leica r3 electronic compatible lenses?

maxcastle · Joined: 14 Apr 2012 Posts: 492

Thank you for looking, expensive it is true Smile

I a thinking more of somthing like this
http://www.ebay.ie/itm/271058362265?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

and if i have read the earlier posts correctly i can use http://www.ebay.com/itm/-/180966026883?item=180966026883&ViewItem=

a grand total of around 30 euro if i was to win a similar lens to the one above. Then i have a working leica, or is it only a leica if it has a leica lens........

how many cows tails does it take to reach the moon?

Oreste · Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451

maxcastle · Joined: 14 Apr 2012 Posts: 492

jjphoto · Joined: 17 Mar 2009 Posts: 406

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Sell the R3 and with the profits buy something optically top notch but available cheaply.

Konica and Minolta are the prime candidates. The Konica lenses are all really top level ones, all of them, without exception are superb, some are as good as you will ever find. Konica cameras are the let-down, they have unreliable electronics, but if you find a working one, they are awesome, I love the FT-1, but the FS-1, FC-1 and FP-1 are all excellent too, just find one with a working meter, which is the weak point.

Minolta, the cameras are more relaible and there are more to choose from, others know them better than me but something like an x-300 or x-700 would be a good starting point. The Rokkor lenses can rival the Konicas for quality, I have Rokkor-PF 1.7/50 and Rokkor-SG 3.5/28 lenses that are stunning, as good as their Konica counterparts and better than the equivalent Canon FD and Pentax M lenses.

I'd avoid third party lenses, with few exceptions they aren't as good as the main makers, and to me, what's the point in using them when much better lenses can be had for the same price.

My usual Konica SLR bag would consist of FT-1 and FP-1 bodies, 4/21, 2.8/24, 3.5/28, UC 4/45-100, 1.4/50, 3.2/135, UC 4/80-200. I know for a fact that all of those lenses are really top level and are better than I am a photographer so if there are any IQ issues it is my faulty technique, not the equipment.

You could spend 30x as much on the same from Leica and only have fractionally better IQ, but honestly, that's a waste of time as the quality of developing, processing and scanning will have far more influence in your results.

Oreste · Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

And what do you get with Leica lenses you don't get with others?

Fractionally sharper and that 'glow'?

Supposedly better built and engineered... well go hold a Takumar or Topcor for a while.

Leica have their place but always remember, whatever they do offer, what they definitely don't offer is value for money.

If absolute quality is your goal, Zeiss Contax T* or some of the Zeiss/Voigtlander lenses in Rollei QBM mount.

If the best possible performance vs price ratio is your goal (and this is most people, those without nice bank accounts) then Konica, Minolta, Olympus OM, some of the later MC Russians like the Zenitar M2s 2/50mm, Tair-37 MC 2.3/135.

What lenses will yo actually use often? For me, I could do most things with 28mm, 50mm, 135mm. Add an ultrawide like a 21mm and I could cover almost anything.

Distagon 2.8/28, Planar 1.7/50, Sonnar 2.8/135, that's at least 500ukp worth of lenses, plus a fair bit more for a Contax body, or use a Yashica like an FX-3, those are not expensive.

Konica 3.5/28 is about 20-30ukp, Konica 1.7/50 the same, Konica 3.2/135 the same again. Konica bodes are cheap, 10-30ukp.

The difference between those two setups in IQ terms is slight, the Zeiss has that Zeiss look with the strong microcontrast and '3d pop' but other than that, the Konicas have it all.

Minolta is cheaper still, you can pick up the 3.5/28, 1.7/50 and 2.8/135 Minoltas for less than 10ukp each, I see them go for less than a tenner pretty often too, the bodies are very common and very cheap.

When you want to add a 21mm, the Konica and Minolta ones are both fantastic, but not cheap. Still a lot cheaper than a Distagon 21mm though.

I didn't bother thinking what a 28/50/135 combo in Leica would cost, too much to be considered imho, those with more wealth may feel different.

Oreste · Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451

maxcastle · Joined: 14 Apr 2012 Posts: 492

inombrable · Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Posts: 545 Location: Salamanca, Mexico

Aanything · Expire: 2014-05-30

Oreste's and jjphoto's point Makes actually sense, by itself.
Only that here the op's question was not wether to buy/keep an r3 or another cam, but just what cheaper glass could be available for it, so I don't see where's the problem.
You think he's wasting money? Warm him once.

Back on topic:
Obviously the best choice for your R3 would be Leica R lenses - expensive, true, but averagely more affordable than other Leica stuff.
Leica R lenses from other makers are very scarce, for the reasons Oreste and jjphoto pointed out: I missed a vivitar 21/3.8 that went for peanuts some months ago, and it was the first third party Leica R lens I met in quite a long time.
Other available choices, as already said above, are some T/T2 lenses and some medium format ones.

jjphoto · Joined: 17 Mar 2009 Posts: 406

maxcastle · Joined: 14 Apr 2012 Posts: 492

Oreste · Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451

Aanything · Expire: 2014-05-30

Oreste · Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Oreste · Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451

inombrable · Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Posts: 545 Location: Salamanca, Mexico