cyra wrote:
what is the asking prize for a well preserved Summicron R 50/2,0?
I have an offer for a Leitax-converted one for Nikon. It comes with two elpros and an UVA filter. Not sure about the prize level though, I have not looked into Leica lenses much, but what you guys show here make want to get one!
is it different enough from a Zeiss ZF 50/2,0 Macro-Planar, to own them both?
Does any of the wider aperture lenses work on a Nikon? Is it true that all Summilux lenses won't work (Leitax-converted for Nikon)? I am more interested in one of the faster lenses, rather than another 50/2,0.
There has been a big jump lately. Used to be that a good 3-cam would run ~$300-$350. Now, looks like you need to add almost $200 to that (see KEH). ROM versions used to be about $650, but now not sure what layer of the stratosphere they would inhabit.
I love my 50/2. People say that the lux is miles ahead of it in quality, but images from that I have seen seem so soft WO up to f/2 that I am not sure that I see the point. The cron is sharp from f/2 on.
I picked up a nice 2/50 Summicron-R ROM complete with a B+W filter set (colours and CirPol) for about £320 a few months ago. And put a Leitax mount with AF chip on it.
All I can say is: It's is on my Canon 7D ALL of the time (and I've got a great 2.8/24-70 L)
thanks for your answers. Seems about right. The lens is from 1970/1971 apparently, which makes it a version 1 lens. Seperate lens hood.I read that version 2 or 3 have slightly better contrast wide open.
What is the thing about 2-cam 3-cam difference, and what exactly is a ROM lens (newer I understand and therefor more expensive, but what is the build difference?).
now I have read somewhere that this lens will not clear the mirror on an FF (D 700) - can anyone confirm that?
Does a Dandelion change anything for a D700 or is that only necessary for a "lower" body?
thanks for any further info - I am a noob on Leica.
The 50 Cron with the built-in lens hood is better, but I don't know how much, since I have only used the later version.
The Leicaflex was introduced with a single cam to tell the camera which aperture was selected. The Leicaflex SL moved this cam, so each lens had 2 cams now, to control the aperture on the old and the new body, both silver and sloped. The Leica R3 introduced a new cam, a black stub just inside the 2nd cam, for the newer lenses with a different system. Many 2-cam lenses were upgraded to 3 cams. After a while, lenses had only the third cam. Near the end, ROM was added, which are just the usual electronic contacts to communicate focal length and so on.
All version are optically the same, where they co-exist, meaning that if you find the same lens with different cam and ROM arrangements, they will work the same. ROM is most expensive, but unless you have an R8 or R9, you can't take advantage of it. This may change when Leica's promised R-lens solution comes out, but no one knows what it will be. Some believe it will be something like a NEX-5, perhaps larger.
thanks Carsten. If I understand that correct, cams are meaningless for the use with a non Leica Camera, since no information is transfered anyway. With the Leitax conversion on a D3 or D700 you can store the focal length of the lens in the camera, and it will then meter on A and show the focal length and aperture in the Exif, is that righth?
For a D90 or similar, a Dandelion would transfer the Data.
In some ways the Cams can be misleading in that some lenses have only one version but could have been made in 3 Cam, R Cam or ROM versions (24 Elmarit, 35 and 80 Lux come to mind) yet the lens itself is identical, maybe just older. There isn't any good reason to buy a ROM lens over an R or 3 Cam lens IMHO unless you are using them on Leica bodies and one could argue that the 3 Cam lenses are the most flexible (can be used on older bodies) there fore should be more valueable. In reality the ROM lenses tend to sell for more than the Cam lenses but possibly only because they are newer.
thanks everybody for the clarifications. I think, I will pass on this lens, and just watch the Leica market for a while and rather invest on getting the holes in my Zeiss line-up filled for now
I enjoy looking at your pictures though, keep them coming!
Sorry to ask some noob questions...
Are the R series comparable to M series lenses in optical results?
If yes, it would make sense for me to buy R lenses that I could use both on my 5D II and on my NEX. Or am I missing something?
Those shots are great, Rolf! How did you do that? They really glow!
philber, the answer is: it depends. The M line is much more solid all the way through, but there are some real gems in the Leica R line too. What are you looking for?
I just today tried a Leica Elmarit M 24mm f:3.4 on my NEX, and it looks delightful. Un fortunately, it has the damned colourshift that already prevented me from getting a ZM 25. But my Contax C/Y25mm does not suffer from it. So mu guess is that the longer registry of DSLR lenses males them less prone to inducing colour shift. So I'd love a really good 24/28/35/50. Those are the focal lengths I use most. Thanks in advance.
carstenw wrote:
Those shots are great, Rolf! How did you do that? They really glow!
philber, the answer is: it depends. The M line is much more solid all the way through, but there are some real gems in the Leica R line too. What are you looking for?
philber wrote:
I just today tried a Leica Elmarit M 24mm f:3.4 on my NEX, and it looks delightful. Un fortunately, it has the damned colourshift that already prevented me from getting a ZM 25. But my Contax C/Y25mm does not suffer from it. So mu guess is that the longer registry of DSLR lenses males them less prone to inducing colour shift. So I'd love a really good 24/28/35/50. Those are the focal lengths I use most. Thanks in advance.
the 28/35/50 R lenses are all very solid optically, the 35 cron might be the weakest (read as not good in the corners as the ZE 35mm). the 24mm is not as stellar and was i believe a minolta design, which means you can buy the rokkor 24/2.8 (which is an extremely nice lens, especially on aps-c) and save a fair bit of money for the same optical performance.
Apr 03, 2011 at 01:56 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
The R 24mm f/2.8 is not a very highly regarded lens and is quite similar in design to the Minolta MD 24mm f/1.8, which is a lot cheaper if you want it for your next. It is not a bad lens at all, but not up to the high standards of some of the other Leica lenses. The second version Leica R 28mm f/2.8 is a fantastic lens and definitely worth considering. It could work very well for your type of shooting. There are 3 R 35s - summilux, summicron, and elmarit. I think you might really like third version of the elmarit (it is the one with the built in hood). It is a strong performer. The second version of the summicron is a nice portrait lens, but weak in the corners, and the summilux is an excellent lens but won't work on your 5D II without a heavy mirror shave or grind a fair bit off the back of the lens. Finally, the second version (with the built in hood) of the 50 summicron is a great lens and definitely worth considering. The 50 summilux with E60 threads is perhaps the best 50 out there. It has great contrast wide open which is rare for a 50, but with your style of shooting when you often shoot stopped down the summicron is probably a better better. So I would advise looking into the 28 and 35 elmarits (look for the most recent versions with built in hoods) and the 50 summicron (also the one with a built in hood). Good luck I think you will like these Leica lenses.
Philber, is the color phenomenon simply a coating issue tgat can be corrected by WB, or is it divergence of colors in the lens? If the latter, then I would have thought that you would see similar results with any camera body as long as image was focused.
Grenache wrote:
Philber, is the color phenomenon simply a coating issue tgat can be corrected by WB, or is it divergence of colors in the lens? If the latter, then I would have thought that you would see similar results with any camera body as long as image was focused.
What am I missing?
Jim
it's actually a sensor vignetting issue with lenses project rays at to steep an angle on to the sensor. this is why the m9 has heavily offset microlenses. it's not an issue with slr lenses because they have to be much more telecentric to clear the mirror.
philber wrote:
I just today tried a Leica Elmarit M 24mm f:3.4 on my NEX, and it looks delightful. Un fortunately, it has the damned colourshift that already prevented me from getting a ZM 25. But my Contax C/Y25mm does not suffer from it. So mu guess is that the longer registry of DSLR lenses males them less prone to inducing colour shift. So I'd love a really good 24/28/35/50. Those are the focal lengths I use most. Thanks in advance.
The Leica 24 R is okay, not great. The 28 Elmarit-R (f/2.8) II (<-- very important, built-in hood), is the best SLR 28 on the planet (barring 3D from the ZF). The Leica 35 Summilux-R (f/1.4) latest version is good-to-great, but not superior. The 35 Summicron-R (f/2) is good, but not more. The latest 50 Summilux-R (f/1.4) is top notch, but also very expensive. It approaches, but does not reach, the 50 Summilux-M ASPH.
For those 4 focal lengths, I would not recommend a 24mm Leica, if the f/3.4 gives you colour shifts. I would recommend the 28 Elmarit-R II, the 35mm Summicron-M ASPH or 35mm Summilux-M ASPH I or II, and the latest 50mm Summilux-R, or 50 Summilux-M ASPH. Note that the prices of all these lenses range from expensive to insanely expensive. Try the 35mm M lenses before buying, just to make sure that the colour cast is not nasty. The 35 Cron ASPH might be the nicest deal here.
There might be some other possibilities if these prices are out of reach. These are just the very best options, and some of the best lenses ever made in these focal lengths.
Thanks, guys. Your twin recommendation wins the day, I will get myself a Leica R 28mm. Presently E-Bay offers many of them, but not with the built-in hood. How much better are they? That will work out as 42mm on my NEX, a focal length I will get a lot of use from, and a 28mm on my 5DII, which will replace the ZE I planned to sell anyhow...
Note that Leica lenses render more subtly than Zeiss lenses. They take a while to warm up to, if you are used to the punch and rendering of Zeiss lenses. On the other hand for this particular lens, it takes no time at all to get used to the cross-frame sharpness and general excellence
Yes, the cams are mainly useful for judging the age of a lens design, but this is lookupable anyway.