lenses.
Steve M.
Veteran
Yes, compared to the rest of the best, Leica SLR's are, well, shall we say an acquired taste? They are built extremely well w/ lots of metal and very little plastic, if any (at least on my R3 and R5), but you have to put up w/ things like loud mirror slap and the metering takes a while to figure out. What really killed them off is when everyone else went to AF Leica stayed w/ MF. Then there was the problem w/ the R4 electronics.
On the other hand, if you can put up w/ their sometimes primitive design they are excellent picture takers. Shots from my R-50 and R-90 Summicrons are as good as it gets, and the exposure is always perfect. I think they're one of the best deals in photography, assuming you want to shoot a SLR. And putting one of the R lenses on a DSLR can often make a dramatic improvement in image quality and color saturation.
On the other hand, if you can put up w/ their sometimes primitive design they are excellent picture takers. Shots from my R-50 and R-90 Summicrons are as good as it gets, and the exposure is always perfect. I think they're one of the best deals in photography, assuming you want to shoot a SLR. And putting one of the R lenses on a DSLR can often make a dramatic improvement in image quality and color saturation.
The R lenses are great, I've used them on u4/3. They are of course bigger than the M counterparts but every bit the quality.