How many Leica R users here?
- Thread starter thinkvision
- Start date
- Status
The macro Elmarit? Lots of people speak very highly of this lens. I nearly bought one off Ebay several months ago but missed the deal because I bid too late.
thinkvision
Senior Member
can try visoflex leica 65/3.5 macro also, ,, no regret.
for R60/2.8, centre not sharp as contax S-planar 60/2.8, but corner draw.
for R60/2.8, centre not sharp as contax S-planar 60/2.8, but corner draw.
thinkvision
Senior Member
fword, have you tried visoflex 400/5 on nikn body? I tried previously the color and sharpness is amazing...
Last edited:
Hey man, never tried the lens on a Nikon body. The only Nikon-mount body I'm thinking about getting in the next few months might be the S5 Pro, but differences in sensors would make a difference to color rendition. The last time I tried this lens was on a Canon body but there was some fungus in the lens.
I got the lens completely CLA'ed by an ex Leica tech here in Melbourne and the lens is clean as a whistle now. Just that the weather has turned awfully cloudy, cold and miserable of late and I haven't had the chance to take the lens out for photography.
thinkvision
Senior Member
wondering how about use 400/5 on hass body, should be better than contax 350/4 and rollei 6008 350mm..
R24/2.8 long ass can hit 5DMK2 mirror, finally I cut it to perfect fit for infinity shoot. not difficult job. it sharper than ZF 25/2.8.
R24/2.8 long ass can hit 5DMK2 mirror, finally I cut it to perfect fit for infinity shoot. not difficult job. it sharper than ZF 25/2.8.
Well, if I could afford a Hassy body it would be something to try out. It's interesting to read that the image circle from the lens can actually cover a larger negative. In theory this means very good performance on 35mm cameras.
I've seen some inexpensive R24's on the market. What's the difference between each version?
thinkvision
Senior Member
R 24 got some made in japan, minolta one, not good at all (soft), cheap
also need to check the long ass....for those made in Germnay one, late version (costy also, but sharp)
also need to check the long ass....for those made in Germnay one, late version (costy also, but sharp)
stonefish35
New Member
Hi ,
Anyone using the R 35mm 2.8 or or 28mm 2.8 or 24mm 2.8? on a EOS body ? wanted to explore the possibility of using any of these on my canon body. Thanks
Anyone using the R 35mm 2.8 or or 28mm 2.8 or 24mm 2.8? on a EOS body ? wanted to explore the possibility of using any of these on my canon body. Thanks
thinkvision
Senior Member
yes. can use on EOS
thinkvision
Senior Member
some one use R 250/4 ?
I don't know if this lens exists. It would weigh a tonne even if it did. Those look like good choices there otherwise, but if that's the case then budget obviously isn't a problem for you. Otherwise, the Summicron 35mm and 90mm are also excellent lenses and I still use both today.
If you want a quality, reasonably-priced standard zoom, look no further than the Vario Elmar 35-70mm f/4. The image quality is simply breathtaking, and short of the barrel distortion at the wide end the lens is virtually faultless, IMHO.
Thanks fWord.
Budget is always a problem. But with proper budgetting and planning, it can be affordable
Here's the link to the 280mm
http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/r_system/lenses/3807.html
Budget is always a problem. But with proper budgetting and planning, it can be affordable
Here's the link to the 280mm
http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/r_system/lenses/3807.html
Thanks fWord.
Budget is always a problem. But with proper budgetting and planning, it can be affordable
Here's the link to the 280mm
http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/r_system/lenses/3807.html
Right, the 280/4...this is said to be one of Leica's best lenses, if not the very best in their stable. I haven't been able to afford it and have never used it, thus cannot comment. Having said that if you troll around Ebay you may be able to find the 280/2.8 instead which seems priced at the same level as the 280/4 at the times I've seen both available.
It's strange to see this however because the f/2.8 should actually be a heck of a lot more expensive than the f/4. Mamiya also has a white APO 300/2.8 that was made for their medium format systems. Said also to be one of the very best lenses out there and within your budget.
Do bear in mind however that a manual focus telephoto could be very difficult to use and if heavy like these lenses, may be confined to a tripod which could affect its application. For a handheld tele some people recommend the 400/6.8 with the shoulder stock. It's push-pull focusing mechanism and lightweight has allowed more skilled users to even do birds in flight shots. I've seen them go for as little as US$300 on Ebay. The only drawback of this lens is the simple design which results in field curvature (some say worsens as the lens ages), so you have excellent center performance and away from that performance rapidly drops. Upside is there is very good control of CA.
The 400mm lens I chose was the Telyt 400/5 for Visoflex (Type II from the 1960s) which is a massive lens at around 2.4kg and a long focus throw to allow for fine focusing. It is a lens that people recommend sticking to a tripod but I've managed to use it handheld mounted to a 1-Series camera. But it's taxing exercise akin to gym work. I haven't used the lens a whole lot although initial impressions are good with even center to edge performance but obvious CA under some conditions. As Thinkvision mentioned a while back this lens is compatible even with medium format so it's obvious as to how large its imaging circle really is and how good performance would be on a smaller format, even a 35mm sensor. Some samples were posted on the first page and when the lens had fungus. Pathetically, I've yet to get many shots with the lens after fungus was removed, but here is a sample:
Here is a 50% crop (from off-center, nearing the lower left of the image) to demonstrate sharpness and also bokeh, taken in shade, ISO 800, 1/250s, handheld. Under such conditions I interpret that image quality degradation will occur because of camera shake, subject movement and high ISO noise but the performance is indeed amazing still:
This would be of benefit for those looking for really affordable Leica tele lenses. With your budget I think you could pass on the Telyt 400/5. The weight and sometimes CA can be a put-off.
Oh yeah... It's F4. My error
Thanks fWord. What about the other Summilux lens mentioned? What are your views?
Thanks again:
For opinions on the Summilux lenses, you may need to ask the others on this forum. Because of budget constraints I've never tried any of the Summilux lenses. The Summicron 35/2 however, that I've used for close to a year now, is an incredible lens and value for money, especially if you go for the 'old beaters' rather than those that are still in pristine condition. The 50 Lux's however seem to be well-regarded in general. Usually they're quite pricey but on occasion you may find one that costs no more than the Canon equivalent.
The key issue at hand also is that a few versions of each lens may exist and you need to know exactly what you're buying into. For a while there was a Leica Lens compendium that was downloadable off Erwin Puts' site which talks in detail about most Leica lenses, however that link has been down for a while and it's been months since. Fortunately I already have a copy on my computer so if you PM me your email address I might be able to send it over and you can have a read.
Also, do a Google search for 'leica lens price' and 'leica lens rarity' to get the low down on how much to expect to pay for each lens and the approximate rarity. That said the prices aren't necessarily accurate but it's a good ballpark figure. On Ebay I've seen everything from really cheap stuff down to completely overpriced, but prices as such are subjective. Leica lenses are expensive but less so if you're prepared to settle for lenses that are in poorer shape cosmetically, or those that have very, very minor optical flaws.
Really, it would take a lot of small scratches before it has an effect on IQ so don't be put off by cheap lenses with supposed optical flaws. If anything, it's safer to buy these online because the seller isn't obviously overrating equipment by stating the glass is 'crystal clear and not a scratch in sight'. All depends on how close you look. When I get into 'anal' mode with a LED torch I can see fine hairline scratches on a lens that was supposedly rated as being pristine.
But once again, a tiny mark does nothing to IQ.
- Status
Similar threads
