Leica R Series Lenses
p.75 #1Leica R Series Lenses
sebboh wrote:
35-70/3.5 is minolta. i've heard tell the mirror 500/8 is as well, but i've never looked into it.
the minolta md 70-210/4, 16/2.8 fisheye, 800/8 RF were also sold under the leica label
rico wrote
And the Elmarit-R 24 is Minolta, and the VE-R 35-70/4 is Kyocera. Not that there's anything wrong with that.the minolta md 70-210/4, 16/2.8 fisheye, 800/8 RF were also sold under the leica label
Feb 14, 2012 at 05:06 PM
p.75 #2Leica R Series Lenses
rico wrote:
And the Elmarit-R 24 is Minolta, and the VE-R 35-70/4 is Kyocera. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
People speak of the R24 like it's an embarrassing old alcoholic uncle. I always liked it and frankly look forward to using it on a FF body again.
JJ
And the Elmarit-R 24 is Minolta, and the VE-R 35-70/4 is Kyocera. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
People speak of the R24 like it's an embarrassing old alcoholic uncle. I always liked it and frankly look forward to using it on a FF body again.
JJ
Feb 14, 2012 at 06:19 PM
p.75 #3Leica R Series Lenses
I regarding Minolta highly for their out-of-the box thinking (24mm VFC, 135 STF). For the premium pricing, however, some prefer to experience Leica-branded glass as an in-house design. Of course, the true cognoscente will use the Yashica 24/2.8 ML.
Feb 14, 2012 at 07:07 PM
p.75 #4Leica R Series Lenses
JohnJ wrote:
People speak of the R24 like it's an embarrassing old alcoholic uncle. I always liked it and frankly look forward to using it on a FF body again.
JJ
It is fairly awesome, if you like the focal length.
rico wrote
And the Elmarit-R 24 is Minolta, and the VE-R 35-70/4 is Kyocera. Not that there's anything wrong with that.JJ
It is fairly awesome, if you like the focal length.
Feb 14, 2012 at 08:13 PM
p.75 #5Leica R Series Lenses
Philber and John, many thanks. Means a lot coming from you guys.
Couple more from the same outing. Confessions, I took far too many shots of one flower, but the droplets on it were just incredible.
Jim
One of these things is not like the others by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
Psst! by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
Pow! by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
and a couple older shots...
Crescendo by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
Space invaders by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
Couple more from the same outing. Confessions, I took far too many shots of one flower, but the droplets on it were just incredible.
Jim
One of these things is not like the others by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
Psst! by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
Pow! by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
and a couple older shots...
Crescendo by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
Space invaders by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
Feb 14, 2012 at 10:59 PM
p.75 #6Leica R Series Lenses
JohnJ wrote:
People speak of the R24 like it's an embarrassing old alcoholic uncle. I always liked it and frankly look forward to using it on a FF body again.
JJ
does it not clear the 5D mirror?
rico wrote
And the Elmarit-R 24 is Minolta, and the VE-R 35-70/4 is Kyocera. Not that there's anything wrong with that.JJ
does it not clear the 5D mirror?
Feb 14, 2012 at 11:41 PM
p.75 #7Leica R Series Lenses
sebboh wrote:
People speak of the R24 like it's an embarrassing old alcoholic uncle. I always liked it and frankly look forward to using it on a FF body again.
JJdoes it not clear the 5D mirror?
It does not...
JJ
JohnJ wrote
rico wrote
And the Elmarit-R 24 is Minolta, and the VE-R 35-70/4 is Kyocera. Not that there's anything wrong with that.JJ
It does not...
JJ
Feb 14, 2012 at 11:47 PM
p.75 #8Leica R Series Lenses
I just bought a Leica R 35-70 f:3.4 for my NEX 7, and I love it, considering the price and functionality. The soft colours and contrast are a welcome alternative to the razor sharp rendering of the C/Y 35-70. So I am not at all surprised to learn that it was born a Minolta. The only restriction is that the focus throw is a bit too hort, so that achieving perfect focus with a highly revealing camera needs a good amount of TLC
Feb 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM
p.75 #10Leica R Series Lenses
carstenw wrote:
f/3.4
Do you mean the 35-70/4?
No, the f:3.5. Sorry for the mistake..:-(
It seems that the f:3.5 is a Minolta-sourced lens, Vs the f:4.0 which was sourced from Kyocera. I bought it, because it very soft and delicate colours are a complete opposite to the Contax G's übercontrast, and thus complement my bag nicely.
f/3.4
Do you mean the 35-70/4?No, the f:3.5. Sorry for the mistake..:-(
It seems that the f:3.5 is a Minolta-sourced lens, Vs the f:4.0 which was sourced from Kyocera. I bought it, because it very soft and delicate colours are a complete opposite to the Contax G's übercontrast, and thus complement my bag nicely.
Feb 16, 2012 at 01:55 AM
|
p.75 #12Leica R Series Lenses
Thanks for all your answers guys. I think I better give it a miss on this one. Plus I was trying to get a decent wide angle, the fish eye might just be an over kill. The 19mm is probably more suitable but at a higher cost
alas, all good thing come at costs.
alas, all good thing come at costs.Feb 16, 2012 at 04:26 PM
p.75 #13Leica R Series Lenses
philber wrote:
John, another stunner!
Cheers Philber, it was a very luck week with regards to weather/light especially sunrise.
John, another stunner!
Cheers Philber, it was a very luck week with regards to weather/light especially sunrise.
Feb 16, 2012 at 04:54 PM
p.75 #14Leica R Series Lenses
carsten they made both the f3.5 and f4:
"Later Leitz cooperated with Minolta and offered from 1983 the LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 35-70 mm f/3.5 as a Leica branded lens."
and
"in 1997, Leica had introduced a lens with a maximum aperture of 1:4 and the same range (35-70 mm) that offered almost identical image quality (PP: to the f2.8 lens) in a more convenient package: the LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 35-70 mm f/4. For some reason Leica omitted the designation ’ASPH’ for this lens, although it has an aspherical surface."
Quotes from Puts.
The f4 benefited from Leitz's experience designing the majestic 2.8/35-70mm ASPH Vario. Puts rates the f4 highly. Despite which, it never really took off like the Contax counterpart, though there are a few very nice images shot with earlier in this very long thread.
JJ, it seems people either love each specific Leica-R lens or reject it utterly...strange but true.
"Later Leitz cooperated with Minolta and offered from 1983 the LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 35-70 mm f/3.5 as a Leica branded lens."
and
"in 1997, Leica had introduced a lens with a maximum aperture of 1:4 and the same range (35-70 mm) that offered almost identical image quality (PP: to the f2.8 lens) in a more convenient package: the LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 35-70 mm f/4. For some reason Leica omitted the designation ’ASPH’ for this lens, although it has an aspherical surface."
Quotes from Puts.
The f4 benefited from Leitz's experience designing the majestic 2.8/35-70mm ASPH Vario. Puts rates the f4 highly. Despite which, it never really took off like the Contax counterpart, though there are a few very nice images shot with earlier in this very long thread.
JJ, it seems people either love each specific Leica-R lens or reject it utterly...strange but true.
Feb 17, 2012 at 12:56 AM
p.75 #15Leica R Series Lenses
Thank you, John. I love the 100 APO for portraits/headshots. it is also strong at infinity, with similarly lush colors. The focus throw for portraits is manageable. For long to infinity, there is not a lot of travel in the focus, so it is easier than some lenses to miss it WO. That said, it is much sharper across the frame from WO to about f/5.6 at infinity than the Contax 100/2.
Because of the weight of the Leica lens, rather than its performance, I generally shoot landscapes with either the Contax 85 or 100.
Jim
Because of the weight of the Leica lens, rather than its performance, I generally shoot landscapes with either the Contax 85 or 100.
Jim
Feb 21, 2012 at 09:27 AM
p.75 #16Leica R Series Lenses
philip_pj wrote:
carsten they made both the f3.5 and f4:
"Later Leitz cooperated with Minolta and offered from 1983 the LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 35-70 mm f/3.5 as a Leica branded lens."
and
"in 1997, Leica had introduced a lens with a maximum aperture of 1:4 and the same range (35-70 mm) that offered almost identical image quality (PP: to the f2.8 lens) in a more convenient package: the LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 35-70 mm f/4. For some reason Leica omitted the designation ’ASPH’ for this lens, although it has an aspherical surface."
Quotes from Puts.
The f4 benefited from Leitz's experience designing the majestic 2.8/35-70mm ASPH Vario. Puts rates...Show more →
Not sure what you're trying to say here.... as far as I know the early 35-70 f/3.5 is a re-branded Minolta lens, the late 35-70 f/3.5 is a Minolta design & optical cell with a Leitz barrel, and the 35-70 f/4 is a Leica design made for Leica by Kyocera.
carsten they made both the f3.5 and f4:
"Later Leitz cooperated with Minolta and offered from 1983 the LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 35-70 mm f/3.5 as a Leica branded lens."
and
"in 1997, Leica had introduced a lens with a maximum aperture of 1:4 and the same range (35-70 mm) that offered almost identical image quality (PP: to the f2.8 lens) in a more convenient package: the LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 35-70 mm f/4. For some reason Leica omitted the designation ’ASPH’ for this lens, although it has an aspherical surface."
Quotes from Puts.
The f4 benefited from Leitz's experience designing the majestic 2.8/35-70mm ASPH Vario. Puts rates...Show more →
Not sure what you're trying to say here.... as far as I know the early 35-70 f/3.5 is a re-branded Minolta lens, the late 35-70 f/3.5 is a Minolta design & optical cell with a Leitz barrel, and the 35-70 f/4 is a Leica design made for Leica by Kyocera.
Feb 21, 2012 at 09:53 AM
p.75 #17Leica R Series Lenses
Waded through EP Levine's used section today (very bad organization on that site) and came across this... Leica 280/2.8 APO for $1999. That's a couple hundred less than I paid for mine in like condition. Excellent lens, and price difference between it and the 280/4 is much larger than the performance delta.
Feb 22, 2012 at 01:34 PM
p.75 #18Leica R Series Lenses
freaklikeme wrote:
Waded through EP Levine's used section today (very bad organization on that site) and came across this... Leica 280/2.8 APO for $1999. That's a couple hundred less than I paid for mine in like condition. Excellent lens, and price difference between it and the 280/4 is much larger than the performance delta.
How did you assign a dollar value to the performance delta?
Waded through EP Levine's used section today (very bad organization on that site) and came across this... Leica 280/2.8 APO for $1999. That's a couple hundred less than I paid for mine in like condition. Excellent lens, and price difference between it and the 280/4 is much larger than the performance delta.
How did you assign a dollar value to the performance delta?
Feb 22, 2012 at 03:04 PM
p.75 #19Leica R Series Lenses
freaklikeme wrote:
Waded through EP Levine's used section today (very bad organization on that site) and came across this... Leica 280/2.8 APO for $1999. That's a couple hundred less than I paid for mine in like condition. Excellent lens, and price difference between it and the 280/4 is much larger than the performance delta.
man, if only i had the cash now.
Waded through EP Levine's used section today (very bad organization on that site) and came across this... Leica 280/2.8 APO for $1999. That's a couple hundred less than I paid for mine in like condition. Excellent lens, and price difference between it and the 280/4 is much larger than the performance delta.
man, if only i had the cash now.
Feb 22, 2012 at 03:56 PM
p.75 #20Leica R Series Lenses
telyt wrote:
How did you assign a dollar value to the performance delta?
I didn't have to assign a dollar value. The price is roughly half that of a used 280/4. Having used both, I know you don't get twice the performance out of the newer, slower lens.
freaklikeme wrote
Waded through EP Levine's used section today (very bad organization on that site) and came across this... Leica 280/2.8 APO for $1999. That's a couple hundred less than I paid for mine in like condition. Excellent lens, and price difference between it and the 280/4 is much larger than the performance delta.I didn't have to assign a dollar value. The price is roughly half that of a used 280/4. Having used both, I know you don't get twice the performance out of the newer, slower lens.
Feb 22, 2012 at 04:44 PM