M vs R Glass, what is the difference?

M

_mark__

Well-known
Local time
7:01 AM
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Messages
281
Are they different formulas like for like, year by year, i.e. 50 1.4 etc? (I have searched but if a thread exists I apologise.)

Doing the math you can get a r6.2 + 50 1.4 and 28 2.8 for the price of 1 new Elmarit M. I ask because I can no longer realistically afford to maintain an M system with all the glass I want - 28, 35, 50. And although probably not true I believe that Leica is the best glass in the world and a M camera should have and M lens.

thanks in advance.
 
In one word: Retrofocus, also known as reverse-telephoto. SLR lenses need more room between the back of the lens and the film, in order to make room for the mirror. Anything wider than 50 HAS to be Retrofocus and all fast 50s are too. So no, the three lenses you want are completely different in design, bigger, heavier, and harder to design. The reverse-tele group (negative lenses in front of the main imaging group) add NOTHING to image quality (if anything, the reverse) and are there only in order to increase flange-to-film distance.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
In one word: Retrofocus, also known as reverse-telephoto. SLR lenses need more room between the back of the lens and the film, in order to make room for the mirror. Anything wider than 50 HAS to be Retrofocus and all fast 50s are too. So no, the three lenses you want are completely different in design, bigger, heavier, and harder to design. The reverse-tele group (negative lenses in front of the main imaging group) add NOTHING to image quality (if anything, the reverse) and are there only in order to increase flange-to-film distance.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info... Very interesting. :)

So in a nut shell... Retro focus R lenses are "compromised" compared to M lenses.
 
sc_rufctr said:
Thanks for the info... Very interesting. :)

So in a nut shell... Retro focus R lenses are "compromised" compared to M lenses.
Click to expand...

Sort of. It's a lot harder to make a Retrofocus lens (strictly an Angénieux trademark) that's as sharp and distortion free as a non-Retrofocus: the lens will be bigger or heavier or more expensive or capable of delivering less quality or any combination thereof. Auto-diaphragms and 'tellers' (lens/body communications via cams, etc.) add still more bulk and weight.

With no R cameras currently on the market new, R lenses are however discounted as compared with M, and you can get astonishingly good (big, heavy, formerly very expensive) lenses for very little money, at least in Leica terms.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
With no R cameras currently on the market new, R lenses are however discounted as compared with M, and you can get astonishingly good (big, heavy, formerly very expensive) lenses for very little money, at least in Leica terms.
Click to expand...

+ easy to adapt to Canon EOS system :)
 
The old Canon 19mm 3.5 FL and Minolta 20mm 4.0 W-Rokkor SLR lenses are not retro-focus.
I wonder why they switched from non-retro to retro focus design if they managed to make wide angle lenses that were non-retro focus.
 
raid said:
The old Canon 19mm 3.5 FL and Minolta 20mm 4.0 W-Rokkor SLR lenses are not retro-focus.
I wonder why they switched from non-retro to retro focus design if they managed to make wide angle lenses that were non-retro focus.
Click to expand...

The non-Retrofocus lenses required the mirror to be locked up: I used to have the 21/4 Nikkor in F mount, ad it was superb. But people wanted reflex viewing...

Cheers,

R.
 
In my limited experience, SLR wides tend to have less vignetting than more symmetric RF-type designs. I don't know if this is a byproduct of my limited exposure to SLR wides and my choices of RF wides (all of which tend to have a fair amount of vignetting) or if it's actually something to do with the optical design.

Also, the M and R systems have had different amounts of effort put into them. It always appeared to me that the M system got a bit more love with more advanced designs than the R system, below 90mm at least.
 
Nice thread!

Nice thread!

Very interesting now i get better the differences between both systems.
Since "outdated" i understand why the R system has better prices now!
I had a r6.2 what a camera! with 50 summicron, old one, it wasn´t much bigger and it performed very well.
At last sold it because it was too expensive to get R and M glasses at the same time!

Although not my thread I thank you as well!:D
 
Tim Gray said:
In my limited experience, SLR wides tend to have less vignetting than more symmetric RF-type designs.
Click to expand...
It is correct (it's connected with the cos^4 law or, of you prefer, to the position of the exit pupil).
But they usually have more distortion and are definitely bigger.
 
According to Erwin Puts, the last 28mm Elmarit R lens "... Is an outstanding lens that in some areas even surpasses the M version, which lacks the mechanically complex floating-element construction." He also describes the latest 21mm M ASPH as "a leap in performance" and retrfocus in design. I personally find the 35mm f2 to be one of the best Leica 35s I have ever used and the 60mm macro one of the best lenses of any focal length. I've owned two different 180mm Apo f3.4 over the years and the latest 180mm f2.8 Apo and sold the newer version because it was was only able to focus closer and not outperform the older Canadian version in my opinion. Yes they are larger and heavier, but R lenses are not really inferior to M lenses many cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom