Leica lens question.

[melovesushi]

Hi ,

I am looking at purchasing a used Leica lens for an a7r ,

I have been trolling fleabay  intensively , the choice is staggering , but my question is are they worth it?

they are not exactly cheap even for used and some are ancient that are in my price range.

any experiences ? or advice shared will be much appreciated,

oh, by the way I was looking for a 50mm 1.4  or a 20-24 mm wide angle for landscapes,

forget  the 6bit coated stuff that's out my price range ,

or will I be better of looking at a voigtlander?

here's an example http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/271683779219?_trksid=p2060778.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

 

and another http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/181590897982?_trksid=p2060778.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

 

are these worth buying?

 

 

 

 

[Vivek]

are these worth buying?

 

No.

 

Plenty of other options from the many more orphaned lens systems.

[melovesushi]

No.

 

Plenty of other options from the many more orphaned lens systems.

Hi Vivek, any examples?

[dbaechli]

You posted links to Leica R-glass. I've heard they are pretty decent, particularely considered the price difference to M-glass.

 

Personally, I am using a bunch of Voigtländers and I love them. I already have posted a link to the some of shots I have taken with VM glass on the a7. You can find them under the Adapted Leica/M39 glass. There's also the link to my quick review on tumblr..

 

Another option, I really like, is to combine the a7 (a6000) with Konica lenses - even cheaper, closer to focus, as well, even without the expensive Voigtländer M-E-mount close focus adapter for M-mount ,-)

 

That might be also something to consider: dunno about the R-Leicas, but the others normally are around 70-90cm, if you are not using an helcoid adapter (like the afore mentioned M-E).

 

Oh, and have a look at the Jupiter-8, 50mm f2.0. Big bang for bucks ,-)

[Cheatah]

I don't understand why people so hot about Leica glasses!  They are, no doubt very good and expensive, but other mothers, have also pretty daughters!  

[dbaechli]

Well, some of the possible image quality/rendering is beyond believe when it comes to Leica (M-Bajonett) glass. But beyond believe are also their prices. Besides, it is some kind of a myth - like the holy grail of photography, maybe.. Still, a Leica or Leica glass doesn't make a better photographer. On the other hand, there seem to be quite some with ample funds and little talent sporting Leica stuff ,-)

[Golem]

If you want Leica R lenses just get an MD to Alpha adapter. 

Some of the R lenses are just relabeled Minolta MD. Some

are not, but the level of cooperation in that era between the

two companies was extensive.

  

Along that line, there were 2 Minolta M-mount lenses, the

40 and the 90 for the Minolta CL [also labeled as the Leica

CL in certain markets]. These would be "home-to-roost" in

an ironic sense if you put them on an Alpha :-) 

[melovesushi]

Thanks for your input guys, I gave those links as an example for my price range , I have never used Leica

lenses in any form whatsoever and wondered if these old lenses were as good as the newer ones, which

i'll be honest are out of my price range simply because I will not use them to earn a living on so I can't justify

the expense.

 

 voigtlanders  seem to fit the bill , ill have good look around for 24/28 mm wide angle ,

 

it would be really good if we could  get some sort of data base to compare camera to the different lens

we can use set up similar to the one on dxo mark, even it just showed compatability / sharpness etc.

[nomad]

I second the suggestion to have a look at Minolta MC/MD lenses – poor man's Leica!

 

The 35-70mm is just the same as Leica's, since they needed Minolta to make a decent zoom.

 

The 24mm and 28mm ones are no slouch either, but get the older ones with 55m filter thread, the last version with 49mm were not as great any more.

 

And then the 50mm PG f1.4 is one of the sharpest 50m lenses ever made and still cheap.

[addicted2light]

I can suggest a few options, in order of cost, that I use personally (and you can check the reviews for all of them and a few pictures taken with each on my blog, if you wish).

 

 

1) Most expensive solution (Leica)

A set of Minolta M-Rokkor: 28/2.8, 40/2, 90/4.

 

These are in reality Leica lenses (I mean: the project is Leica), but manufactured by Minolta.

 

28/2.8

The 28 is even sharper than the M Elmarit 2nd (and possibly 3rd) version. Some of them suffers from a bubbling of the paint inside the lens, that looks like the glass itself is full of bubbles. Don't be scared, if it is not too severe it does nothing against the optical qualities of the lens, but it is useful to get a discount. 

 

40/2

The 40 is simply amazing. BTW, in my review I wrote I didn't like the bokeh of this lens; this was on film. On digital, I don't know why, the bokeh instead is to die for!

 

90/4

The 90 is not so fast, but its optical scheme gives you anyway a shallow depth of field, more similar to a f/2.8 lens (yes, the depth of field, or more correctly the depth of focus, varies with the optical scheme of a lens).

 

All of them have beautiful colors and tonalities. The complete set will fit in a pocket! Couple them with one of the cheap Leica M > E mount adapters with close focusing ability (the chinese ones work great, and they cost around 30€ shipped). If you are patient or lucky you can get a full set (yes, ALL THREE LENSES), PLUS a Minolta CLE (the film camera for which they were designed) for around 700€. If you're not interested in film photography just sell the camera for 250€ and keep the lenses. Shopping for a single lens at a time will cost you more money.

 

 

2) Moderately expensive solution (Russian lenses)

Buying Russian lenses is kind of a lottery. You can get lucky, or you can get a lemon. That said, I never got a lemon even if I bought all of my lenses from *bay, so without the possibility to try them in person.

 

With wide angles you're out of luck, meaning I don't know of a good quality Russian wide angle. Flektogons get quite a good press, but I never saw an example good enough for my tastes. That said, a Voigtlander lens or a 24 or 28mm Olympus OM Zuiko will do the trick, for around 100€ (the Zuiko) or 300€ (Voigtlander).

 

On the other hand, two (often) extremely good lenses are:

 

50/1.5 / 5cm Jupiter-3

Great little lens. It is a Sonnar copy, or better it is a Sonnar - period. This because the Russians, after WWII, shipped out of Germany the parts, schemes and machines of the Zeiss factory. Sharp from TA, and beautiful bokeh. In black and white you will get stunning tonalities. The last two ciphers of the serial number indicate the year of production; as a general rule try to get one made in the '50s (they were usually better made). Around 100 / 120€.

 

85/2 Jupiter-9

Even better, at f/2, then the 90 M-Rokkor at f/4! Plenty sharp, and absolutely THE best bokeh I ever seen from any lens, short of some large format Symmar. Around 100 / 120€

 

 

3) Less expensive solution (Minolta MC / MD)

Many Minolta MC (older generation, usually bigger and heavier, mostly metal) or MD (newer generation, covered in plastic but still metal for the most part) lenses are great, plenty sharp and, most of all, with amazing colors (IMHO) and bokeh. 

 

In those last two regards way better than the Contax Zeiss I own (the Zeiss are often sharper, though).

 

Compared to the M-Rokkor solution the MD are quite a bit bigger, but not much heavier. Quality wise the M-Rokkor have quite an edge, though, in all departments.

 

A few Minolta lens I can suggest from personal experience (but there are many more) are the inexpensive 50/1.7 and the 135/3.5. Both quite small, for SRL lenses, and great.

 

 

4) Other cheap but extremely good options

If you decide to go for SLR legacy lenses, and you like Zeiss colors, you may wish to look at the Yashica ML line too. The 28-85 (this is my general zoom of choice), 50/1.7 and 28/2.8 are all great, but the rest of the line as well get usually really good press. And if you need a 50mm macro, take a look at the Pentax M 50/4 Macro. It is as sharp as the Contax Zeiss 60/2.8 Makro Planar for all intents and purposes (but obviously a stop darker).

 

 

My go-to kit

My personal choice is usually to carry the 28 M-Rokkor and the 85/2 Jupiter-9; between the 40/2 M-Rokkor and the 50/1.5 Jupiter-3 is usually almost a toss up, the result depending in the end on what I have to shoot, i.e. if I'll need a wider or narrower field of view for my "normal" lens.

 

Whatever you choose from the above list, don't sweat it. You can't go wrong. 

 

[3dit0r]

To be honest (as a Leica user) I'd only bother with these lenses on an A7 series camera if you need to use them on a Leica film body too and don't want to carry two different sets of lenses.

 

The rendering of the M-mount 35 lux and 50 lux are gorgeous, but so is the Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 or either of the Loxia lenses by the looks of it, and they'll work seamlessly on the A7 cameras.

 

Wider than those and I'd just go for the new Sony/Zeiss 16-35 f/4, which is awesome, and who cares about the rendering that wide, when what you usually want is technical perfection - sharpness and lack of distortion, etc., stopped down. Unless you specifically need a fast aperture on a super-wide for a lot of astrophotography, in which case the Zeiss 21 2.8 Distagon is hard to beat, and the new Nikon 24 1.4 is probably very nice.

 

Personally, I just use my 50 and 35 with my M body, for the kinds of work I like doing on that camera, and on film, and my other lenses are native. If I didn't have an L film body I would use all native, as they're much more seamless to use.

 

Might be worth waiting to see how good the upcoming Sony/Zeiss 35 1.4, or 28 f/2 (and 21mm adapter) are...

[melovesushi]

Thanks or the excellent advice guy's , you gave me a lot of homework ,

much appreciated, the 55mm zeiss is top of my list,

and if i make it to Japan in Feb/March time i am going shopping

 

Anyone tried the canon fd  f1.2  L 50mm or the 85mm F1.2L?

[Philber]

Leica R lenses are a mixed bunch. Some of them a relatively inexpensive, and some hugely pricey. This shows that there is no brand-wide hype going on. Some Leica R are indeed rebadged Minolta. But the hugely pricey ones are definitely worth it. Also, all of them work fine with the A7R, which is not true of all Leica M.

That said, if it is value you are after, there are other choices, as others have said, either with Minolta, or with Olympus, among other legacy lenses.

Just, labeling all Leica lenses as overpriced and underperforming is a dumb as calling all of them insurpassable.

And, if you try the Sony-Zeiss FE 55, you will find that it is very different from a Leica R. Which means you have choices, depending on your personal preferences. That is one key asset the A7R has: the  wealth of lenses you can use with it, which means there are some out there which are fine just for you.

[addicted2light]

That is one key asset the A7R has: the  wealth of lenses you can use with it

 

Well said.

 

In my book this is THE selling point of mirrorless cameras in general. It's not that you get to use different lenses per se, and they may even not be cheap at all.

 

The main point is the possibility to use different kind of "brushes", so to speak, depending on the look you're after (your "artistic vision", to use a rather magniloquent, often misused and generally abused term).

[Guest PenGun]

 The Elmarit is kinda cheap, I'd avoid it. As well there are problems with wide angle generally on the a7R. The very short flange distance is a problem as the light angles are extreme.

 

I bought an Elmar 135 4 a while ago for my Fuji X-E1 and was blown away by it. I have given the Fuji to my daughter and I have an adapter almost here for the a7R. This little gem from the 60s has convinced me to buy only Lieca if at all possible.

 

 I have an FE 35mm 2.8 and the Elmar for the a7R so far and I wil probably acquire a 90mm Elmarit R next. I like the FE 55 1.8 but it's not my most used focal length, whereas the 90 fits me well. Around $500 for a good one.

[Guest PenGun]

I don't understand why people so hot about Leica glasses!  They are, no doubt very good and expensive, but other mothers, have also pretty daughters!  

 Have you used any?

[naturephoto1]

If you want Leica R lenses just get an MD to Alpha adapter. 

Some of the R lenses are just relabeled Minolta MD. Some

are not, but the level of cooperation in that era between the

two companies was extensive.

  

Along that line, there were 2 Minolta M-mount lenses, the

40 and the 90 for the Minolta CL [also labeled as the Leica

CL in certain markets]. These would be "home-to-roost" in

an ironic sense if you put them on an Alpha :-) 

 

 

I second the suggestion to have a look at Minolta MC/MD lenses – poor man's Leica!

 

The 35-70mm is just the same as Leica's, since they needed Minolta to make a decent zoom.

 

The 24mm and 28mm ones are no slouch either, but get the older ones with 55m filter thread, the last version with 49mm were not as great any more.

 

And then the 50mm PG f1.4 is one of the sharpest 50m lenses ever made and still cheap.

 

 

Leica R lenses are a mixed bunch. Some of them a relatively inexpensive, and some hugely pricey. This shows that there is no brand-wide hype going on. Some Leica R are indeed rebadged Minolta. But the hugely pricey ones are definitely worth it. Also, all of them work fine with the A7R, which is not true of all Leica M.

That said, if it is value you are after, there are other choices, as others have said, either with Minolta, or with Olympus, among other legacy lenses.

Just, labeling all Leica lenses as overpriced and underperforming is a dumb as calling all of them insurpassable.

And, if you try the Sony-Zeiss FE 55, you will find that it is very different from a Leica R. Which means you have choices, depending on your personal preferences. That is one key asset the A7R has: the  wealth of lenses you can use with it, which means there are some out there which are fine just for you.

 

Your comments regarding Leica R and Minolta lenses in general may not quite be accurate.  From my understanding having discussed at least some of these lenses with my friend Jim Lager, author of 8 Leica books is that the Leica lenses made by Minolta were in fact made to a much higher standard than Minolta's own version of said lenses.  While the Minolta lenses were to have been made to an accuracy of 1/3 of a stop, those made for Leica were to have been made to an accuracy of 1/10 of a stop which dramatically added to their cost and Leica had an extremely high reject rate of the Minolta lenses made with the Leica badge.

 

Also, as to the 35mm to 70mm zoom lenses, there were 2 from Leica.  The older one was made by Minolta.  The newer one and better performing lens with the Macro setting was made by Kyocera who made the Contax and Yashica cameras.

 

Rich

[Faction]

leica 90 f2.5 summarit-m is quite cheap and I believe good. a modern lens. there's not much in the way of objective information for it. For wides and normal focal length, have you seen the loxias? I think there should be a wide soon

[Robert Crawford]

Buy the FE lenses.  Take advantage of the latest engineering.  I enjoy my FE 55 f/1.8.  I'm looking forward to the FE 35 f/1.4.

 

Rent the lenses if you want to experiment.

[melovesushi]

Buy the FE lenses.  Take advantage of the latest engineering.  I enjoy my FE 55 f/1.8.  I'm looking forward to the FE 35 f/1.4.

 

Rent the lenses if you want to experiment.

Robert , the 55 1.8 is top of my list, it is probably the only one I will buy brand new from current line of FE lenses,

renting is  a good idea ,

will try it as I cannot justify Leica price's (even second hand)

I know how this will end, I will end up with a library of lenses , I think that's a good idea , a lens library

[Cheatah]

 Have you used any?

No I am an Zeiss user since many years, and I know very well why!  

[Guest PenGun]

No I am an Zeiss user since many years, and I know very well why!  

 No you don't, how could you?

[wildlightphoto]

I don't understand why people so hot about Leica glasses!  They are, no doubt very good and expensive, but other mothers, have also pretty daughters!  

 

That's what I thought until I used one.

[Michael_j]

It's worth noting that the M lenses generally will be very small, the R lenses are run of the mill SLR size. On an A7 a Leica M mount lens makes for a very compact combination.

 

Voigtlander are pretty good and the back focus issue of the 35/f1.4 won't matter on an A7 so that would be my starting point.

 

Older Leica lenses are nice enough but are as susceptible to flare as most other lenses of the period, coatings have improved dramatically.

[Phillip Reeve]

While the Minolta lenses were to have been made to an accuracy of 1/3 of a stop, those made for Leica were to have been made to an accuracy of 1/10 of a stop which dramatically added to their cost and Leica had an extremely high reject rate of the Minolta lenses made with the Leica badge.

We had the discussion over af FM but I didn't want to let this stand uncommented here. I have used a lot of Minolta glass and apart from some fungus and a very hard to turn focusing ring on and older lens I never had any defect or decentering issues. So I don't think that Minolta had bad QC as your story implies.

 

My experience with Leica is very limited but the few lenses I tested which were from the 70's and 80's weren't any better than Minolta lenses of the same era, the only exception was the 3.4/180 APO.