Leica R Series Lenses
p.202 #1Leica R Series Lenses
Roni1948 wrote:
On that note, I was wondering how modern lenses like Canon's 35mm f1.4 L or the newer 35mm f2 IS stack up to R lenses in terms of sharpness, contrast and bokeh. Ignoring build quality, AF and IS, the price range is similar, but I would expect the newer lenses to be sharper. Anyone have any experience with these and a Leica 35 cron or lux?
I have not use any canon L glass other than 24-105, so can;t compare that. But I have used nikon 851.4G and a bunch of Zeiss 35/50/85 f1.4, and 35/50f2. Compare parallel to what I have, I would say 35lux is very sharp lens at a level that is no longer a concern for me. sharper than Zeiss 35f1.4 at center, but both just perfect fine for me. Most time, is not the lens performance a limit factor, but can you nail the focus perfectly. For most photo with 35lux, absolutely sharpness is not required. That also apply to 35cron. I feel for leica 35mm, they are 'people' lens, which can do landscape but I doubt they will be better than Canikon or sigma.
Krosavcheg wrote:
80/1.4 worth 2.5 kilopresidents for a s**tographer like me?
or 90/2 ASPH for 3.1 kilopresidents for that matter....
You are too humble, the level of skill in your photography is very high. I guess this is a question ask about 80lux and 90ASPH(English is not my first language
) First I think 80lux can be have less than $1800 if you are patient. and 90ASPH R I seldom see less than $3500.
Depend on your priority and usage. For me, it is easy, as I don't have $3500 and I don't need sharp f2 lens as much as beautiful f1.4 lens
80lux WO
On that note, I was wondering how modern lenses like Canon's 35mm f1.4 L or the newer 35mm f2 IS stack up to R lenses in terms of sharpness, contrast and bokeh. Ignoring build quality, AF and IS, the price range is similar, but I would expect the newer lenses to be sharper. Anyone have any experience with these and a Leica 35 cron or lux?
I have not use any canon L glass other than 24-105, so can;t compare that. But I have used nikon 851.4G and a bunch of Zeiss 35/50/85 f1.4, and 35/50f2. Compare parallel to what I have, I would say 35lux is very sharp lens at a level that is no longer a concern for me. sharper than Zeiss 35f1.4 at center, but both just perfect fine for me. Most time, is not the lens performance a limit factor, but can you nail the focus perfectly. For most photo with 35lux, absolutely sharpness is not required. That also apply to 35cron. I feel for leica 35mm, they are 'people' lens, which can do landscape but I doubt they will be better than Canikon or sigma.
Krosavcheg wrote:
80/1.4 worth 2.5 kilopresidents for a s**tographer like me?
or 90/2 ASPH for 3.1 kilopresidents for that matter....
You are too humble, the level of skill in your photography is very high. I guess this is a question ask about 80lux and 90ASPH(English is not my first language
) First I think 80lux can be have less than $1800 if you are patient. and 90ASPH R I seldom see less than $3500. Depend on your priority and usage. For me, it is easy, as I don't have $3500 and I don't need sharp f2 lens as much as beautiful f1.4 lens
80lux WO
Aug 09, 2013 at 01:40 AM
p.202 #2Leica R Series Lenses
Zhang: You are much too kind. Perhaps on occasion I am overly critical, but often I notice that in the chase of better lens I fail to spot the fine nuance in its character which is ever so characteristic.
Therefore it is a question is the 80/1.4 or 90/2 character really can improve past Samyang 85/1.4? And if it's obvious, is it really worth the money?
It's too easy to go overboard on lens purchases, isn't it?!
Therefore it is a question is the 80/1.4 or 90/2 character really can improve past Samyang 85/1.4? And if it's obvious, is it really worth the money?
It's too easy to go overboard on lens purchases, isn't it?!
Aug 09, 2013 at 02:10 AM
p.202 #3Leica R Series Lenses
Krosavcheg wrote:
Zhang: You are much too kind. Perhaps on occasion I am overly critical, but often I notice that in the chase of better lens I fail to spot the fine nuance in its character which is ever so characteristic.
Therefore it is a question is the 80/1.4 or 90/2 character really can improve past Samyang 85/1.4? And if it's obvious, is it really worth the money?
It's too easy to go overboard on lens purchases, isn't it?!
Agree with overpurchase part.
As for compare to Samyang, TBH, I don't know.
80lux is the one I love most so far. I had 85f1.4 nikkor, 1.4G, ZF 1.4 and 1.8G, they are more or less similar before f2. I feel 80lux render DOF 'slightly' different than I use to see. (notice slightly here) and I feel the further the distance, the less 'magic' it get, after 3M, all behave very similar to my eyes.
The difference will be small, may not better or worse. is that worth the extra money asked? only you know But one thing for sure is it is quite safe to try leica lens and sell it if it is not for you.
Zhang: You are much too kind. Perhaps on occasion I am overly critical, but often I notice that in the chase of better lens I fail to spot the fine nuance in its character which is ever so characteristic.
Therefore it is a question is the 80/1.4 or 90/2 character really can improve past Samyang 85/1.4? And if it's obvious, is it really worth the money?
It's too easy to go overboard on lens purchases, isn't it?!
Agree with overpurchase part.
As for compare to Samyang, TBH, I don't know.
80lux is the one I love most so far. I had 85f1.4 nikkor, 1.4G, ZF 1.4 and 1.8G, they are more or less similar before f2. I feel 80lux render DOF 'slightly' different than I use to see. (notice slightly here) and I feel the further the distance, the less 'magic' it get, after 3M, all behave very similar to my eyes.
The difference will be small, may not better or worse. is that worth the extra money asked? only you know
But one thing for sure is it is quite safe to try leica lens and sell it if it is not for you. Aug 09, 2013 at 02:18 AM
p.202 #4Leica R Series Lenses
zhangyue wrote:
Agree with overpurchase part.
As for compare to Samyang, TBH, I don't know.
80lux is the one I love most so far. I had 85f1.4 nikkor, 1.4G, ZF 1.4 and 1.8G, they are more or less similar before f2. I feel 80lux render DOF 'slightly' different than I use to see. (notice slightly here) and I feel the further the distance, the less 'magic' it get, after 3M, all behave very similar to my eyes.
The difference will be small, may not better or worse. is that worth the extra money asked? only you know But one thing for sure...Show more →
I am with you on that pretty much.
After trying Zuiko 85/2 at infinity I completely failed to spot the magic (if there is any).
And constantly shoot 80-90mm range up close WO gets more or less tiring.
I find myself shooting at that length at f8-11 and at about 5-8m distance. As such, Mamiya 85/1.9 stopped to f5.6 is incredible in detail reproduction and kind of suffices.
Still, it's nice to have a fast portrait lens capable of delivering a result with character.
I can understand why you like it.
Oh well, I saw this item before and nobody seem to be interested at this price. Will see if it's available a bit lower.
The 90/2 i was looking at was a total mint, so sounds like it's a good value.
Agree with overpurchase part.
As for compare to Samyang, TBH, I don't know.
80lux is the one I love most so far. I had 85f1.4 nikkor, 1.4G, ZF 1.4 and 1.8G, they are more or less similar before f2. I feel 80lux render DOF 'slightly' different than I use to see. (notice slightly here) and I feel the further the distance, the less 'magic' it get, after 3M, all behave very similar to my eyes.
The difference will be small, may not better or worse. is that worth the extra money asked? only you know
But one thing for sure...Show more →I am with you on that pretty much.
After trying Zuiko 85/2 at infinity I completely failed to spot the magic (if there is any).
And constantly shoot 80-90mm range up close WO gets more or less tiring.
I find myself shooting at that length at f8-11 and at about 5-8m distance. As such, Mamiya 85/1.9 stopped to f5.6 is incredible in detail reproduction and kind of suffices.
Still, it's nice to have a fast portrait lens capable of delivering a result with character.
I can understand why you like it.
Oh well, I saw this item before and nobody seem to be interested at this price. Will see if it's available a bit lower.
The 90/2 i was looking at was a total mint, so sounds like it's a good value.
Aug 09, 2013 at 02:24 AM
p.202 #5Leica R Series Lenses
For f8-f11 at 5-8m distance with tele lens, I don't feel the need for Leica. As many lens will do just as fine or better with less $.
I bought these lens for my kids. capture their life with me. So the rendering character are priceless to me and perhaps me only
At $3100 seems a good/safe value. with more and more high pix camera in the future, this reputed best short tele lens should have no problem keep its value if not rising more. I can even use it on M if I am a m240 shooter, I will choose this over M version. (if the lens is in leicaman't market, you for sure are safe here
)
I bought these lens for my kids. capture their life with me. So the rendering character are priceless to me and perhaps me only
At $3100 seems a good/safe value. with more and more high pix camera in the future, this reputed best short tele lens should have no problem keep its value if not rising more. I can even use it on M if I am a m240 shooter, I will choose this over M version. (if the lens is in leicaman't market, you for sure are safe here
) Aug 09, 2013 at 02:37 AM
p.202 #6Leica R Series Lenses
Krosavcheg wrote:
Therefore it is a question is the 80/1.4 or 90/2 character really can improve past Samyang 85/1.4? And if it's obvious, is it really worth the money?
It's too easy to go overboard on lens purchases, isn't it?!
The Lux 80 is a great lens with a schizo personality when WO or stopped down.
The 90AA is the lens standard for all lenses and I even prefer it to the CO 60/4.
Is it going overboard on lens purchase as you put it. I don't know?
What I know is that I sleep much better with 2 copies of the 90AA....one for redundancy as one would!
Is a Chateau Latour 1960 really better than a young Beaujolais 2013?
Is a Cohiba Esplendidos 1980 really better than a Cohiba Esplendidos 2013?
Is a GTO 442 1960's really better than a Holden Morano 2006?
Are they really worth the money?
The answer to your question is in your question itself.
Therefore it is a question is the 80/1.4 or 90/2 character really can improve past Samyang 85/1.4? And if it's obvious, is it really worth the money?
It's too easy to go overboard on lens purchases, isn't it?!
The Lux 80 is a great lens with a schizo personality when WO or stopped down.
The 90AA is the lens standard for all lenses and I even prefer it to the CO 60/4.
Is it going overboard on lens purchase as you put it. I don't know?
What I know is that I sleep much better with 2 copies of the 90AA....one for redundancy as one would!
Is a Chateau Latour 1960 really better than a young Beaujolais 2013?
Is a Cohiba Esplendidos 1980 really better than a Cohiba Esplendidos 2013?
Is a GTO 442 1960's really better than a Holden Morano 2006?
Are they really worth the money?
The answer to your question is in your question itself.
Aug 09, 2013 at 02:46 AM
p.202 #7Leica R Series Lenses
Not really. I find it pointless to compare side by side.
I just would like a lens performing as nice up close as to infinity with obvious differences in shooting styles.
My main question was regarding the price. The follow up is just related to apparent character of lens drawing. Not as much as comparing to other lenses but more so in it being well pronounced.
I just would like a lens performing as nice up close as to infinity with obvious differences in shooting styles.
My main question was regarding the price. The follow up is just related to apparent character of lens drawing. Not as much as comparing to other lenses but more so in it being well pronounced.
Aug 09, 2013 at 03:52 AM
p.202 #8Leica R Series Lenses
Almass wrote:
...
Holden Morano 2006?
...
I suspect you mean Monaro.
...
Holden Morano 2006?
...
I suspect you mean Monaro.
Aug 09, 2013 at 05:14 AM
p.202 #9Leica R Series Lenses
JohnJ wrote:
Holden Morano 2006?
...I suspect you mean Monaro.
Correct. Monaro.
Almass wrote
...Holden Morano 2006?
...
Correct. Monaro.
Aug 09, 2013 at 06:02 AM
p.202 #10Leica R Series Lenses
xenon99 wrote:
dammmm she smile at me.
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/2683/epmq.jpg
WOW!
dammmm she smile at me.
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/2683/epmq.jpg
WOW!
Aug 09, 2013 at 06:40 AM
|
p.202 #11Leica R Series Lenses
zhangyue wrote:
I have not use any canon L glass other than 24-105, so can;t compare that. But I have used nikon 851.4G and a bunch of Zeiss 35/50/85 f1.4, and 35/50f2. Compare parallel to what I have, I would say 35lux is very sharp lens at a level that is no longer a concern for me. sharper than Zeiss 35f1.4 at center, but both just perfect fine for me. Most time, is not the lens performance a limit factor, but can you nail the focus perfectly. For most photo with 35lux, absolutely sharpness is not required. That also apply to 35cron....Show more →
Thanks for your thoughts. My personal preference is to shoot 50mm cron, but I find I'm missing too many wider shots. I'd love to go wider, but 28mm at 2.8 is just not cutting it for me. I feel that a 35mm at 1.4 or 2 would allow me to get close to people while also giving me that extra field of view for parties and touring. Just that the canon glass is cheaper, so I was wondering if there's a reason for that when compared to leica glass. Thanks for your reply. Will have to think about this one before forking down the cash...
BTW - when you focus your manual lenses on the 6D, are you using the special focusing screen? Does it help?
Roni1948 wrote
On that note, I was wondering how modern lenses like Canon's 35mm f1.4 L or the newer 35mm f2 IS stack up to R lenses in terms of sharpness, contrast and bokeh. Ignoring build quality, AF and IS, the price range is similar, but I would expect the newer lenses to be sharper. Anyone have any experience with these and a Leica 35 cron or lux?Thanks for your thoughts. My personal preference is to shoot 50mm cron, but I find I'm missing too many wider shots. I'd love to go wider, but 28mm at 2.8 is just not cutting it for me. I feel that a 35mm at 1.4 or 2 would allow me to get close to people while also giving me that extra field of view for parties and touring. Just that the canon glass is cheaper, so I was wondering if there's a reason for that when compared to leica glass. Thanks for your reply. Will have to think about this one before forking down the cash...
BTW - when you focus your manual lenses on the 6D, are you using the special focusing screen? Does it help?
Aug 09, 2013 at 06:50 AM
p.202 #13Leica R Series Lenses
Krosavcheg wrote:
80/1.4 worth 2.5 kilopresidents for a s**tographer like me?
or 90/2 ASPH for 3.1 kilopresidents for that matter....
KEH has 2 different 100 APO Macro Elmarits in EX/EX+ for 2k USD. If you can get for that price, I would consider that one before either of these, personally. But then, I am heavily biased towards Macro designs esp. those with floating lens groups, even though I rarely go into magnifications closer than what SLR lenses give anyway.
80/1.4 worth 2.5 kilopresidents for a s**tographer like me?
or 90/2 ASPH for 3.1 kilopresidents for that matter....
KEH has 2 different 100 APO Macro Elmarits in EX/EX+ for 2k USD. If you can get for that price, I would consider that one before either of these, personally. But then, I am heavily biased towards Macro designs esp. those with floating lens groups, even though I rarely go into magnifications closer than what SLR lenses give anyway.
Aug 09, 2013 at 10:21 AM
p.202 #14Leica R Series Lenses
redisburning wrote:
or 90/2 ASPH for 3.1 kilopresidents for that matter....KEH has 2 different 100 APO Macro Elmarits in EX/EX+ for 2k USD. If you can get for that price, I would consider that one before either of these, personally. But then, I am heavily biased towards Macro designs esp. those with floating lens groups, even though I rarely go into magnifications closer than what SLR lenses give anyway.
I got mine for a bit under $1000. Its extended cap is dented a little but the lens in a perfect shape.
I rather like it though I haven't tried it up close. Did even few low light event shootings WO.
In fact, my first proper event shot some years ago was done on 5DC and APO100 and landed me a lot of "free jobs"...heheh...
Then again, I feel weird when I see all 100 APO shooters colours but my in camera shots look bland.
Is it really good practice to crank up Vibrance/Saturation on Leica which supposed to reproduce colours brilliantly?
Krosavcheg wrote
80/1.4 worth 2.5 kilopresidents for a s**tographer like me?or 90/2 ASPH for 3.1 kilopresidents for that matter....
I got mine for a bit under $1000. Its extended cap is dented a little but the lens in a perfect shape.
I rather like it though I haven't tried it up close. Did even few low light event shootings WO.
In fact, my first proper event shot some years ago was done on 5DC and APO100 and landed me a lot of "free jobs"...heheh...
Then again, I feel weird when I see all 100 APO shooters colours but my in camera shots look bland.
Is it really good practice to crank up Vibrance/Saturation on Leica which supposed to reproduce colours brilliantly?
Aug 09, 2013 at 10:35 AM
p.202 #15Leica R Series Lenses
bland and delicate are two sides of the same coin.
Id rather have an accurate base from which to manipulate though, and the performance of the 100APO cannot be denied.
FWIW I just compared the color balance of 4 of my short macros; Micro-Nikkor-P 55/3.5, ZF.1 50/2 Makro-Planar, Zuiko 50/2 Auto-Macro and a 2 Cam 60/2.8 Macro Elmarit.
The Nikkor was the most obviously the odd man out, and it is also the only single coated lens in this group. It's noticeably cooler than the next coolest which is the Zeiss. The other 3 were honestly pretty close. The Leica was the warmest, the Zeiss the most saturated and the Olympus a tiny bit pastel. Which matches what I've read other people say. Im afraid the only non-Olympus brand lenses I own are these short macros so maybe that's not as helpful as if I were comparing more general purpose lenses.
the Macro-Elmarit-R is actually a really nice lens. I like it's build better than the DR cron I had though I'm honestly surprised by the size. Leica are the kings of miniaturization and this thing is legit comparable to the 50MP which is comically large. The Zeiss is quite a bit thicker but length is surprisingly close and so is the weight.
Id rather have an accurate base from which to manipulate though, and the performance of the 100APO cannot be denied.
FWIW I just compared the color balance of 4 of my short macros; Micro-Nikkor-P 55/3.5, ZF.1 50/2 Makro-Planar, Zuiko 50/2 Auto-Macro and a 2 Cam 60/2.8 Macro Elmarit.
The Nikkor was the most obviously the odd man out, and it is also the only single coated lens in this group. It's noticeably cooler than the next coolest which is the Zeiss. The other 3 were honestly pretty close. The Leica was the warmest, the Zeiss the most saturated and the Olympus a tiny bit pastel. Which matches what I've read other people say. Im afraid the only non-Olympus brand lenses I own are these short macros so maybe that's not as helpful as if I were comparing more general purpose lenses.
the Macro-Elmarit-R is actually a really nice lens. I like it's build better than the DR cron I had though I'm honestly surprised by the size. Leica are the kings of miniaturization and this thing is legit comparable to the 50MP which is comically large. The Zeiss is quite a bit thicker but length is surprisingly close and so is the weight.
Aug 09, 2013 at 11:24 AM
p.202 #16Leica R Series Lenses
I certainly don't have any complaints about 100APO.
Only wondering if I am using it right. Perhaps my expectation is just too high plus I am a bit too rough on PP.
I saw a 60 Macro here for around $300. Would like to try it as well.
Only wondering if I am using it right. Perhaps my expectation is just too high plus I am a bit too rough on PP.
I saw a 60 Macro here for around $300. Would like to try it as well.
Aug 09, 2013 at 11:41 AM
p.202 #17Leica R Series Lenses
Krosavcheg wrote:
Zhang: You are much too kind. Perhaps on occasion I am overly critical, but often I notice that in the chase of better lens I fail to spot the fine nuance in its character which is ever so characteristic.
Therefore it is a question is the 80/1.4 or 90/2 character really can improve past Samyang 85/1.4? And if it's obvious, is it really worth the money?
It's too easy to go overboard on lens purchases, isn't it?!
do you have the samyang and if so are you unhappy with it at all?
i would just get the $250 lens and see if it's up your standards before spending $2k. i'm reasonably sure the samyang is sharper and less glowy than the R 80/1.4 wide open too. definitely different looks though.
Zhang: You are much too kind. Perhaps on occasion I am overly critical, but often I notice that in the chase of better lens I fail to spot the fine nuance in its character which is ever so characteristic.
Therefore it is a question is the 80/1.4 or 90/2 character really can improve past Samyang 85/1.4? And if it's obvious, is it really worth the money?
It's too easy to go overboard on lens purchases, isn't it?!
do you have the samyang and if so are you unhappy with it at all?
i would just get the $250 lens and see if it's up your standards before spending $2k. i'm reasonably sure the samyang is sharper and less glowy than the R 80/1.4 wide open too. definitely different looks though.
Aug 09, 2013 at 07:14 PM
p.202 #18Leica R Series Lenses
sebboh wrote:
.... i'm reasonably sure the samyang is sharper and less glowy than the R 80/1.4 wide open too. ...
At distance or close range or both? The R 80 is very sharp wide open at distance and around the centre, but not so hot at MFD.
.... i'm reasonably sure the samyang is sharper and less glowy than the R 80/1.4 wide open too. ...
At distance or close range or both? The R 80 is very sharp wide open at distance and around the centre, but not so hot at MFD.
Aug 09, 2013 at 07:36 PM
p.202 #19Leica R Series Lenses
JohnJ wrote:
At distance or close range or both? The R 80 is very sharp wide open at distance and around the centre, but not so hot at MFD.
I was thinking 1-3 meters. I'd be surprised if the leica was actually sharper at infinity wide open, but not surprised about that stopped down.
sebboh wrote
.... i'm reasonably sure the samyang is sharper and less glowy than the R 80/1.4 wide open too. ...I was thinking 1-3 meters. I'd be surprised if the leica was actually sharper at infinity wide open, but not surprised about that stopped down.
Aug 09, 2013 at 08:50 PM
p.202 #20Leica R Series Lenses
sebboh wrote:
Therefore it is a question is the 80/1.4 or 90/2 character really can improve past Samyang 85/1.4? And if it's obvious, is it really worth the money?
It's too easy to go overboard on lens purchases, isn't it?!do you have the samyang and if so are you unhappy with it at all?
i would just get the $250 lens and see if it's up your standards before spending $2k. i'm reasonably sure the samyang is sharper and less glowy than the R 80/1.4 wide open too. definitely different looks though.
I am using Samyang. Not unhappy with it at all. Just wondering if character differences are noticeable.
Sam is actually a bit glowy around 1.4 in harsh light plus it does fringe in OOF.
Krosavcheg wrote
Zhang: You are much too kind. Perhaps on occasion I am overly critical, but often I notice that in the chase of better lens I fail to spot the fine nuance in its character which is ever so characteristic.Therefore it is a question is the 80/1.4 or 90/2 character really can improve past Samyang 85/1.4? And if it's obvious, is it really worth the money?
It's too easy to go overboard on lens purchases, isn't it?!
i would just get the $250 lens and see if it's up your standards before spending $2k. i'm reasonably sure the samyang is sharper and less glowy than the R 80/1.4 wide open too. definitely different looks though.
I am using Samyang. Not unhappy with it at all. Just wondering if character differences are noticeable.
Sam is actually a bit glowy around 1.4 in harsh light plus it does fringe in OOF.
Aug 10, 2013 at 03:49 AM