p.2 #1 · How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses?
Alf Beharie wrote
But they obviously did'nt know that it is possible to convert Leica R lenses from Leica R mount to Nikon mount...Few would be brave to attempt it though, given the high price of Leica lenses.
You know, it scared the hell out of me and I agonized long and hard before braving the challenge; I always hated the thought of messing with a carefully crafted lens.
After doing that first one very, very slowly and very carefully (brand new 100 Elmarit APO bought at auction just after the R series was chopped), it really was a breeze. It now takes me no more than 5 minutes.
p.2 #3 · How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses?
Best Zeiss, Leica, Canon and Olympus lenses acc. my experience:
Fisheye: Zeiss CY 16f2.8 F (no competition)
15-18mm: Canon EF 17f4 L TS-E (beats any other super wide angle lens reg. corner sharpness and freeness of distortion)
19-21mm: Zeiss CY 21f2.8 (better corner sharpness and less CA than Leica R 19f2.8 and Zeiss ZE 21f2.8)
24-25mm: Canon EF 24f3.5 L TS-E (beats any other 24mm lens)
28mm: Leica R 28f2 (latest model, definitely sharpest 28)
35mm: Zeiss ZE 35f2 (sharper and nicer color than Canon EF 35f1.4)
50mm: Zeiss N 50f1.4 (for me the perfect 50)
60mm: Leica R 60f2.8 Macro (rather old lens, no Apo, but very nicely sharp)
85mm: Zeiss CY 85f1.2 and Zeiss N 85f1.4 (did not test Canon EF 85f1.2 L)
90mm: Olympus OM 90f2 Macro and Leica R 90f2 Apo (the Oly is damn good from close until infinity)
100mm: Zeiss CY 100f2, Zeiss ZE 100f2 Macro, Leica R 100f2.8 Apo-Macro and Canon EF 100f2.8 L Macro (all excellent 100 mm lenses, very close race, my Leica was not able to beat the Canon!)
180mm: Leica R 180f2.8 Apo (incredible sharp lens at f2.8)
p.2 #5 · How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses?
igmolinav wrote:
I am inclined to get the 24 mm. for my documentary work.
From what I've gathered in different forums, the Leica 24/2.8 is one of Leica's least exciting lenses. Don't let that keep you from trying it out though. A Contax 28/2.8 might make you happier though.
p.2 #6 · How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses?
AhamB wrote:
From what I've gathered in different forums, the Leica 24/2.8 is one of Leica's least exciting lenses. Don't let that keep you from trying it out though. A Contax 28/2.8 might make you happier though.
I agree with Benjamin. The info I've found on the Elmarit 24mm isn't very exciting. OTOH, the simple, little Canon EF 24/2.8 is a peach.
I've been a very happy user of the Contax Carl Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8 for many years now. I'm keeping my eyes open for an inexpensive Leica-R Elmarit 28/2.8 (pre-asp), which I hope to pick up for about $1000. Based on what I've heard, this and the ROM versions of the Elmarit might be better than the Distagon, but at about $300, the Distagon is hard to beat. I don't think you'll see any difference between them with the 5D that you might get, but I expect it might be apparent in a 1DsIII - then again, maybe not.
p.2 #7 · How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses?
jcolwell wrote:
I agree with Benjamin. The info I've found on the Elmarit 24mm isn't very exciting. OTOH, the simple, little Canon EF 24/2.8 is a peach.
I've been a very happy user of the Contax Carl Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8 for many years now. I'm keeping my eyes open for an inexpensive Leica-R Elmarit 28/2.8 (pre-asp), which I hope to pick up for about $1000. Based on what I've heard, this and the ROM versions of the Elmarit might be better than the Distagon, but at about $300, the Distagon is hard to beat. I don't think you'll see any difference between them with the 5D that you might get, but I expect it might be apparent in a 1DsIII - then again, maybe not....Show more →
The main difference between the Zeiss 28 and Leicas newest version of the 28 is, that the Zeiss shines only stopped down because of very poor corner performance on full frame cameras under f5.6, while the Leica shines even wide open. If you want to use both lenses stopped down to f8.0 I agree that the Zeiss is hard to beat. The Zeiss is also one of my favorite lenses on my old 10D where corner performance is not very important.
p.2 #8 · How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses?
grasmuc wrote:
Best Zeiss, Leica, Canon and Olympus lenses acc. my experience:
Fisheye: Zeiss CY 16f2.8 F (no competition)
15-18mm: Canon EF 17f4 L TS-E (beats any other super wide angle lens reg. corner sharpness and freeness of distortion)
19-21mm: Zeiss CY 21f2.8 (better corner sharpness and less CA than Leica R 19f2.8 and Zeiss ZE 21f2.8)
24-25mm: Canon EF 24f3.5 L TS-E (beats any other 24mm lens)
28mm: Leica R 28f2 (latest model, definitely sharpest 28)
35mm: Zeiss ZE 35f2 (sharper and nicer color than Canon EF 35f1.4)
50mm: Zeiss N 50f1.4 (for me the perfect 50)
60mm: Leica R 60f2.8 Macro (rather old lens, no Apo, but very nicely sharp)
85mm: Zeiss CY 85f1.2 and Zeiss N 85f1.4 (did not test Canon EF 85f1.2 L)
90mm: Olympus OM 90f2 Macro and Leica R 90f2 Apo (the Oly is damn good from close until infinity)
100mm: Zeiss CY 100f2, Zeiss ZE 100f2 Macro, Leica R 100f2.8 Apo-Macro and Canon EF 100f2.8 L Macro (all excellent 100 mm lenses, very close race, my Leica was not able to beat the Canon!)
180mm: Leica R 180f2.8 Apo (incredible sharp lens at f2.8)
... so every brand has it's highlight lenses ;-)...Show more →
Have you incidentally tested your 90mm favorites against Canons 90 TS-E or against the Leica 90 2.8 (newest version), which I both rate very high? If so: what differences did you find?
p.2 #9 · How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses?
+1 on Zeiss 85mm f1.2, Leica 28mm f2.8, Canon 24mm T/S (Mk2 you meant?), Leica 180mm f2.8 APO, Zeiss 35mm f2 vs. Canon 35mm 1.4.
On 19-21mm, it's a hard call between Zeiss 21mm ZE and Leica 19mm V2. My Leica 19mm is actually sharper and better contrast than Zeiss 21mm in center and it does not have moustache distortion. I kept the Leica.
On 100mm, I liked 3D of Zeiss but sold it because its CA bothers the heck out of me :-). I kept Leica. I had a chance to buy CV 125mm Canon-mount at very good price but did not because I like Leica rendering better. (Now I wish I did).
On fisheye, I AB'ed Zeiss 16m f2.8 vs. Olympus. As much as I liked to keep the Zeiss (just Zeiss name :-)), I sold it because I could not tell any difference even at pixel peeping.
p.2 #10 · How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses?
Rather than FL, I would classify my best according to usage.
Portrait: Leica 180/2 (the ultimate). For lighter lens, I would go for Sony 135 STF. 85 is not my focal of choice.
General use at telephoto: Sony Zeiss 135/1.8 (the sharpest, fastest 135)
Macro: CV 125 (I had the Leica) offers 1:1 and superior CA control. It is actually sharper than my Leica copy, but inferior in bokeh.
Normal: not my focal length, but I've tried a bunch, and I kept my Pentax A 50/1.2 (I've tried most 50ish 1.2 out there, except those insanely priced 3k to 7k one).
35mm: My normal, street lens. I'm happy with my Contax 35/1.4, but honestly, I would go with the new Lux Asph (RF though). To me, if you want to spend more than 3k on a lens, the new 35 Lux Asph and the Cron R 180 are the only worthy of consideration.
WA to SWA: I don't find them too useful for my style, but environmental portrait is of my interest. I find that the C/Y 21 is hard to beat. It's reasonably priced with no distortion for portrait work. For landscape, I think the unique distortion is not really important. But for portrait, 24 or 21 Lux might be even better (don't have the dough to try them out yet).
p.2 #11 · How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses?
I have had the Leica R 28/2.8 vII , 35/2, 50/2, 60/2.8, 90/2, 90/2.8 and 35-70/4. All are great lenses. My 2 favorites are 35/2 and 90/2.8 for their great overall package - size, round built-in hood, bokeh, cost, etc. These 2 are not the sharpest of all sharp lenses but the drawing style is very artisitc and unique. I have not seen that in other lenses. They are special. But the high cost of ownership is very hard to swallow.
On the Zeiss, I have better experiences with the Contax N. N17-35 is one hell of a lens. Of course I have not tried any of the Zeiss Z series which all looked wonderful. I really like Zeiss for landscapes.
I do think the Olympus OM 16/3.5 fisheye is very good. And the OM 24/2.8 is highly regarded. Not to forget the 35-80/2.8 ED and the 100/2 ED. And the OM 80 macro witha combination of bellow and closed up lens is probably the smallest 2:1 macro lens.
There is something in every brand that stands out. So it's not just Zeiss that is on everyone's lips.
p.2 #13 · How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses?
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
Leica seems to me to have very saturated colors and more macro contrast (as opposed to micro). I have been trying to tell the difference between Zeiss and Leica for years - it is visible in pictures but hard to put in words. Quite a few people on net claim that Leica is better for portraits (skin comes out better). You will have to try both to decide which you like more.
I have not used Leica R lenses myself, but from years of looking at photos taken with them, both on film and digital, I am particulary impressed by the landscapes shots. The high saturation and the painterly look are unmistakable. For portraits, I curiously find the Zeiss more suited as I prefer the "sharp" three dimensional kind of look. This shows at least that this issue is very subjective.
p.2 #14 · How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses?
Talk of the R 24/2.8 on DSLR's is kind of irrelevant as it strikes the mirror on Canon FF bodies (certainly on my 1ds2 so presumably on other FF bodies too). I've only been able to use mine on a crop body or Leica film cameras.
p.2 #15 · How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses?
And since L/R 24/2.8 started off from Minolta MC. Maybe getting a copy of Minolta MD and having Jim from this forum to convert it may be a more worthwhile effort. It too have a little red dot.
p.2 #16 · How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses?
Ulff wrote:
Have you incidentally tested your 90mm favorites against Canons 90 TS-E or against the Leica 90 2.8 (newest version), which I both rate very high? If so: what differences did you find?
I haven't tried the 90AA R, but I had a 90 Cron R, and a 90 Elmarit-R for my Canon 5D. The Elmarit was sharper into the corners until perhaps f/5.6, but the 90 Cron had a really nice look wide open and I ended up selling the Elmarit first (and then then Cron, because I bought an 80 Lux).
Now I have an M8 with the 90 AA M (yes, AA = APO Aspherical, Luka), and I love it to death. Lovely look, great boke, a little magic wide open, sharp sharp sharp. I don't recall seeing any 3D in it, but then I wasn't looking for it, so who knows.
p.2 #17 · How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses?
ManWearPants wrote:
And since L/R 24/2.8 started off from Minolta MC. Maybe getting a copy of Minolta MD and having Jim from this forum to convert it may be a more worthwhile effort. It too have a little red dot.
I am quite pleased with Minolta MD 24mm 2.8. It's a bit less saturated than say Leica 28mm 2.8 v2 or Leica 35mm 1.4 but it still is an excellent and it costs little.
p.2 #18 · How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses?
edwardkaraa wrote:
I have not used Leica R lenses myself, but from years of looking at photos taken with them, both on film and digital, I am particulary impressed by the landscapes shots. The high saturation and the painterly look are unmistakable. For portraits, I curiously find the Zeiss more suited as I prefer the "sharp" three dimensional kind of look. This shows at least that this issue is very subjective.
For portraits of men, I would grasp Zeiss and for women, Leica :-)
p.2 #19 · How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses?
carstenw wrote:
I haven't tried the 90AA R, but I had a 90 Cron R, and a 90 Elmarit-R for my Canon 5D. The Elmarit was sharper into the corners until perhaps f/5.6, but the 90 Cron had a really nice look wide open and I ended up selling the Elmarit first (and then then Cron, because I bought an 80 Lux).
Now I have an M8 with the 90 AA M (yes, AA = APO Aspherical, Luka), and I love it to death. Lovely look, great boke, a little magic wide open, sharp sharp sharp. I don't recall seeing any 3D in it, but then I wasn't looking for it, so who knows....Show more →
Thanks for the info's! I always liked the pictures from the Cron when I see them posted here. The Cron seems to have more "character" than the Elmarit, while the Elmarit is a perfectionist lens.
p.2 #20 · How bad are Leica R lenses on a dSLR, when everybody is talking about Zeiss lenses?
JohnJ wrote:
Talk of the R 24/2.8 on DSLR's is kind of irrelevant as it strikes the mirror on Canon FF bodies (certainly on my 1ds2 so presumably on other FF bodies too). I've only been able to use mine on a crop body or Leica film cameras.
JJ
