Leica R ROM vs the rest - are they worth it?

[paulcurtis]

I appreciate this may have been done to death but i can't find anything specifically about it.

I have a great contax package, but even so when looking carefully i see issues with corner aberrations and also not 100%. I also appreciate these are vintage lenses too. Comparing these with say M mount lenses, the M mounts generally appear better overall. However M mount brings it's own challenges with the wide end.

So got me thinking back to Leica R, now i had an old 50 but it was pretty poor so i dismissed the range.

But recently i noticed that the R ROM lenses, the very last of them are often different designs and Leica based and clearly fetch a lot more money.

But are they worth it? I'm against Sigmas (bit soul-less and also heavy) and a lot of modern glass but are the Leica R ROMs gems, striking that balance between size and performance, in the same way that M mount lenses do. I.e. M mount performance in a slightly larger and more ergonomic factor, with better focus spacing and MFD.

So those that really know their R stuff - is there a substantial difference between old and new lenses? On the contax side differences between ages tend to be minimal, there's more copy to copy variation in those.

many thanks
Paul

 

[Tarquin Cardona]

Hey Paul. There has been a forum on Leica R on Red for many moons called LEICA R on RED: Pictures. If you rummage around here it is one of the most comprehensive looks at the R lenses pretty much anywhere on the planet It actually was responsible for giving me the bug.

What I can say is that the later versions of the the R lenses in general are better, which is why you will see premium for higher serial numbers. It is logical as while Leica was playing in these waters with SLR there were year over year improvements. Obviously the connectors are useless to us unless on a Leica R body, but the ROMs were often the later models so that is why the cost is higher. No one is paying for the electronics it is the later improved glass they covet. Generally Summilux is preferred over Cron etc...

In any case. If you have not read the thread LEICA R on RED: Pictures - I highly recommend you make yourself a big coffee sit back and enjoy.

 

[paulcurtis]

Hey Paul. There has been a forum on Leica R on Red for many moons called LEICA R on RED: Pictures. If you rummage around here it is one of the most comprehensive looks at the R lenses pretty much anywhere on the planet It actually was responsible for giving me the bug.

Yes, i'm working my way through it. My questions were specifically about how different the later versions are and whether the cost is worth it - the difference between 3 cam and ROM - does the glass change for example? Or whether there is a wiki reference about these lenses. I've googled high and low and found some information, but thought this would be specifically with red users.

You see i'd take a 2.0 over a 1.4 in the belief that it's a lot easier to get a better 2.0 that that extra 1.4 - Edwin Puts is a source of Leica trivia like that. But theory and real world can be quite different!

So for example has someone got the various versions of the 50 to be able to quantifiably say that yes the later versions are much improved?

thanks!
Paul

 

[Tarquin Cardona]

Hey Paul. I understand what you are asking. Fact often is though that the 1.4 lens was a more specially crafted lens so optically superior. But. Can you get the Leica look with the 2.0? Absolutely. So it is going to come down to taste and how much of a purist you want to be. Your call on that But as I say the rule of thumb is more often that the later models 37XXXX and up generally give you the best investment. Also because after modification if you decide to do that you have the best Leica you can have before jumping to the film versions which cost a bajillion.

And yes later model lenses with Leica are better. A 50 from the 80s versus a 50 from the 90s - big diff. One will be funkier but not fabulous. In early days of buying Leica I bought some earlier stuff and it was really not good in my opinion. They came along way by the time they decided to get out of the R game.

Anyways. As people like to say YMMV.

 

[paulcurtis]

Hey Paul. I understand what you are asking. Fact often is though that the 1.4 lens was a more specially crafted lens so optically superior. But. Can you get the Leica look with the 2.0? Absolutely.

I'm working my way through the grand Leica thread.

The Contax set are good, but there are some weak areas - weak in terms of corner to corner performance - like the 25mm and also the 18mm is quite soft for my liking (I've had two of those). I do tend to get multiple copies and test - i've had 3 50mm f1.4 and there are marked differences between them.

I also have M mount lenses and they perform better.

So the thought is Leica R - Worth the Leica prices? And so far on that huge thread there's nothing to convince me. I believe there are some lovely key lenses in the range - the APO versions and they are suitably expensive. Much more than they used to be! But the general lenses i just don't know about yet. The difference in price between 3 cam and ROM can be huge but the optical difference - doesn't seem so.

I guess i may try a couple and see, side by side. See if it is truly worth it.

thanks!
Paul

 

[Tuomas Hakala]

ROM just indicates it has the chip on it. Nothing to do with optics. Leica has changed the optical design every now and then but this is separate thing... like with 50mm 1.4 they changed when they went from E55 to E60 model. Some lenses like 35 or 80 1.4 are optically the same design in 80s and in the very last batch they ever made. The coatings may have changed overtime but that you only notice by testing and seeing the color differences, there's no proper documentation for that. But all the optical designs and changes are listed in Leica lens compendium with detailed descriptions of each lens and if they are any good or not. Generally speaking you should get all the lenses around same serials for more unified look coatings wise

 

[Dan Kanes]

If you want clean, you want the late model late 90's lenses - like 95-96-97-98 years.

 

[Mark M]

Most of the 1990s LR designs replaced 20+ year older ones so yes in general there are marked optical improvements (but not necessarily ROM versions).

Here are the 1990 designs, which render more like modern Leica-M (or Leica C) than vintage LR lenses in many ways:

15 2.8 Asph
19 2.8 v2
28 2.8 v2
50 1.4 E60
90 2.0 APO Asph
100 2.8 APO Macro (started in the late '80s)
180 2.0/2.8 APO
280 F2.8 APO
280 F4.0 APO

And these LR modern zooms too:

21-35 F3.5–F4 Asph
35-70 2.8 Asph
35-70 4.0 Asph
70-180 2.8 Asph
80-200 4.0
105-280 4.2

 

[paulcurtis]

Through my research (and i realised i had the Edwin Puts book too) that's pretty much the deal. It can be difficult to see where the designs changed and especially the coatings.

That 28mm has gone through the roof in cost. But if it matches an M lens then maybe it's worth it. I wonder how much these lenses were when new!

There's also that 28-90 ASPH zoom which is very well regarded. In fact for Leica the modern zooms appear to offer better quality than most of the primes according to various reports i've read.

I have no problem putting good money into lenses, what i do have a problem with is if they're not worth it and inflated because of collectors and/or the brand.

cheers
Paul

 

[Tony Yang]

Through my research (and i realised i had the Edwin Puts book too) that's pretty much the deal. It can be difficult to see where the designs changed and especially the coatings.

That 28mm has gone through the roof in cost. But if it matches an M lens then maybe it's worth it. I wonder how much these lenses were when new!

There's also that 28-90 ASPH zoom which is very well regarded. In fact for Leica the modern zooms appear to offer better quality than most of the primes according to various reports i've read.

I have no problem putting good money into lenses, what i do have a problem with is if they're not worth it and inflated because of collectors and/or the brand.

cheers
Paul

I actually did a reddit post on this awhile back.

Here's my source http://imgur.com/a/KKOzY a 1997 Osaka Camera Catalog

The last column in the pictures with the list of lenses is the asking price for a new lens.
The 2nd to last column from the right was the average price of that lens, used.
The yen to usd conversion rate in 1997 was roughly the same as it is today ($1 usd = ~118 yen). So for those of you that are curious, here are some USD prices of a few of the Leica models and lenses that are still popular today.

Asking price of lenses 1997
Leica R 19mm f/2.8: 368,000 yen = ~ $3145 dollars
Leica R 24mm f/2.8: 274000 yen = ~ $2341 dollars
Leica R 35mm f/1.4: 359000 yen = ~ $3068 dollars
Leica R 50mm f/1.4: 257000 yen = ~ $2196 dollars
Leica R 60mm f/2.8: 235000 yen = ~ $2008 dollars
Leica R 80mm f/1.4: 359000 yen = ~ $3068 dollars
Leica R 90mm f/2: 235000 yen =~ $2008 dollars
Leica R 100mm f/2.8 333000 yen = ~ $2814 dollars
Leica R 180mm f/3.4 380000 yen = ~ $3247 dollars

Adjusting for inflation, we multiply everything by 1.5 to get the approximate value of what it would be in 2017.

Leica R 19mm f/2.8: ~ $4,787.54 dollars
Leica R 24mm f/2.8: ~ $3,563.63 dollars
Leica R 35mm f/1.4: ~ $4670.32 dollars
Leica R 50mm f/1.4: ~ $3342.90 dollars
Leica R 60mm f/2.8: ~ $3056.72 dollars
Leica R 80mm f/1.4: ~ $4670.32 dollars
Leica R 90mm f/2: ~ $3056 dollars
Leica R 100mm f/2.8: ~ $4283.67 dollars
Leica R 180mm f/3.4: ~ $4,942.81 dollars

Actual current Prices via eBay:

Leica R 19mm f/2.8: ~ $3300
Leica R 24mm f/2.8: ~ $900 dollars
Leica R 35mm f/1.4: ~ $3400
Leica R 50mm f/1.4: ~ $1500 dollars
Leica R 60mm f/2.8: ~ $700 dollars
Leica R 80mm f/1.4: ~ $2500 dollars
Leica R 90mm f/2: ~ $800 dollars
Leica R 100mm f/2.8: ~ $2000 dollars
Leica R 180mm f/3.4: ~ $1100 dollars
So as you can see, while some have fallen off heavily, in general the Leica R lenses have retained their value remarkably well over the past 20 years.

 

[paulcurtis]

Hi Tony,

That's a cool post, interesting. Do you have data for the other lenses out of curiosity?

Well i bit the bullet and found myself a late 28mm V2, 1995 i think, in mint condition. So when i get that i can compare to a number of other 28s i have, properly.

Also negotiating on a 50mm summicron from 1998.

I will use these two to compare against my other lenses to see whether the cost is worth it. I have been through *a lot* of lenses from cooke, sigma, canon, zeiss and so on. I'm also very fond of my M lenses which i think perform a lot better than larger lenses - so lets see whether this 28 is actually better than the M version (according to Putts)

cheers
Paul

 

[Lee Saxon]

You can't go by ROM contacts. AFAIK whatever was in the line-up at the time got ROM contacts whether it was a new design or not. AND Leica let customers send in older lenses for ROM conversion. Neither can you go by date - some lenses produced late in the R era were very old designs, presumably owing to the mount's low production volume and Leica's limited budget at the time. The 135/2.8 for example was produced from 1968-1998.

This site lists all the various design versions of the Leica R lenses and their dates of production : https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/R_Lenses_x_Focal_Length

But Mark M's list in an earlier pretty much covers it IMHO.

I have no problem putting good money into lenses, what i do have a problem with is if they're not worth it and inflated because of collectors and/or the brand.

Unfortunately there's no avoiding that with Leica. Even the *old* Leica R stuff, like the non-APO 90's, which don't have a huge amount of business being more than C/Y or Nikon Ai-S, can be quite a bit more. Worst offender is the 80/1.4 which can get up to $2k because it supposedly has a certain special "look" despite being a poor technical performer. Meanwhile the 100/2.8 AME - a lens I consider to still be unmatched - goes for the same amount and is actually worth it.

The 90/2 AA is going for about as much as an 85/1.4 Otus. There's a comparison test I want somebody to run. And both are in "buy yourself a manual focus 400/2.8 or even 800/5.6 instead" $3.5k+ territory.

Even the 28 v2. I love it, I'm sure you love yours if it's arrived yet. Gorgeous output. But it's a simple spherical design. Up to $2.5k on eBay you must be crazy. The $1.4k I paid might even be high.

The 180/2 APO probably wasn't a bad buy when I got it for $4500 but it and the APO zooms are now often in "buy yourself a used *autofocus* 400/2.8 instead" $7-8k territory.

Another in that territory is the 15/2.8 Super-Elmarit. Double the price of the stellar Milvus 15/2.8. There's another comparison test I want to see run.

"Worth it" is very subjective, though. As you're a Leica M fan I suspect you've already built up a higher tolerance than I have for Leica's Reality Distortion Field.

 

[paulcurtis]

"Worth it" is very subjective, though. As you're a Leica M fan I suspect you've already built up a higher tolerance than I have for Leica's Reality Distortion Field.

I totally get you. Totally, the laws of diminishing returns.

I have the 28 MkII, a late 50 cron and late 90 cron too. I am struggling with a R to EOS adapter though, the first one didn't hit infinity on the 28 which threw me until i realised that. I have ordered some Leitax mounts but in the short term i am hoping to side by side these with my other lenses in the kinds of situations where i have issues with the zeiss's.

I do have a R to Emount for my A7sII and infinity isn't an issue there, so the lens is okay.

I can't really make any conclusions yet, i can see side-by-side the Contax 28 f2 and the Leica 28 at closer ranges - the Leica is better (both at 2.8) clearly. And in stills it's a lovely performer for sure. One issue i have with the zeiss is that they are very prone to magenta bleed against bright subjects and this winds me up no end because i can see it clearly and i do think it's distracting and it's a common scenario.

Now the 90 looks wonderful but it does suffer the kinds of aberrations i am trying to improve on. So naturally i turn to the APO. Then the cron, looks nice so far, but i look to the E60 summilux.

If i compare the cost of a cine prime, a Sigma, CP3, Canon or whatever then the prices for these lenses aren't so outrageous. Of course if i think about what they would have been 5 years ago then they clearly are.

I'm happy to pay for the 50 summilux so long as i perceive it worth it and the only way is to try it out!

I'm also very keen on the 28-90 zoom, being a really nice size and range.

There's also a certain amount of post Leica justification that goes on too. Hence me wanting to really side by side for myself.

The Otus are just too big and heavy IMHO and also not a full range, yet.

cheers
Paul

 

[Mark M]

The only problem with the 28-90 and why I omitted from the list earlier, is its not parfocal whereas most LR zooms are. But if you expect to use it like a flexible prime (and not zoom during takes) you should be satisfied... though a little slow on the long end.

 

[Mark M]

Lee, you bring up some great points and I agree with pretty much every one of them but will say the 80 1.4 can get a bad rap for its bloomy performance wide open but closed down is one of the sharpest vintage lenses I've used. Besides some CA that pops up in hard contrast oof areas, its up there with modern glass by about 2.8 and the vintage Leica character that comes with it is icing on the cake. Though I love the 90 Apo Asph too (same design as M version) it does distort a little more and can render mid out of focus areas 'less interestingly' than the 80 Lux imo. But I've found both to be truly stellar/special in their own right.

 

[Lee Saxon]

Lee, you bring up some great points and I agree with pretty much every one of them but will say the 80 1.4 can get a bad rap for its bloomy performance wide open but closed down is one of the sharpest vintage lenses I've used. Besides some CA that pops up in hard contrast oof areas, its up there with modern glass by about 2.8 and the vintage Leica character that comes with it is icing on the cake. Though I love the 90 Apo Asph too (same design as M version) it does distort a little more and can render mid out of focus areas 'less interestingly' than the 80 Lux imo. But I've found both to be truly stellar/special in their own right.

From what I've seen on the internet (I only own the 28v2, 100AME, and 180/2, which is why my comments stuck to "love to see that comparison"), I agree with that assessment. I like that the 90AA is technically proficient without getting "clinical" as Sigma Art have been known to.

My thing with "sharp stopped down two stops" - and you hear this about older fast glass often, like Nikon's 85/1.4 Ai-S - is that I paid (in money and in lugging more weight) for those two stops!! The 80 Lux can be triple to quadruple the price of the 90/2.8 v2.

 

[Mark M]

True if a soft wide open look is not desirable there's no need to spend extra on an 80 Lux when there are other very capable LR 90s available for less. The 90 2.8 is overshadowed by the others but probably the best value of the three and some say the sharpest closed down.

 

[Paul Ryzhkoff]

i don't know why such little love for an 80 'lux... I personally used 100 AME and 80mm lux to shoot an arms catalog, and when at F5.6 or f/8 there was very little difference between them. Very hard to tell.
80 a bit closed down is VERY sharp, and when wide open it is extremely creamy. There is a link to an ad that i've posted in "leica on red" thread, and everyone noticed and commented on the creaminess of the image, well almost all of these creamy shots were made with 80mm WFO.
Definitely a people lens, and it looks similar to legendary 1.0 Noctilux in drawing character. Just don't shoot infinity at f1.4.

 

[paulcurtis]

I guess not many have owned all the options and put them to the test in the kinds of conditions they shoot in, and the interwebs are full of Leica Lore, or Zeiss Lore with XYZ saying one thing and someone else the opposite. Also you can get bad versions of lenses too.

Do you use the 100 in day to day shooting as well, how do you find it?

Mark, thanks for the info on the 28-90. I think i will hunt for primes first. What kind of distortion does the 90 APO have and the mid range performance, compared to what?

cheers
Paul

 

[Paul Ryzhkoff]

Paul, the 100 is absolutely incredible, both for me and Mark M i was a first R lens, that started the fire.
It is so good you have to see it to believe it. Later it became a father to S system's 120mm(they are very similar), and this same lens is used as 120mm in Thalia lineup now.

It is a bit unwieldy to use in cinema environment due to extending front and gear travel when focusing, when doing photography i often pick it first, but when shooting moving pictures it is rarely out of the case, for some reason. There is no sensor that could utilize this lens's potential, and it would possibly take some 7-10 years for the sensor technology to develop, to utilize it's incredible potential.