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

[paulcurtis]

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.

My bank balance isn't going to thank you for this

I've done some side by sides of what i've got so far, i've got more to do in different conditions before i really decide whether the Rs are worth it

So far the 50 sumicron and CZ 50 f1.4 - can't really see an appreciable difference between them, in fact i'd argue that the Contax is actually performing a bit better at f2 than the cron is. This is night INT scene with lights all over. A 90 cron and 85 f1.4 again at f2 not much in it, although the Iris of the 85 is pretty nasty, so there is an appreciable difference there.

The 28 f2.8 though is miles ahead of both the Contax 28 f2 and the Voightlander Ultron f1.9, that is clear.

So there's a +1 for Leica there. I need to put them into more extreme tests though, daylight, and harsh lighting.

Of course i really want to see what the Lux E60 would be like, but getting hold of one is expensive and difficult. Same for 90 APO.

cheers
Paul

 

[paulcurtis]

I thought i'd follow up on this thread.

I went through and purchased a number of Leica Rs, sticking with late serials and the best examples i could find.

I then compared them with my Contax glass and various other Lenses i happen to have.

What i was looking to achieve with the Leica R glass was to minimise what i perceive as being the zeiss green/magenta LoCa aberrations, Zeiss normally trade sharpness for this. I find the CP3 awful in that regard and also the Milvus and ZE in that ball park too. The Contax versions, being older actually seem better as they're a bit softer.

I used these on the A7s and Epic W i set up scenes which hopefully pushed these areas, although not had a huge amount of time.

At the end of the day i basically realised that the Leica Rs are no different and in many cases i preferred the rendering and look of the Contax. Some specific comments on various lenses below.

Of course this is IMHO and i've decided that APO is really what i need to reduce what i personally don't like about the Zeiss's

So

Late 50 cron vs Contax f1.4/Voightlander 1.5 - The cron at f2 is hazy (the Leica glow) compared to the others. Bokeh was softer on the contax and the plane of focus seemed better. It handled aberrations better too. The E60 lux is £3000 and by all MTF graphs i could find doesn't perform that much better than the 50 contax.

90 cron vs 85 planar or 100 planar. The planar had a flatter field, bokeh was straight whereas the cron showed a lot of swirly patterns. The cron flares like no-ones business, even without direct light. About the same sharpness between them.

24 R vs 25 contax. The contax was sharper across the field in most cases, but not much in it.

28 R MkII vs 28 f2 and many others. This R lens is excellent, better compared to the contax. A real gem although only f2.8. Wish the others were like this...

180 f2.8 - bit better than the contax version. Certainly a nicer package.

So i decided that the Rs aren't for me. I'm aware that there are 35 lux, 50 lux, 90 APO, 19mm and so on. But i found no evidence anywhere that they're that much better compared to the asking price. They show the same aberrations that all the lenses show.

The mechanics of the R are better. And they look better.

But actually there's a flooded market of ZE lenses now and the contax were always fairly good. The 35 lux costs £3000 and i picked up a basically end of serial 35 f1.4 for £1000. I see better MTF with the contax.

Also IMHO i think that Rs are stills lenses, because there is a definite glow wide open, wonderful for portraits and stills - terrible for maintaining contrast in moving images. That mandler glow and the two faced nature of them. The bokeh to my eye is better for stills as well. I just think there is a lot less consistency in the Leica R across apertures and lens models.

This really is just my opinion based on what i like to see and tested my particular lenses side by side. There's not *that* much between them, either are fine. But it's a shame that collectors have just driven the prices sky high. It's also a shame that Leica stopped designing them because the newer ones were looking better and better. You have no idea how much i wanted to believe. But just couldn't do it when faced with the images.

cheers
Paul