Leica lens question.

[Cheatah]

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.

 

No wonder, Minolta and Leica had an very close partnership, and many R-camera bodies and glasses would not exist without Minolta!

[JimmyD]

After trying a lot of Leica M and other legacy glass on the A7R / A7MkII, my thoughts:

 

(1)  Stay away from Leica M wider than 50mm if you care anything about the image quality of the borders and corners, as you will get smearing and magenta color casts from almost all Leica, Voigtlander and Zeiss M mount lenses 35mm or wider.  Only exceptions I am aware of are the Voigtlander 21mm and the Leica Tri-Elmar (16-18-21mm).  I have a Leica 50mm Summicron (f/2) and a Zeiss ZM 90mm (f/4), both of which are fantastic, and I have heard / read that generally 50mm and longer M mount lenses work just fine on the A7 series cameras.  

 

(2)  As a general rule, 35mm SLR legacy lenses don't experience the exact same smearing / color casting issues as Leica M wider than 50mm does, but even with wide angle legacy glass on the A7 series bodies you generally need to stop down to f/11 to get decent borders and corners.  (I have tried the Canon FD 18mm f/4, Nikon AI-s 20mm 2.8 and AI-s 28 f/2.8, and the Minolta MD 20mm 2.8 among others, and they are all like this.)

 

(3)  My current non-Leica legacy lenses all work fantastic on A7R / A7MkII: Olympus OM 24mm f/2.8 and Nikon AI-s 28mm f/2.8 (both stopped down to f/8 or f/11 if I want sharp borders and corners); Minolta MC Rokkor 58mm 1.2; Nikkor AI-s 105 f/2.5; and Olympus OM 135mm f/3.5.

 

(4)  Having said all of the above, however, I have tested and have kept legacy glass because I like shooting with it and the special look that some of the lenses can deliver, both Leica M and 35mm SLR.  But if my consideration jumps from fun / nostalgia to ease of use and image quality, then I am mounting my Sony / Zeiss E mount glass, including my new favorite--the Zeiss Loxia 50 f/2.  Having the focusing capabilities, EXIF data and image quality of the new glass make them winners (especially considering that with Alienskin's Exposure you can re-create just about any look you want--even starting with what some might call a "sterile" or "clinical" rendering from a newer lens.

 

Good luck and have fun!

[Steve C]

Do you ( or anyone else for that matter) have any comparison between the Loxia 50mm f2 and the ZE 50mm f1.8?

[JimmyD]

I have not done a formal test of one lens v the other, but I do have both lenses and the differences are pretty clear to me.  For pixel peepers, the "baby Otus" 55mm f/1.8 is a tad sharper between f/2 and f/4 and obviously has autofocus with the associated benefits; to my eyes the Loxia is as sharp or sharper from 5.6 on.  The Loxia 50mm f/2 is smaller than the 55mm f/1.8 and IMHO has better colors and better overall rendering.  So for me, which lens is "better" depends on what you are going to use it for.  Because of the ease and precision of its manual focus combined with its other attributes (most notably overall more pleasing image IQ for me), between these two I will be picking the Loxia more often than not.  But, the experts at DXO have said that the 55mm f/1.8 is the best autofocus lens they've ever tested, so pick your poison! 

[adonnan]

It's the size and quality of leica glass that's hard to beat. Plus they simply hold their value over the years.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[corinthian]

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

 

 

There are a number of reliable sources that mention batches of Minolta-built lenses being returned because they didn't meet Leica's standards (which doesn't necessarily mean that Minolta lenses are bad). Erwin Puts has discussed this in a few of his books. By the way, there were three 35-70s - don't forget the later f/2.8 ASPH.

 

I've still got a few M and R lenses and they're very good, but one thing I'd mention is that Leica lenses from different periods and even different design teams (Mandler's lenses from Canada vs the various teams in Germany, etc.) have quite different characteristics. My favourite R lens is without a doubt the Elmarit-R 90mm f/2.8 lens (version I or I, although II is preferable because E55 filters are easy to find), which is absolutely fantastic on Sony bodies in terms of colour, sharpness and rendering. In a completely different way, the M lens that I use the most is a thread-mount Summaron 35/3.5, which is somehow sharp and smooth at the same time and is very forgiving to shoot with. The colours are a bit odd on digital, so I mainly use it for black and white work, but a number of my favourite photos were taken with this lens.

 

Anyway, these days the R lenses are quite expensive, but a few years ago, before the age of adaptors and digital bodies, there were some incredible bargains to be had. The reason the price has risen again on some of these lenses is because they are very good, not because they have an expensive name.

 

To anwer your question, though, if you're looking for lenses that are going to meet the resolution demands of an A7R then there will be Leica lenses that meet you needs (definitely not all of them) but for a similar price there are AF Sony and Zeiss options that will be fine. And specifically, seeing as you're after a 50/1.4 or a 20-24mm wide angle lens then you would probably be better off looking elsewhere, if for no other reason than price.

[Cheatah]

 No you don't, how could you?

 

Leica is cooking also only with water, and many of their R-lenses are picked-up from other catalogues, and most of the R-lens users are not aware of it!  

[D700]

It's the size and quality of leica glass that's hard to beat. Plus they simply hold their value over the years...

 

For M-Lenses (RF) I agree!

But Leica R-Lenses (SLR) less ...

[wildlightphoto]

For M-Lenses (RF) I agree!

But Leica R-Lenses (SLR) less ...

 

I wish I had bought several Leica-R 280mm f/4 lenses several years ago.  $1,600 used 10 years ago, now $5,000.

[Golem]

Consider why Zeiss built a 50/1.4 Distagon for E mount.

 

Hint: Distagons were developed pre-digital-era, because

Biogons did not have enuf flange-to-film distance for use

on SLR cameras.

  

Now consider that E-mount bodies can accommodate a

lens of short flange-to-sensor dimension, and that Zeiss

is making Distagon wide angle lenses for E-mount but is

not offering E-mount Biogons.

  

Finally, consider how this reflects on M-mount lenses of

normal and wide angle design. 

  

Hint #2: It's all related to the difference between a digital

sensor, with its microlens and filter pack, and film.

  

  

` 

[corinthian]

I wish I had bought several Leica-R 280mm f/4 lenses several years ago.  $1,600 used 10 years ago, now $5,000.

I really wish I'd picked up a version II 19mm f/2.8 Elmarit-R as well. They were relatively cheap for a while, but can fetch thousands now thanks to videographers with big budgets. If we're dreaming, maybe I should have picked up a 100mm APO too (although the price on those never dropped too much).

 

Nice to see you on here, by the way.

[Old Dog]

Have been using Leica m lenses for over 35 years (summicron 35, and 90, summilux 75 and elmarit 28)_and yeah, the glass is well worth it. (However the latest $8000 m leica camera is not). I have only had the new Sony alpha 7RII for two days but I have been blown away with the results. Yes you do have to manually focus, but the 7RII's ability with focus peaking and focus magnification make you realize just how damn sharp these Leica lenses are. And the resulting photographs are only proving the investment into the 7RII was well worth it. (Am using the Voigtlander adapter).

I also have the Voigtlander 15 f4.5 and Voigtlander Nokton 50 f1.5 which are much less expensive than the Leica lenses but offer results almost as good on the Sony.  

[Nordentro]

Consider why Zeiss built a 50/1.4 Distagon for E mount.

 

Hint: Distagons were developed pre-digital-era, because

Biogons did not have enuf flange-to-film distance for use

on SLR cameras.

  

Now consider that E-mount bodies can accommodate a

lens of short flange-to-sensor dimension, and that Zeiss

is making Distagon wide angle lenses for E-mount but is

not offering E-mount Biogons.

  

Finally, consider how this reflects on M-mount lenses of

normal and wide angle design. 

  

Hint #2: It's all related to the difference between a digital

sensor, with its microlens and filter pack, and film.

  

  

` 

 

They are offering Biogon 35mm for E-mount. Zeiss Loxia 35mm f/2 has a Biogon formula.

[VANGSTR]

I was a skeptic of Leica M lenses in my previous life having never used nor owned one.  But decided to get one this time for my new A7.  It is super sharp and has pleasing bokeh.  I am mastering this 'new' to me' manual focus only - and am enjoying it much more so than autofocus.  Originally, I was going to get the Batis 25mm, but for my shooting style I felt no need for autofocus - so that lens was off my list.  This lux is compact and has a super high quality feel when I use it every time.  This Leica lux is like comparing the Apple mac pro against  other PC's (cheap quality and flimsy).  The Carl Zeiss 50mm 1.4 was also nice, but a bit too much contrast for my taste.  For now, I am loving this Leica 50 lux.

[Gilgenberg]

i can highly recommend Voigtlander nokton 50mm 1.5

 

also amazing is Summicron R90mm 2.0 on A7 Body´s

 

as pancake lens very nice is M-Rokkor 40mm F2/Summicron C40mm F2

[kharnak]

i use leica m mount 35/1.4 on A7Rii. It's good and incredibly small for a 1.4 lens (native mount is twice as heavier and even bigger). and the MF is as convenient as it can be. but AF is still something very good to have and allows you to capture more flying by moments.

 

so my take from this is, if you care about weight and size a lot, and at the same time need large aperture, go with adapted rangefinder lenses. but if you dont really care about that 200g weight saving nor large apertures, native lens offer better overall packages.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[0phil]

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

Forget the Summarits. Get a nice used Elmarit or Tele Elemarit.

[JRminox]

I use Leica's screw mounts with an M adapter and a Yeenon helicoidal adapter with excellent results. Summitar f:2 5cm, Summaron f:3.5 3.5cm are excellent and so is my Canon f:1.4 50mm screw mount. Many more are high quality older lenses are available at relatively low cost, cheaper and better than Voigtlander's Leica mounts. Do not be fooled older lenses optic is as good as new one if you do a little search. I got rid of many newer lenses which were more expensive and of lower resolution.

[joshinthecity]

i can highly recommend Voigtlander nokton 50mm 1.5

 

also amazing is Summicron R90mm 2.0 on A7 Body´s

 

as pancake lens very nice is M-Rokkor 40mm F2/Summicron C40mm F2

I concur.

The Nokton 50 f1.5 is excellent.

I find it less than excellent for B&W personally, but for colour, it's very VERY good glass.

[joshinthecity]

I was a skeptic of Leica M lenses in my previous life having never used nor owned one.  But decided to get one this time for my new A7.  It is super sharp and has pleasing bokeh.  I am mastering this 'new' to me' manual focus only - and am enjoying it much more so than autofocus.  Originally, I was going to get the Batis 25mm, but for my shooting style I felt no need for autofocus - so that lens was off my list.  This lux is compact and has a super high quality feel when I use it every time.  This Leica lux is like comparing the Apple mac pro against  other PC's (cheap quality and flimsy).  The Carl Zeiss 50mm 1.4 was also nice, but a bit too much contrast for my taste.  For now, I am loving this Leica 50 lux.

VANGSTR,

Is this the 50mm f1.4 ASPH (current model) that you have?

[finarphin]

Looks like an older thread; maybe it's interest has lapsed?

 

I've found that certain Canon or Leica lenses from the 1950s give me the rendition I want.  In any thread about lenses there is always talk about parameters like maximum aperture, weight, corner resolution, chromatic aberration, or whatnot.  None of that matters to me.  What I want is that good old-fashioned Leica look -- even though not all Leica lenses produce it, and some other brands do.  These lenses I am very pleased with:

 

28mm Canon Serenar f3.5

35mm Leica Summaron-M f3.5

50mm Leica Summicron f2 collapsible

 

Certain other lenses, which I had hopes for, have been very disappointing:

 

50mm Industar 50

90mm Leica Elmar f4

90mm Leica Summicron-R f2 preaspherical

 

The thing that divides these two groups seems to be the optical design.  The ones I like are double-gaussian, and the ones I don't like are triplet derivatives.  The rendition is much different.  It's not sharpness.  I've tried those of the first group on film and digital, and I like them both ways.  Another lens I like is the Minolta MC 50mm f1.4.  I use that on micro four thirds when I want a portrait lens in that format.  The 28 and 35mm lenses vignette somewhat in the corners, but I don't mind that at all.

 

One other lens, which I do not own, is on my acquisition list: 75mm Leica Summilux-M f1.4.  I've seen pictures others have taken with it, and it has the best rendition of any lens I've ever seen.  Presumably the 80mm Leica Summilux-R is equivalent.

[Golem]

.............

 

I've found that certain Canon or Leica lenses from the

1950s give me the rendition I want.  In any thread about

lenses there is always talk about parameters like maximum

aperture, weight, corner resolution, chromatic aberration,

or whatnot.  None of that matters to me.  What I want is

that good old-fashioned Leica look -- even though not all

Leica lenses produce it, and some other brands do. 

................

*Applause*

 

Sadly, I suspect it's just you and me on this one. Everyone

else on this forum seems mesmerized by numerical measurable

parameters. And this part here is worth repeating, twice:

 

Leica look -- even though not all Leica lenses produce it,

and some other brands do.

 

Leica look -- even though not all Leica lenses produce it,

and some other brands do.

[addicted2light]

*Applause*

 

Sadly, I suspect it's just you and me on this one. Everyone

else on this forum seems mesmerized by numerical measurable

parameters. And this part here is worth repeating, twice:

 

 

 

And we are at least three

 

Another 5 lenses for the "Leica look" category:

 

M mount: 

- Minolta M-Rokkor 28/2.8

- Minolta M-Rokkor 40/2, and Leica Summicron-C 40/2. They're the same lens, but the Leica version has a slightly different barrel (39mm filter ring with the "wrong" pitch vs. a normal 40.5mm for the Minolta) and a stiffer focus action. Besides, the Minolta, according to several sources, should be multicoated while the Leica is not. I've shot with both (at different times) and I can't find a meaningful difference, other than I like the lighter focus ring of the Minolta much better.

- Minolta M-Rokkor 90/4 (and if memory serves me well there should be a Leica branded version of this one as well)

 

R mount:

- Leica Macro Elmarit R 60/2.8

- Leica Elmar R 180/4

[VANGSTR]

VANGSTR,

Is this the 50mm f1.4 ASPH (current model) that you have?

 

Yes. 

[Trad]

To the OP, consider as you make your decisions and purposes, the investment in a broader context, the feel of the lenses, the consistency if you have a few focal lengths, the adaption aspects. I went the Zeiss Contax path for my MF gear, and also a Leica R Summicron 50, all are commonly adapted to EF, as I started on my MF path when shooting canon. This was a small blessing in disguise as it's worked out. I have a Metabones IV adapter (EF to E), and a have a handful of canon Autofocus L lenses. So all my lenses share a common mount, be they MF or AF. No fiddling around with adapters. The Metabones is always on the body of my A7ii. Should canon sway me with some future tech, so be it. I haven't invested in any Sony E mount lenses at this stage, sure there are some great lenses on offer, but I need to see a bit more time pass and for their mount heritage to consolidate before I step into those waters. Just my 20c.

 

Ps as others have said, some legacy lenses are just a joy to hold and use, and they each have their character.

Keep trawling the forums, there's a lot of good information out there, it just takes a while to find it, lots of sifting and filtering to get the gold.