teiki arii
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Viisshnu wrote:
The Leica R series lenses are cheaper for a reason.
Hi Viisshnu,
I am not sure Leica R lenses were cheaper than Leica M lenses at that time, I mean before digital era when the two systems coexisted...
Viisshnu wrote:
They dont quite have the same rendering quality as an M mount lens. This is even more evident when you compare them to modern M mount lenses from leica. Buying them just because they are cheap is not a sound photographic practice. I would personally invest in a M mount lens or if its too pricey then may be some ZM lenses from Zeiss.
Some formulae are strictly identical between the two systems and the "rendering" the same. "Evident"? Please, show me pictures with the same focal length, the same sensor/roll film, on identical subject, I would be very interested in comparison... ZM lenses today are probably very good as other brands anyway. But at that time, around 2006, Chromatic aberrations were very well managed by Leica opposite to Zeiss, Nikon and especially Canon. For example, Canon 50/1.8 and Canon 70-200/4 IS L are a mile away of quality matter from Leica-R 50/2 (1976 optical formula!) and Leica-R 80-200/4 ... where CA is awfull, resolution not better and micro contrast very poor indeed.
Viisshnu wrote:
../..R Lenses are not without their faults. They are not perfect. Of course no lens is without any imperfections but the R lenses have a lot more compared to modern lenses. They were abandoned for a reason. If its cinema,
No you are wrong, Leica-R lenses were not abandoned for the reason you are talking about. They were abandoned because Leica chose to abandon the Leica-R system, no more, to promote Leica-S system, a very handy medium format system where camera was not bigger than Canon and Nikon 24x36 DSLR professional cameras... Actually, Leica-R lenses were for most of them the best lenses in the world but the most expensive as the same time:
- Leica-R 19/2.8 (1990 formula)
- Leica-R exceptional 28/2.8 E55 (1994)
- Leica-R exceptional 35/1.4 E67 (1984)
- Leica-R exceptional 50/1.4 E60 (1998)
- Leica-R exceptional 60/2.8 Macro E55 (1972!)
- Leica-R exceptional 80/1.4 E67 (1980)
- Leica-R 90/2.8, 90/2 and exceptional 90/2AA (2002)
- Leica-R exceptional 100/2.8 Macro (1987)
- Leica-R 180/2.8 version II (1979!) and exceptional Apo 180/2.8(1994)
- exceptional Leica-R Apo 180/2 (1994)
- exceptional Leica-R Apo 280/4 (1993) and exceptional Modular-Apo 280/2.8, 400/2.8, 560/4 & 800/5.6 (1996)
Viisshnu wrote:
I'd rather choose the excellent brand new Nikkor manual focus primes which are far cheaper and optically brilliant than any dusty old lens with a crummy barrel. Just my two cents. Over and out.
Yes, Nikon is an excellent brand, like a lot of them, but manual primes until 2010 were very far from Leica-R ones in terms of inherent/intrinsic value. I know it because I switched in 1992 from Nikon-F to Leica-R system because of that. Shadows with Nikon lenses lack of micro contrast and then 3D rendering was a clearly behind the Leica-R lenses without speaking of the gray/tonal scale... For example, try a Summilux-R 80/1.4 and let me know about it.
Sebastiao Salgado chose Leica-R for a long time and made the most famous pictures of the world with his Leica R6 and Leica-R lenses (Macro 60/2.8, 90/2, 35 and 28)... Anyway, even with a bad lens he is a great photographer...
No, Leica-R lenses are not so bad, and I do not want to change them as I trust them and for their excellent price performance weight ratio...
Best regards. 
|
