The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Leica R 28-90 or individual M lenses?

Jeffg53

Member
I'm seriously contemplating buying an M240 and lenses between 28 and 135. While researching my options, I discovered the R 28-90 which looks as if it would cover most of my requirements. Having watched a friend using an R lense on his M with the adapter, I'm wondering why I shouldn't go the same way and buy a 28-90. The price is eye-popping for a used lense but that seems to be the way of R lenses today.

Are there any gotchas? I know that I will need to focus with the EVF but for a landscape guy, I can't see any other problems.
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI Jeff
Personally, whilst the quality was as good, I found the 28-90 to rather negate the point of the smaller body. So I went back to using M lenses.
I do, however, use the much cheaper and lighter 35-70 f4, which has a really good macro mode as well.
I'd say - use both (if you can afford it) but don't just use the 28-90.
all the best
 

Jeffg53

Member
Thanks Jono, I was hoping that you might come along, as I have read what you said about the 28-90. My use would be almost exclusively tripod mounted which is why I started thinking that way.

I want to use the M as a landscape camera only. My eyes aren't good enough to use manual focus on anything else. I would use my OM D when I need AF.

Owning both is an interesting concept that, I suspect, my wife would not understand.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
For my taste I prefer to use M lenses on the M.
Why?
-feels more balanced (weight/size)
-I want to be able to use the rangefinder
-I prefer optical viewfinder
 

Jeffg53

Member
I guess that my problem is that I have almost no experience using a rangefinder, and I'm quite used to an EVF after the OM D. I have become accustomed to the EVF, but not in love with it. After many years using Hasselblad gear weight and size all seem light to me right now.
 

jaapv

Subscriber Member
I am happy using the EVF as it may be needed and consider it a great addition to the M system, but will not normally use it for lenses from 28-90. I do not really see the point of using an R zoom on a Leica M exclusively. Surely it would be better to use it on a Canon 5Dx with adapter or Nikon ffcamera and Leitaxed if that is the route you want to go. The EVF is, after all, a limited substitute for an optical viewfinder.
 

Jeffg53

Member
The point of using the R zoom is getting one lense to cover a number of primes - no lense changing in hostile environments. I am a landscape photographer. I shoot in snow, sea spray and even out of a helicopter occasionally. My feeling is that the R zoom is as good as any of the primes that it covers, hence the question.

I may end up with a D800E but a Canon will never happen. I'm actually hoping that Sony will come out with something exciting soon.
 
The point of using the R zoom is getting one lense to cover a number of primes - no lense changing in hostile environments. I am a landscape photographer. I shoot in snow, sea spray and even out of a helicopter occasionally. My feeling is that the R zoom is as good as any of the primes that it covers, hence the question.

I may end up with a D800E but a Canon will never happen. I'm actually hoping that Sony will come out with something exciting soon.
Or just plan old dust, which will drive you crazy as a regularly stopped down landscape photographer. Not sure how the lens breathes but avoiding dust would be a wonderful thing. I would suggest if you don't mind that size and weight that an A99 might be a better choice. You can remount R lenses to work with it.
 

jaapv

Subscriber Member
The point of using the R zoom is getting one lense to cover a number of primes - no lense changing in hostile environments. I am a landscape photographer. I shoot in snow, sea spray and even out of a helicopter occasionally. My feeling is that the R zoom is as good as any of the primes that it covers, hence the question.

I may end up with a D800E but a Canon will never happen. I'm actually hoping that Sony will come out with something exciting soon.
There are the WATE and MATE if you dislike lens changing.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
The point of using the R zoom is getting one lense to cover a number of primes - no lense changing in hostile environments. I am a landscape photographer. I shoot in snow, sea spray and even out of a helicopter occasionally. My feeling is that the R zoom is as good as any of the primes that it covers, hence the question.

I may end up with a D800E but a Canon will never happen. I'm actually hoping that Sony will come out with something exciting soon.
For those environments I would prefer a DSLR with a fast standard zoom any day. Too bad you dont like Canon, because in my experience the new 24-70/2.8II is an exceptional lens.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I had the 28-90 when I shot my DMR and was a stellar lens the big issue with it was size and weight which is fine on a DSLR type body since you expect that but on a M it may just put too much stress on the R to M adapter. It's also a change in shooting style that is not usually associated with a M breed type cam. Personally I would not go this route and be more adept to have a 28 cron and 90 cron instead . No doubt you would probably already have a 50 around so that covers a good range. The other issue is the 28 cron is and was my favorite M lens and that would have to be in my bag if I went back to a M regardless of which M cam I had. It's just that nice a signature lens. But that's me
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I'm going to go OT here slightly but as much as the R lenses maybe appealing to a 240 shooter one needs to remember there is not in general terms a better R lens than a equivalent M lens so its really not worth this effort unless its a lens that is outside the M line like a 180 or something like that. I have a Leica R 19mm that I use on my Nikon and as sweet as a lens it is there are M lenses in that range that are just as good or better. So as nice as that option is for the 240 shooter in my mind it would have to be a lens that is better or different to a M lens. The 240 brings options for live view which is the main reason to get one but its the extra options of lenses outside the M equivalents that make more shooting sense for its use. At least that's the way I view it macro. Long lenses would be the main attraction to the 240
 

algrove

Well-known member
Jeff-Understand your frustrations and ideas as I went through many choices similar to yours not long ago.

I mostly shoot landscape when not shooting street.

During a 3 week trip a few months back with my new M 240, perhaps too many lenses were packed, but who cares with a backpack (and a wife). In addition, I wanted to be prepared for most situations. This trip consisted of mountain terrain a lot and desert some too. Valley shots worked well with the 28-90 and also shots for future stitching.

I decided to take the 28-90 R, 15/2.8 R, 21 SEM, APO50 M, APO135M, APO70-180 R plus a 2x R extender which I only used for about 10 minutes in 3 weeks. I was so taken with the 28-90 it was used about 75-80% of the time. Maybe it was a novelty for me, but I found in my situations it was a wonderful choice. I try not to crop at home, so using the 28-90 lens by cropping with the zoom, my images would not have to be cropped in PP, loosing some of pixels we pay so dearly for.

If you want some of the best glass made, get Leica. You have many choices from M to R lenses with the M 240. Using the EVF is THE way (actually the only way) to shot when using the 28-90. The red in focus area takes some getting used to, but after a while it just works and is intuitive for me now. Also I loved to see where more depth of field occurred when changing F stops in Live View as it helped when framing landscape shots where you have plenty of time to frame and decide on depth of focus options.

If you have eye sight problems count on using the EVF. I have a 5D3 for wildlife and action use and it is a dream for my needs in these situations. The 70-200 is fantastic even with the 1.4x extender.

I have only one eye working and find the Leica RF very nice especially with the new LED frame lines, but wider than 28 they will not help and you will need the EVF anyway. Keep in mind R lenses ONLY work with the EVF unless you are winging it or going so wide that DOF concerns are minimal like with the 15/2.8 R which is one of my favorites.

Sure, R lenses are bigger than M lenses. Just look at the lens mouth and that will become obvious. I find a combination of M and R lenses is a fantastic option for M camera users now and brings in a whole new spectrum of glass available for us now. The beauty is that if you want a small package use M lenses on the M and if that is not important for say landscape/tripod work then you can use all the R glass you can afford. Frankly, I like the tripod mounts built into the larger R glass.

Hope my experiences help. PM if you need more comments.
 

Jeffg53

Member
For those environments I would prefer a DSLR with a fast standard zoom any day. Too bad you dont like Canon, because in my experience the new 24-70/2.8II is an exceptional lens.
I only ever had one Canon lense that I liked and that was the 300 2.8. I just don't like the way that they draw - all primaries, no subtlety, but that's just me.
 

Jeffg53

Member
I'm going to go OT here slightly but as much as the R lenses maybe appealing to a 240 shooter one needs to remember there is not in general terms a better R lens than a equivalent M lens so its really not worth this effort unless its a lens that is outside the M line like a 180 or something like that. I have a Leica R 19mm that I use on my Nikon and as sweet as a lens it is there are M lenses in that range that are just as good or better. So as nice as that option is for the 240 shooter in my mind it would have to be a lens that is better or different to a M lens. The 240 brings options for live view which is the main reason to get one but its the extra options of lenses outside the M equivalents that make more shooting sense for its use. At least that's the way I view it macro. Long lenses would be the main attraction to the 240
Thanks Guy. Better or different is exactly how I see the 28-90. On my H4D, the 35-90 zoom was used for 90% of my shots. This let me shoot with a single lense most of the time. The 28-90 looks like it would fit that bill. Again, I have already bought the 100 APO as I it is unique. As to weight on the mount, I believe that the Leica adapter comes with a tripod mount, if it ever ships. I think that the shot of the adaptor on the Leica site is a 240 with a 28-90.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Thanks Guy. Better or different is exactly how I see the 28-90. On my H4D, the 35-90 zoom was used for 90% of my shots. This let me shoot with a single lense most of the time. The 28-90 looks like it would fit that bill. Again, I have already bought the 100 APO as I it is unique. As to weight on the mount, I believe that the Leica adapter comes with a tripod mount, if it ever ships. I think that the shot of the adaptor on the Leica site is a 240 with a 28-90.
Hi Jeff,

As a word of introduction I must admit I bought my first MFDB after seeing your wonderful work with the H series...was stunned by your seascapes and the NZ and Australian landscapes.

Personally moved from a H3D II to a Leica S2-P and now back to a Leica Monochrome and M 8.2

Guy makes a very significant point that the R lenses do not image as well as the M series...and the advantage of the M lenses is compactness, weight and a minimum of compromise with respect to imaging ... their limitations are known but can be managed without much effort.

Whilst the 28-90 offers a certain convenience...it seems that other than using it for shots of the grandchildren....its limitations will probably limit your full enjoyment of the optic. The majority of your previous landscape work could be accomplished without a rangefinder and use of zone focusing IMHO. In my opinion that is not a detriment...it allows for much freedom with regards to framing and content selection and presentation.

The advantage of the M240 is you can have both...convenience of the zoom and the subtle but real optical superiority of the M lenses.

With your skills either route will provide you with a cogent system that will allow you to express your vision...my vote is to take a small step towards the R system lenses while you leverage the distinct properties of a small number of the M jewels as only you can.

Regards,

Bob Moore
 

Jeffg53

Member
Thanks Bob, that's very kind of you to say that. I must admit that I'm struggling to find something that can get close to the Hasselblad and its lenses, but age is unforgiving. I thought that the zoom and M would give me the most flexible combination without sacrificing image quality.
 
Top