Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

The "L-word", Leica. Beginner Advise Sought
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:03 pm    Post subject: The "L-word", Leica. Beginner Advise Sought Reply with quote
I am a 30+ year pro photographer. I've used a lot of equipment over my career but always avoided Leica lenses due to cost.

Now, I'm curious about Leica lenses but would have to start at the bottom price wise.

I shoot people and do some macro floral work too. The lens will be used on a Canon 7d. I'm thinking anything between a 20-105mm. What good Leica lenses can be had for 300-500 USD? Any?!

I'm looking at shooters. If the glass is clean and the lens works, I don't really care if it's knicked up or old looking.

Any advice appreciated. I have M42, Contax/Yashica, and Exakta to EOS adapters.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had two of them, Leica-R 90mm f2.8 second version it is fit into your budget, excellent lens,

Usually not go on high price.

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/leica_R/Leica_90mm_f2_8/

I sold it because I have plenty of other portrait lenses and I love them more.

I still have Leica-R 100mm f4 bellow lens head, without bellow also quite affordable.

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/leica_R/leica_elmarit_100mm_f4/

I bought a Pentax-K mount replacement, a Pentax-K helicoid and a Pentax-K bellow. Now I have a stunning portrait lens, macro lens on affordable price. I just love it.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Best for close-ups:
Macro-Elmarit 2.8/60 (expensive!)
APO-Macro-Elmarit 2.8/100 (very expensive!)

Great for portraits:
Summicron 2/90 (latest version is the best one)
Elmarit 2.8/90 (all versions are fine)

On a 7D a plain Summicron-R 2/50 also is great for portraits and with a close-up lens works fine for macros. Plus, the Cron 50 is rather affordable.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
How about an Elmarit R 2.8/35 v2 !! . Excellent lens and it's in your "budget".

Quote:
I shoot people ...


Summicron 2/90 the best option...


PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There's a reason that some Leica R lenses are cheap. Many have been updated so an earlier version, which may have inferior performance compared to a later version of the same lens, will be cheaper due to lower demand for it.

Last edited by jjphoto on Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:51 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've got the use of 3 "M"s a 28, 50 and 90. They are all sharp, but it seems to me the main attraction is the RF form factor and of course the build. They look sexy as hell on a nex-5---but a 7D is no range finder.

All of them can be beat (I think) for 1/10th the cost if you will take a SLR sized lens.

True?


PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
OK I take it back

This thing is supposed to be the best copy lens on the face of the earth:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Leitz-60mm-f-2-8-Macro-Elmarit-R-Lens-w-Ext-Tube-Leica-/360326266987?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item53e51e806b#ht_1332wt_922

525 w/ 1:1 tube--- got to be one of the real steals among the leitz

I just bought a nikkor 55 2.8 for 80usd, w/ good blades (he says), but I guess the leica 60 beats it.

It is really raved about in some of the forums. As a pure macro the kiron 105 would kill it I'd guess, but like the nikkor it seems to be great all the way out, and unbeatable at 1-3 meters.

This is all second hand-- somebody chime in.....


PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice point, and definitely an interesting lens. Although I feel the Micro Nikkor-P 55mm F3,5 would be an even more serious competitor.

Generally, I´m curious about the other differences besides performance (mostly reduced to sharpness only), because there must be some truth in this whole Leica legend. What we have plain to see is

- extremely good build quality
- upper class or top class performance
- high prices.

But there is more to a lens than this. Are typical Leica colours? Is there a special, brand-typical Bokeh character? Is there a special 3D-appearance?

Perhaps some happy Leica users can shed a light on this in detail.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BenediktW wrote:
Nice point, and definitely an interesting lens. Although I feel the Micro Nikkor-P 55mm F3,5 would be an even more serious competitor.


The 3.5 seems to be right up there with the pentax-smc 1.4 in terms of value--can be had for 40USD today.

However it is said that past 3 meters the newer 2.5 is better, though the 3.5 is certainly very sharp even at infinity. But the 2.5 has checkered rep because early copies will leak oil to the blades if they get hot and have never been CLAed.

Good points on the colour and bokeh, I would also love to hear a strong defense. I will say the 28 elmarit i have use of is wicked sharp with great color, but I tend to grab faster lenses.

Last edited by uhoh7 on Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:43 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the great suggestions everyone!


Lots to think about.
Shocked

uhoh7 said:
"All of them can be beat (I think) for 1/10th the cost if you will take a SLR sized lens."

Maybe that's true. I will never be a rangefinder guy. I suppose I was thinking that I might be missing something special. A warmth, a rendering that was truly unique and maybe a wide open sharpness too.

Hmm...


PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kram wrote:
Thanks for the great suggestions everyone!


Lots to think about.
Shocked

uhoh7 said:
"All of them can be beat (I think) for 1/10th the cost if you will take a SLR sized lens."

Maybe that's true. I will never be a rangefinder guy. I suppose I was thinking that I might be missing something special. A warmth, a rendering that was truly unique and maybe a wide open sharpness too.

Hmm...



Try range finders fun to use them even if not give you any extra above SLR in image quality. There is so many cheap fixed Rf or cheap Russian interchangeable ones. I did try many already in 35mm and medium format they are great cameras and joy to use them.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
BenediktW wrote:
But there is more to a lens than this. Are typical Leica colours? Is there a special, brand-typical Bokeh character? Is there a special 3D-appearance?

Perhaps some happy Leica users can shed a light on this in detail.


I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Nikon D700 + Leica 28 Elmarit v.2, shot @ f/2.8 with an 80% crop below. Mundane shot but useful for showing the lens' ability to isolate the central subject, dimensionality, color rendition, bokeh. The crop conveys the amount of detail preserved...



Last edited by james on Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:42 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think there are very very few bad Leica lenses, I also have early versions of the Summicron-R 50 and Elmarit-R 135 for my purposes they perform great.
The greatest advantage of those Leica lenses is their build quality I newer had a bad copy but I have seen several bad copies of Pentax lenses, CZJ and others.

As a fist step I would recommend a Summicron 50 or Summicron 90 to you.

The first version of Summicron 50 has a higher level of contrast wide open but suffers from field curvature and a sligt focus shift.
The second one seems to be sharper especially stopped down. Both lenses are a pleasure to handle.

For my taste one of the most interesting R-lenses is the summicron 90.
As far as I know there was only one version for more than 30 years only the filter thread was changed from Series 7 to E55.
This lens is not the sharpest wide open but it gives you a smooth bokeh and a kind of magic glow.
Stopped down a bit it becomes very sharp and delivers still a very nice bokeh.

Timo


PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
timo832000 wrote:
I think there are very very few bad Leica lenses....

Timo


I think it's better to view some of the weaker performers as no better than the competition and sometimes weaker (example: Leica 24/2.8 vs. Nikkor 24/2.8, Leica 100/4 vs Nikkor 105/2.5 or 105/2.8 micro or Leica 180 Elmarit pre-APO vs Nikon 180/2.8 ED AIS). Those, like the 24, still fetch more than they should because they are badged as a Leica.

Just my opinion.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
james wrote:
timo832000 wrote:
I think there are very very few bad Leica lenses....

Timo


I think it's better to view some of the weaker performers as no better than the competition and sometimes weaker (example: Leica 24/2.8 vs. Nikkor 24/2.8, Leica 100/4 vs Nikkor 105/2.5 or 105/2.8 micro or Leica 180 Elmarit pre-APO vs Nikon 180/2.8 ED AIS). Those, like the 24, still fetch more than they should because they are badged as a Leica.

Just my opinion.


From a top maker I expect top quality without any exception Leica can't provide that.

Carl Zeiss Contax line up provide it all are top quality lens no exception.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If it's simple curiosity you are feeding proceed to purchase an elmarit or summicron 90mm in the sub $400 range.
If you are seeking Leica for something other "lesser" brands can not give you then prepare to spend much more.
There is no real reason to buy Leica as a brand over Contax, nikkor, Zuiko, or SMC taks unless you are going for an APO or other special lens.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
F16SUNSHINE wrote:
If it's simple curiosity you are feeding proceed to purchase an elmarit or summicron 90mm in the sub $400 range.
If you are seeking Leica for something other "lesser" brands can not give you then prepare to spend much more.
There is no real reason to buy Leica as a brand over Contax, nikkor, Zuiko, or SMC taks unless you are going for an APO or other special lens.


Attila wrote:

From a top maker I expect top quality without any exception Leica can't provide that.

Carl Zeiss Contax line up provide it all are top quality lens no exception.


1++


PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
james wrote:
timo832000 wrote:
I think there are very very few bad Leica lenses....

Timo


I think it's better to view some of the weaker performers as no better than the competition and sometimes weaker (example: Leica 24/2.8 vs. Nikkor 24/2.8, Leica 100/4 vs Nikkor 105/2.5 or 105/2.8 micro or Leica 180 Elmarit pre-APO vs Nikon 180/2.8 ED AIS). Those, like the 24, still fetch more than they should because they are badged as a Leica.

Just my opinion.


From a top maker I expect top quality without any exception Leica can't provide that.

Carl Zeiss Contax line up provide it all are top quality lens no exception.


I disagree with most of that. Sweeping generalisations like that are inevitably wrong.

For example, Contaxes 180/2.8 was no better than the Nikkor 180/2.8 ED, neither is very good, certainly no where near as good as the 180/3.4 which is a similar vintage. Contaxes 25/2.8 was no better than the Nikkor 24/2.8 or the Elmarit 24, (but Contaxes 28 is outstanding). The Contax 85/1.4 was certainly not as good as the R 80 lux, in many respects. You could argue the pro's and cons of every single lens for ever if you wanted to and still achieve nothing, and much of it is subjective anyway. Also, if you are going to compare lenses then at least keep to the same period. For example, most of the Leica R lenses from the 80/90's onwards far exceed their earlier versions from the 70's. The R24 is one of the few lenses that was never updated, possibly because of the wide zooms being produced by Leica in the later years which served the same purpose.

The only way I think Leica is different to the other makers is not so much in any particular "Leica look" or image quality but instead a generally outstandingly high standard OVERALL, both mechanically and optically. Before digital you had to select a particular brand of lens AND camera. You couldn't mix and match like we do today. If you picked a system like Nikon, Contax, Minolta etc, you would ALWAYS find some outstanding lenses, possibly the best of their specific type, but the odd thing about Leica R was that their lenses were always very close to the best, if not actually the best. To get this in a single system is in my opinion the thing that Leica R brings to the table. However, this is not such an important attribute any more as you can mix and match lenses today in a way that wasn't practical before digital.

JJ


PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can't say I disagree with anything raised above but the observation made that buying into a system back in the film days meant you were locked into a set of lenses and had to take the good with the bad, is the most trenchant point. And as mentioned, some of the R's were probably the best SLR lenses that have ever been made at their FL. The 19 Elmarit v.2, 28 Elmarit v.2, 35 Summilux, 50 Summilux E60, 80 Summilux, 90AA Summicron, 100 Elmarit Makro APO, 180 APOs (Telyt, Elmarit and Summicron) and the 280/4 APO all come to mind (also, the 70-180 Elmarit APO and 2,8/35-70). Many of the others simply weren't and because these days we can pick and choose as well as mix and match, perhaps we've lost the perspective you mentioned.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1