That street price listed was for 2010, Judging from what has been happening with the pricing for many of the R lenses since the announcement of the Leica M, prices are rising substantially on a number of R lenses (case and point the f4 280mm Apo Telyt),
For resale/collectable purposes, I'd rather not do any non-reversible modifications (like trimming the shroud). So I decided to return this lens and seek out a later serial #11,259 or an #11,333.
Thanks for the input everyone.
By the way, when I finally get one, I'll be doing an extensive comparison with the well-regarded Nikon 28/2.8 AI-s which I will use to launch my long-gestating camera blog. Everyone should read it
Most of the comments in this thread confirm what I had read from other sources, which is that this page has an error.
This page lists only #11,333 (2nd optical version, built-in hood, ROM) under Elmarit-R II and incorrectly lists #11,259 (2nd optical version, built-in hood, 3-cam) under Elmarit-R I.
Lee Saxon wrote:
This page lists only #11,333 (2nd optical version, built-in hood, ROM) under Elmarit-R II and incorrectly lists #11,259 (2nd optical version, built-in hood, 3-cam) under Elmarit-R I.
I fixed the Wiki page (I am a member over there, and cross-referenced the Puts Pocket Guide). Note that the number listed under the first version is 11529, not 11259. I don't find any information on 11529, so I left it for now.
naturephoto1 wrote:
That street price listed was for 2010, Judging from what has been happening with the pricing for many of the R lenses since the announcement of the Leica M, prices are rising substantially on a number of R lenses (case and point the f4 280mm Apo Telyt),
Rich
I doubt the M is having much of an impact on the R 28, simply because there are already two 28's in M-mount that, by objective measurements, outperform the Elmarit-R, and the Elmarit-M ASPH routinely sells for less than the OP paid for the R at auction. There are very few reasons to go for the R unless you plan to shoot it on an SLR, digital or film.
carstenw wrote:
The shroud is there because it is Leica's philosophy that you should be able to stand a lens on a table, right-side up or upside-down, without damaging the glass. If you take it off, and stand it on a table, it may well stand directly on the glass. I wouldn't recommend that.
Right, well all else equal, I'd not advise taking the shroud off either, but if you want to use a great German lens on a Japanese camera, and it just misses clearing the mirror, then it's worth consideration. Aside from that, you can still stand it either way without hitting the rear element. It's just not as "shrouded" as with the shroud. Personally, I don't think I ever stand a lens on the rear element end without a lens cap on. In fact, I rarely do it on the front element end either without a cap. It's just a non issue for me.
carstenw wrote:
Note that the number listed under the first version is 11529, not 11259. I don't find any information on 11529, so I left it for now.
I assumed 11,529 was simply a typo of 11,259.
For instance, the 3624801 to 3625300 batch is labeled 11,529. The lens from the OP, an 11,259, comes from that batch. (that should probably be moved to the v2 page, btw)
carstenw wrote:
I see. I am not sure I believe that though. The new lens has a completely new body, with different elements inside, and a floating group, and the body and optical design are designed together, so you can't just shove one lens into another one's body. Almass, could you post a link where you read that? There must be some other explanation and I would like to follow up on it.
I have no link to post as this was some time ago.
I can check my Leica docs, namely the Leica catalogues and get back to you, but this will have to be next week.
I remember that we had come across few times of a Leica R 28/2.8 with a fixed hood but would not mount on Nikon or Canon. At that time someone revealed that the late run or should I say early run of VII (vee 2) had a different mount protrusion.
I cannot substantiate but I remember the situation very well.
P.S. I will also check if the 11529 and 11259 is a typo or indeed a real order No.
Almass wrote:
I have no link to post as this was some time ago.
I can check my Leica docs, namely the Leica catalogues and get back to you, but this will have to be next week.
I remember that we had come across few times of a Leica R 28/2.8 with a fixed hood but would not mount on Nikon or Canon. At that time someone revealed that the late run or should I say early run of VII (vee 2) had a different mount protrusion.
I cannot substantiate but I remember the situation very well.
P.S. I will also check if the 11529 and 11259 is a typo or indeed a real order No....Show more →
I have sent email to the guy who was building up the page on l-camera-forum. The 11259 number is real, I have it in my Leica Pocket Guide, and it is for the new version. The other number yields zero real hits on Google, which is suspicious, to say the least. I am guessing that such a new number could not be for an old lens in any case, since Leica uses numbers sequentially.
The mount protrusion issue seems consistent with the different sizes of the rear shroud, so perhaps that is all it was. When you say "would not mount", I presume you mean that the mirror would hit.
The most telling difference, if you ignore the body, should be the optical design. The front element of the new lens is almost flat, whereas the old one is quite curved. And of course, the performance should be much stronger on the new one. The old one is a good lens, but the new one is probably the best 28mm made, so it ought to be possible to see which is which.
Do you recall on which forum this old conversation took place?
Compare the mount of the ROM first one to the mount on 2 and 3 and it is clear that it is a different mount althoug all have the fixed hood!
If my memory is correct, only the 11333 ROM ones will not hit the mirror. Although the 11259 CAM ones have also the same fixed hood. All have the same optics.
To summarize, The Leica R Elmarit 28/2.8 Version II order number 11333 with ROM is the lens which will mount without hitting the mirror.
Almass wrote:
...Compare the mount of the ROM first one to the mount on 2 and 3 and it is clear that it is a different mount althoug all have the fixed hood!
...
Why do you sound surprised that they all have the fixed hood? They should all have the fixed hood because they are all the E55 or V2 of the R28. They are the same lens bar the ROM/3 Cam mount. The shroud appears to have changed and this may be relevant in a physical sense, to some users, but they are still the same lens, still an E55 or V2.
Almass wrote:
...If my memory is correct, only the 11333 ROM ones will not hit the mirror. Although the 11259 CAM ones have also the same fixed hood. All have the same optics....
Which camera are you referring to? I use the 11259 (and I KNOW it's a 11259 because I have the original box) on a 5D2 with no issues at all. Same with a 1ds2 when I had it.
The 5D was inconsistent and if you look at pebbleplace you'll see that both the E55 versions, 11333 and 11259, are listed as iffy.
Almass wrote:
- Yes, I mean the mount would hit the mirror.
- I vaguely recall the conversation was on a French forum.
Have a look at these on ebay:
[...]
Compare the mount of the ROM first one to the mount on 2 and 3 and it is clear that it is a different mount althoug all have the fixed hood!
If my memory is correct, only the 11333 ROM ones will not hit the mirror. Although the 11259 CAM ones have also the same fixed hood. All have the same optics.
To summarize, The Leica R Elmarit 28/2.8 Version II order number 11333 with ROM is the lens which will mount without hitting the mirror....Show more →
I guess when you say mount you mean shroud, i.e. the plastic/metal bit surrounding the rear element. I don't quite understand how the shroud differing on the 11259 and 11333 lenses is related to whether or not it is a V1 or V2, as you mentioned earlier? Clearly, these are all the same optical design, and only the package differs.
The whole issue of whether or not a given lens hits a given mirror when adapted is very difficult, especially given the Canon 5D, 5DIII and maybe 5DIII have widely varying mirror distances, even among the same model. The reports here show that quite demonstrably, where some people don't have problems, other people have only problems, and some people sometimes have problems, and sometimes not.
I don't think we have enough data to say that the 11333 doesn't hit any mirror, although it does appear to tend in that direction. The 11259 clearly also does not always hit the mirror, but maybe more often so. We need more information, and should not post hasty conclusions based on too little data.
Almass wrote:
If my memory is correct, only the 11333 ROM ones will not hit the mirror. Although the 11259 CAM ones have also the same fixed hood. All have the same optics.
To summarize, The Leica R Elmarit 28/2.8 Version II order number 11333 with ROM is the lens which will mount without hitting the mirror.
Lee's post below and serial numbers production batches may be a guidline to opt for lenses with SN number higher than the highlighted in order to avoid mirror clearance issue, at least on Nikon FF, but perhaps on Canon as well (dono much about Canon, but carstenw may be onto something regarding Canon samples variations) Lee Saxon wrote:
Leitax page mentions that a customer with an early (3624xxx) 11,259 had mirror clearance problems on a FF Nikon but that later (366xxxx) 11,259's and 11,333's had no issue.
PS.
My recently obtained copy with serial number 3700xxx is a 1995 v2, E55 3-CAM version that clears mirror on D800 with no issues (pictured below)
Tim Davis, who has done the editing of the l-camera-forum pages, has confirmed the findings, and I have edited the pages to reflect what we have seen here.
Heh. I also sometimes contribute to Wikipedia, including photos. I consider these kinds of things to be very worthwhile, in spite of some of the controversies surrounding various sites and the reliability of the information there.
Hopefully this change will prevent someone from feeling unsure about their purchase in the future, and someone else of losing a sale.
