bherman
bherman
I picked up a Leica SL and have the SL 24-90 and the 90-280. I began looking into some small-ish primes, and picked up a Leica R-L Adapter. I figured that the "R" lenses at least from an ergonomics standpoint, are better matched up to the SL than the M lenses. This may be subject to debate, and I can sell the adapter (which is basically new) if I decide to switch gears and go with "M" lenses.
Anyway, how good is the Leica 50mm F2 Summicron R ROM lens? The lens that I picked up is a late model ROM lens from 2001 or later, ser # 3916xxx, in like-new condition for around $1000. My dealer recommended the late version 50mm F/1.4 Summilux R ROM, (latest version E60 filter), but those lenses are close to $3000 or more. I can buy a new 50mm F/1.4 Summilux M ASPH for around that price.
I was told that the 50mm F2 Summicron is a 'good-performer', while the 50mm F/1.4 Summilux R ROM E60 is a 'great-performer'.
With that said, (at least for me) I would like to standardize on supplementing my zooms with either "R" lenses or "M" lenses, but not both. I don't have an "M" or an "R" body, just the SL body with the desire to pickup a couple of good Leica primes to supplement my SL lenses.
-Brad
Anyway, how good is the Leica 50mm F2 Summicron R ROM lens? The lens that I picked up is a late model ROM lens from 2001 or later, ser # 3916xxx, in like-new condition for around $1000. My dealer recommended the late version 50mm F/1.4 Summilux R ROM, (latest version E60 filter), but those lenses are close to $3000 or more. I can buy a new 50mm F/1.4 Summilux M ASPH for around that price.
I was told that the 50mm F2 Summicron is a 'good-performer', while the 50mm F/1.4 Summilux R ROM E60 is a 'great-performer'.
With that said, (at least for me) I would like to standardize on supplementing my zooms with either "R" lenses or "M" lenses, but not both. I don't have an "M" or an "R" body, just the SL body with the desire to pickup a couple of good Leica primes to supplement my SL lenses.
-Brad
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Hi Brad,
R lenses are a very good choice for the SL: they fit the camera more ergonomically than M lenses and, in general, they focus closer than M lenses allow, which suits a TTL focusing/viewing camera better. In the case of the Summicron-R 50mm, this is quite a huge difference: it focuses to 50cm where the more recent 50mm M lenses focus to 700cm (0.7m). My opinion is that if you want to standardize on one line of lenses to supplement the SL zooms and don't have an M, you cannot wrong buying the R lenses. That's what I've done anyway even though I do have an M.
Of course, you can just go out and take some pictures with your Summicron to see how well it performs. It is a stunningly good lens. But some comparative notes:
The Summicron-R 50mm lens was made in two optical formulations from 1964 to 2009, with the second series arriving in 1976. Optical differences between them were very small, and they were on par with the Summicron 50s made for the M right from the start, based on my own use of both. (The very latest APO 50 is probably a slightly better performer.) The Summicron-R 50mm was built in every Leica R mount variant too. The ROM model was the last series which came out in the middle 1990s and had the ROM electronic interface for the R8/R9 cameras.
Summilux-R 50mm lenses were also made in two optical series and a number of mount variations from 1970 to 2009; the second series came out in 1998. This second series were improved upon to a greater degree than the similar second series of the Summicron—but even so, they are more of a sameness than a quantum leap improvement.
I have an early Summicron-R 50 from 1964 and an early Summilux-R 50 from 1973. The Summicron is notable as being sharper and more contrasty than the Summilux at f/2 and staying extremely sharp across the field even down in the macro range on the bellows. The Summilux has some of the most gorgeous bokeh wide open of any Leica lens (IMO) but is slightly soft and flarey until f/2.8.
Comparing them both to my current series Summicron-M 50mm lens, I'd have to say that the two Summicrons are very similar overall and the Summilux falls slightly behind*on sharpness and contrast until f/4. After that, you'd be hard pressed to tell a difference.
Frankly, nearly all Leica lenses, both M and R, are good to excellent performers. People debate which are "better" constantly and it's a matter of minute percentage differences on contrast and sharpness, and particular lenses' nuances of image rendering, that are what are being argued over. Both my R50 lenses are superb performers, and so is my M50. You would be hard pressed to see the differences between them without doing contrived side-by-side photographs to exaggerate them. Pick any one and spend your time making photographs rather than worrying whether the one you have is the best ...
G
R lenses are a very good choice for the SL: they fit the camera more ergonomically than M lenses and, in general, they focus closer than M lenses allow, which suits a TTL focusing/viewing camera better. In the case of the Summicron-R 50mm, this is quite a huge difference: it focuses to 50cm where the more recent 50mm M lenses focus to 700cm (0.7m). My opinion is that if you want to standardize on one line of lenses to supplement the SL zooms and don't have an M, you cannot wrong buying the R lenses. That's what I've done anyway even though I do have an M.
Of course, you can just go out and take some pictures with your Summicron to see how well it performs. It is a stunningly good lens. But some comparative notes:
The Summicron-R 50mm lens was made in two optical formulations from 1964 to 2009, with the second series arriving in 1976. Optical differences between them were very small, and they were on par with the Summicron 50s made for the M right from the start, based on my own use of both. (The very latest APO 50 is probably a slightly better performer.) The Summicron-R 50mm was built in every Leica R mount variant too. The ROM model was the last series which came out in the middle 1990s and had the ROM electronic interface for the R8/R9 cameras.
Summilux-R 50mm lenses were also made in two optical series and a number of mount variations from 1970 to 2009; the second series came out in 1998. This second series were improved upon to a greater degree than the similar second series of the Summicron—but even so, they are more of a sameness than a quantum leap improvement.
I have an early Summicron-R 50 from 1964 and an early Summilux-R 50 from 1973. The Summicron is notable as being sharper and more contrasty than the Summilux at f/2 and staying extremely sharp across the field even down in the macro range on the bellows. The Summilux has some of the most gorgeous bokeh wide open of any Leica lens (IMO) but is slightly soft and flarey until f/2.8.
Comparing them both to my current series Summicron-M 50mm lens, I'd have to say that the two Summicrons are very similar overall and the Summilux falls slightly behind*on sharpness and contrast until f/4. After that, you'd be hard pressed to tell a difference.
Frankly, nearly all Leica lenses, both M and R, are good to excellent performers. People debate which are "better" constantly and it's a matter of minute percentage differences on contrast and sharpness, and particular lenses' nuances of image rendering, that are what are being argued over. Both my R50 lenses are superb performers, and so is my M50. You would be hard pressed to see the differences between them without doing contrived side-by-side photographs to exaggerate them. Pick any one and spend your time making photographs rather than worrying whether the one you have is the best ...
G
bherman
bherman
Thanks Godfrey. I was just looking to validate whether my rationale for selecting "R" lenses in the first place was sound, as I had little to no experience with them.
Also, since I no longer have an "M" system, I will not be pursuing "M" lenses in addition to "R" lenses. It is either or for me.
-Brad
Also, since I no longer have an "M" system, I will not be pursuing "M" lenses in addition to "R" lenses. It is either or for me.
-Brad
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Understood.
You can't go wrong with R lenses for the SL until you're going for the focal lengths covered by the SL90-280—the big SL zoom lens is as good or better than any of the Rs in that range and the image stabilization counts for a lot of advantage.
G
You can't go wrong with R lenses for the SL until you're going for the focal lengths covered by the SL90-280—the big SL zoom lens is as good or better than any of the Rs in that range and the image stabilization counts for a lot of advantage.
G
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I owned a 50 Lux-M ASPH, and like Godfrey I no longer own it. Also I find that the R lenses offer closer close focus, better balance, and better ergonomics. For me the M-glass due to the small barrels has a twitchy focus that is too hyper.
The "R" lenses I use as fast primes are the 50 Lux "E60" (that bumped my 50 Lux-M ASPH) and 35 Lux 3-cam.
The 50 Lux "E60" has remarkable rendering. While the 50 Lux ASPH is a perfect lens in many ways, and has legendary sharpness, the 50 "E60" has this wonderful blend of sharpness and softness wide open that is so easy to exploit with the SL. The rendering is the ultimate in smoothness, and the sharpness wide open is close to the 50 Lux ASPH.
The 35 Lux-R is a different beast. It is a large lens, has the same filter size (67mm) as a 80 Lux-R, and physically is the same size as a 80 Lux-R.
I had someone mistakenly ask me the focal length of my "telephoto" lens once. Interesting to note that the 35 Lux-R and 80 Lux have the same dreamy rendering wideopen, but around F4.0 the tack sharpness kicks in.
I would suggest to exploit the SL that F1.4 is a great thing.
I also happen to own a 50 Lux-SL. I named this lens "Porky" because it is about a half inch shorter than your 24-90 SL and only 2.6 ounces lighter. The auto-focus with the latest edition of firmware is not as speedy as your 24-90, but it is deadly accurate and really nails the focus. It also does not have the image stabilization of your two zoom lenses.
At a NYC, in a bar, my friend Joe had a version 1 50 Lux-R, and we compared it against my 50 "E60." Understand that it was only a few shots in dim lighting, close focused, but the results were revealing. I was expecting my "E60" to crush Joe's V. 1, but that was not the case. My "E60" was sharper, more contrasty, and had a more modern look, but the V. 1 showed more detail in the shadows, had richer detail in the colors, and had this wonderful soft retro look.
Which lens was the winner? Which lens was best? Well it depends. I will say that the version 1 is a great lens, but I like my "E60" mucho. To me it renders very much like a Noctilux that only has F1.4, but without the light falloff in the corners. The "E60" really is that smooth.
The version 1 is lower contrast, but it renders more detail in the shadows and colors. It seems the higher contrast, more saturated rendering and the more modern look of the "E60", masks off a lot of detail that the version one captures.
Know that I actually traded my 50 Lux ASPH for the 35 Lux-R. The SL really promotes shooting F1.4 because nailing the focus is so easy and reliable. Know I stack Leica adapters because this allows me to shoot my Noct-Nikkor on the SL and the ability to use the Noctilux F1.2 profile for lens correction. F1.2 from the Noct-Nikkor provides large format like OOF and bokeh.
Cal
The "R" lenses I use as fast primes are the 50 Lux "E60" (that bumped my 50 Lux-M ASPH) and 35 Lux 3-cam.
The 50 Lux "E60" has remarkable rendering. While the 50 Lux ASPH is a perfect lens in many ways, and has legendary sharpness, the 50 "E60" has this wonderful blend of sharpness and softness wide open that is so easy to exploit with the SL. The rendering is the ultimate in smoothness, and the sharpness wide open is close to the 50 Lux ASPH.
The 35 Lux-R is a different beast. It is a large lens, has the same filter size (67mm) as a 80 Lux-R, and physically is the same size as a 80 Lux-R.
I had someone mistakenly ask me the focal length of my "telephoto" lens once. Interesting to note that the 35 Lux-R and 80 Lux have the same dreamy rendering wideopen, but around F4.0 the tack sharpness kicks in.
I would suggest to exploit the SL that F1.4 is a great thing.
I also happen to own a 50 Lux-SL. I named this lens "Porky" because it is about a half inch shorter than your 24-90 SL and only 2.6 ounces lighter. The auto-focus with the latest edition of firmware is not as speedy as your 24-90, but it is deadly accurate and really nails the focus. It also does not have the image stabilization of your two zoom lenses.
At a NYC, in a bar, my friend Joe had a version 1 50 Lux-R, and we compared it against my 50 "E60." Understand that it was only a few shots in dim lighting, close focused, but the results were revealing. I was expecting my "E60" to crush Joe's V. 1, but that was not the case. My "E60" was sharper, more contrasty, and had a more modern look, but the V. 1 showed more detail in the shadows, had richer detail in the colors, and had this wonderful soft retro look.
Which lens was the winner? Which lens was best? Well it depends. I will say that the version 1 is a great lens, but I like my "E60" mucho. To me it renders very much like a Noctilux that only has F1.4, but without the light falloff in the corners. The "E60" really is that smooth.
The version 1 is lower contrast, but it renders more detail in the shadows and colors. It seems the higher contrast, more saturated rendering and the more modern look of the "E60", masks off a lot of detail that the version one captures.
Know that I actually traded my 50 Lux ASPH for the 35 Lux-R. The SL really promotes shooting F1.4 because nailing the focus is so easy and reliable. Know I stack Leica adapters because this allows me to shoot my Noct-Nikkor on the SL and the ability to use the Noctilux F1.2 profile for lens correction. F1.2 from the Noct-Nikkor provides large format like OOF and bokeh.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
The built in in lens image stabilization is highly optimized. Don't be afraid of slow shutter speeds.
I have prints of night shots with 1/15 and 1/20th second shutter speeds that look like tripod shots. I actually had a friend from the B&H used department ask me if I used a tripod when I showed him some prints.
Cal
Godfrey
somewhat colored
You seem to be on an f/1.4 kick, Cal. I don't shoot that wide open too often, too little DoF for my taste in many cases. But it is indeed true that the SL viewfinder allows you to nail critical focus easily, even wide open.
The Summicron-R 35mm f/2, particularly the later model, is a superb lens and very small and light compared the 'Lux-R 35. And the 'Cron-R 90, new or old, is one of those ultimately sweet and wonderful lenses too.
In fact, most of the R primes are pretty much a class reference for the focal length. Leica poured a huge amount of effort and lens genius into their R line from the 1970s through the 1990s. The SL brings these fantastic lenses back to life properly on a digital body.
G
The Summicron-R 35mm f/2, particularly the later model, is a superb lens and very small and light compared the 'Lux-R 35. And the 'Cron-R 90, new or old, is one of those ultimately sweet and wonderful lenses too.
In fact, most of the R primes are pretty much a class reference for the focal length. Leica poured a huge amount of effort and lens genius into their R line from the 1970s through the 1990s. The SL brings these fantastic lenses back to life properly on a digital body.
G
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
You seem to be on an f/1.4 kick, Cal. I don't shoot that wide open too often, too little DoF for my taste in many cases. But it is indeed true that the SL viewfinder allows you to nail critical focus easily, even wide open.
The Summicron-R 35mm f/2, particularly the later model, is a superb lens and very small and light compared the 'Lux-R 35. And the 'Cron-R 90, new or old, is one of those ultimately sweet and wonderful lenses too.
In fact, most of the R primes are pretty much a class reference for the focal length. Leica poured a huge amount of effort and lens genius into their R line from the 1970s through the 1990s. The SL brings these fantastic lenses back to life properly on a digital body.
G
Godfrey,
These fast primes have a second life on film bodies where they are equally wonderful. For compact use I am considering getting a 35 Cron which has interesting rendering.
The SL really can exploit F1.4 because nailing the focus is easy. The 35 Lux has a dreamy rendering wide open, but stoped down it gets mighty sharp. Kinda like two lenses in one.
Cal