Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Leica R Cine Conversion - aprox $8000 high quality 7 lens prime set in Canon EF

Lewis,

That lens should wok on Epic and it will cover 6K. If you leave it in the Leica R mount you will need a Leica R dumb mount for EPIC, if you want to convert it to Canon or Nikon I would suggest Leitax adaptors. I have done about nine or lenses this way to convert them to Nikon.

Just double check the rear element to see how it moves during focusing. Some of the Leica R lenses rear element rotates toward the sensor when focusing so you have to have enough clearance depending not eh mount you use.


David
 
Yes, but you'd need an adapter too (i.e. Leitax Leica R to Canon EF mount)
 
I think it is better to describe the Leitax mounts as "replacement" instead of adapter.

And adapter is something you screw to something to adapt it to something else, whereas the Leitax actually physically replaces the Leica R mount with either a Canon or a nikon mount. The Leica R mount is taken off the lens and the lens becomes a Nikon or canon mount lens with the replacement mount installed.

Battistella
 
Actually the Canon Leitax mount screws right on back of the original Leica R mount. I've converted several this way including the 100mm Macro (and have an extra copy for sale).
 
If money is no object, you have to look for the 35-70 and 70-180. They're beautiful optically. And I found them mechanically on par or better with many standard cinema lenses.
I can't believe a couple of weeks ago I've been few hours late on a 70-180. And the price was incredibly fair. I called the shop asking how often they had it. 1 in the 2013, 1 in 2012, 0 in 2011, 1 in 2010, and so on...
 
At today's prices the 50mm summilux - R II (starting at #3820625 in '98) seems ridiculously high at over $4k. The older version, which appears to be in the same housing, starts at around $1250. Have the prices on those sky-rocketed recently, and is it worth the extra expense (I know, very subjective but had to ask)?

Also is anyone using the apo 90mm summicron asph these days (also in the $4k range)? From what I've read, it sounds amazing...
 
I have a 180mm f4 which I pickup up for exterior outdoor shooting.

I swear that lens produces one of the most stunning images I have seen. Scary. The only Leica R lens I have been less than pleased with is the 24mm which just is missing that little bit that makes it special, but is still a great lens.

this glass just does not disappoint.

I'll try to dig up some samples.

Battistella
 
A few weeks ago I picked one up (180mm f4) for about $300 after a 20+ year Leica lens expert told me it was one of the best R lenses out there. And wow, the quality of image it produces... and I can actually live with f4 – especially for the price. Plus I love how compact it is for a telephoto...

These Leica's are just so darn addictive!

...And thanks David, I'd really like to see some samples. So far I've only shot some tests with it on my 5d ii.
 
Last edited:
Trying to decide between the 35mm 1.4 Summilux and 28mm 2.8 v2 Elmarit. Have read great things about both, but especially the 28.

Besides the difference in speed and focal lengths, can anyone shed light on the strengths of each and if they have a preference? From what I gather the 35 may be sharper in the center and softer along the edges with a busier bokeh in general, but not sure how the colors and overall look compare. Ok, I realize this is very subjective and best to try them out hands-on but there are none for sale in my area and its difficult to find them for rent. Samples would be most welcome too...

Thanks!
 
Mark M said:
Trying to decide between the 35mm 1.4 Summilux and 28mm 2.8 v2 Elmarit. Have read great things about both, but especially the 28.

Besides the difference in speed and focal lengths, can anyone shed light on the strengths of each and if they have a preference? From what I gather the 35 may be sharper in the center and softer along the edges with a busier bokeh in general, but not sure how the colors and overall look compare. Ok, I realize this is very subjective and best to try them out hands-on but there are none for sale in my area and its difficult to find them for rent. Samples would be most welcome too...

Thanks!
Click to expand...

The 35mm 1.4 is probably my favorite lens. without a doubt. I just keep calling for it again and again, in low light or wide open, it's just scary good.

Here is a shot from the 180mm on EPIC 5K FF. More from the 35mm a bit later.

leica180mm.jpg
 
David, how do you feel about the sharpness of the R's versus modern glass? I have the 35 / 50 / 80 Summiluxes and love their look, but my Cooke Mini S4s are easily sharper.
 
Christopher Barrett said:
David, how do you feel about the sharpness of the R's versus modern glass? I have the 35 / 50 / 80 Summiluxes and love their look, but my Cooke Mini S4s are easily sharper.
Click to expand...

Depends on the lens really. They all perform well wide open but shine in the 8, 5.6, 4 range. The 50 and 80 show some CA at 1.4 but not the kind of blur you get from cranking a super speed wide open (compare to t2).

i can compare them well to nikon zooms (big three) and some olde nikon primes. In terms of sharpness the hold up to the modern nikons but there is a different kind of quality to the overall image and I think it's the coatings. It's like leica were going for an overall, sharpness, look, feel, that gives them a "quality" (in the zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance sense that it's kinda undefinable). The (excellent) Japanese glass is going for a kind of optical perfection that zeiss kinda goes after now with sharpness, contrast and coatings.

If I wanted razor sharp look I might go with Zeiss, but my subject matter right now is calling for the Leica's, they produce a kind of romantic image. I like them a lot for portraits. I only bring my leica 50 and 100 to a portrait session because I like how they render people. That 100mm apo is sharp and soft at the same time with separation in the right places.

its all so subjective. If I shoot straight charts (and I have) I might lean toward modern nikon, but then I put them on a scene and I'm more drawn to the leica images.

Good to have both though because different situations call for different glass.

battistella
 
David Battistella said:
I have a 180mm f4 which I pickup up for exterior outdoor shooting.

I swear that lens produces one of the most stunning images I have seen. Scary. The only Leica R lens I have been less than pleased with is the 24mm which just is missing that little bit that makes it special, but is still a great lens.

this glass just does not disappoint.

I'll try to dig up some samples.

Battistella
Click to expand...

Wasn't that 24 2.8 based on a Minolta design?
 
Nick Morrison said:
Wasn't that 24 2.8 based on a Minolta design?
Click to expand...

yes,

here is how I have understood it. If leica could not make the lens better than what was available, then they sourced it. The lens may very well be a Minolta design, but the it's still leica mechanics and build quality. It's not a horrible lens, but I think they needed a 24 in the lineup at the time and then eventually built it themselves. I have a later serial number so it matches the other lenses well,whereas I think there may have been some problems with some earlier ones. I have a nikon 24 and I don't think that lens outperforms this one.

The 28 is a much nicer lens and built from the ground up by Leica.

here is the quote from Erwin Puts

Puts states, "The Elmarit 2.8/24mm is a Minolta design that has been adopted and adapted (with different glass) by Leica. In the beginning Minolta supplied the glass elements and Leitz did the assembly. Later, when Minolta stopped production, Leica continued to produce the lens. Purists may debate whether this is a true Leica lens. The fact that Leica has adapted the design and continues to produce it is a sign that it qualifies as a Leica lens."


Battistella
 
Wow, great picts. Won me over after the first one. And glad you speak so highly of the 35 too as I just ordered one a few hours ago at a great price in Like New condition.

Until about 6 months ago, the Zeiss 100 makro-planar was my favorite lens for macro, which is the majority of the work I shoot these days. Then the 125 Voigtlander took over and finally Leica's 100mm apo completely won me over. The Zeiss had extreme bokeh color fringing issues by comparison that were cropping up all over my work (harsh red one side, green the other 3dish without glasses look, especially highlights in the bokeh). And though the Zeiss seemed a bit more precise with slightly better mtfs, the Leica's apo almost completely corrects for color fringing and is renders much more organic by comparison, plus the consistency throughout its fstop range is amazing.

Guess I'd better start saving up for the 19 v2...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top