johnastovall
Deceased, but remembered fondly here...
I keep seeing R lenses appearing to be cheaper and cheaper. If one were looking at picking up a couple what would be the suggested 3 best for images.
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!
Three top Leica R lens picks for use on Canon FF
- Thread starter johnastovall
- Start date
Stuart Richardson
Active member
What need are you trying to fill? Wide, normal or tele?
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
John I think you need to be a little more specific regarding your requirements and budget. Lets take the short telephoto category...in modern designs you would have the 100/2.8apo,90/2apo,80/1.4 and the under appreciated 90/2.8 elmarit. The 100A,90A and 80lux are normally around $2K for mint ROM versions and go down in cost for lack of ROM and condition. The 90/2.8 is less than $1k . Any of the above maybe available for 75% of FMV and lower if condition isn t an issue. For pure highest IQ the 100APO is generally regarded as best but of course its a 2.8.
Since I still follow a buy and hold strategy on my Leica glass(maybe for not much longer?) I have the 4 lenses mentioned above. I tended to use the 90/2.8 on my 5D and found the results exceptional. I use the other 3 on my DMR.
johnastovall
Deceased, but remembered fondly here...
Not filling in (have full house of Canon L's from 14-200) but rather looking for lenses which draw different from the Canon's in that range.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
85 lux John is one lens you should look at for look and also the 35 lux. Nothing in Canon will give there look. I like to call them the dreamy lenses. The 85 1.4 is soft wide open but at F2 still has that nice dreamy draw to it.
Stuart Richardson
Active member
Well in this case, I think the 35/1.4 summilux and the 80mm f/1.4 (other than at 1.4 anyway) draw fairly similarly to the 35/1.4L and 85/1.2L, at least not differently enough to warrant the outlay of cash and the loss of AF, auto-aperture and so on.
My 3 would be the 19mm f/2.8, just because it does not have distortion and soft corners like most of the canon wides -- it is really leaps and bounds better. The next would be the 100mm f/2.8 APO, because it is so much better than the Canon 100mm macro. It is extremely sharp, but still has nice bokeh, focuses to 1:2 and is apochromatic....not much more you can hope for in a lens. I don't know the canon system well enough to pick a third lens.
My 3 would be the 19mm f/2.8, just because it does not have distortion and soft corners like most of the canon wides -- it is really leaps and bounds better. The next would be the 100mm f/2.8 APO, because it is so much better than the Canon 100mm macro. It is extremely sharp, but still has nice bokeh, focuses to 1:2 and is apochromatic....not much more you can hope for in a lens. I don't know the canon system well enough to pick a third lens.
EH21
Member
The 80 lux is a special lens and I tested it side by side with the canon 85mm f/1.2 (mark I). I found the Leica bokeh to be even smoother and more dreamy but also that it was sharper at every aperture. The canon 85mm is really slow to focus so you are not giving up a ton going to manual focus, but the stop down aperture is a bit of extra work.
Pretty much most of the Leica lenses draw differently than their Canon counterparts, though. The 100mm apo is a great lens on the Canon bodies as is the 80 lux. 50 lux is also good. I often shoot with my 35mm curtagon on the canon too when I need shift.
So for me I use these leica lenses in order of frequency
100apo macro
80 lux
35-70 elmarit ( you have to either cut the mirror or remove the protective shroud)
80-200mm f/4
35mm curtagon
But when I use alternative lenses on the Canon I would say my Oly zuiko 55mm gets on there more than half of the total time. I also use the oly 28mm - about 1/20 the cost of the latest leica 28mm ROM and very good.
Pretty much most of the Leica lenses draw differently than their Canon counterparts, though. The 100mm apo is a great lens on the Canon bodies as is the 80 lux. 50 lux is also good. I often shoot with my 35mm curtagon on the canon too when I need shift.
So for me I use these leica lenses in order of frequency
100apo macro
80 lux
35-70 elmarit ( you have to either cut the mirror or remove the protective shroud)
80-200mm f/4
35mm curtagon
But when I use alternative lenses on the Canon I would say my Oly zuiko 55mm gets on there more than half of the total time. I also use the oly 28mm - about 1/20 the cost of the latest leica 28mm ROM and very good.
F
fWord
Guest
Hmm...this thread probably died some time ago but no harm reviving it. I haven't tried many of the Leica R lenses at all, but the Summicron 90/2 (cheap, pre APO) and 35/2 seem to give pleasant (and different from mainstream lenses) results at wide open. Stop down and you get typical crisp and sharp images.
The 35-70/4 I recently acquired is an incredible standard zoom producing the most crisp images I've ever seen from any lens at f/4 (including a number in Canon's stable), save for perhaps the 135L. As to whether it 'draws' differently from a Canon lens, I'd be hard-pressed to say.
The only other R lens in my bag is the 180/4. Light enough to carry around all day and underrated IMO. It's a lens with good coarse detail contrast which gives an impression of sharp images, even if not as crisp as the aforementioned 'Crons or the 35-70, so while it's a good lens I wouldn't be recommending it as something 'special'.
The 35-70/4 I recently acquired is an incredible standard zoom producing the most crisp images I've ever seen from any lens at f/4 (including a number in Canon's stable), save for perhaps the 135L. As to whether it 'draws' differently from a Canon lens, I'd be hard-pressed to say.
The only other R lens in my bag is the 180/4. Light enough to carry around all day and underrated IMO. It's a lens with good coarse detail contrast which gives an impression of sharp images, even if not as crisp as the aforementioned 'Crons or the 35-70, so while it's a good lens I wouldn't be recommending it as something 'special'.
D
diglloyd
Guest
I have the 90/2 APO: Follow-up on Leica 90/2 APO Summicron-R ASPH and 1D Mark III mated to APO-Summicron-R 90/2 ASPH
And the 180/2.8 APO: 1D Mark III Mated to APO-Elmarit-R 180/2.8
And the 280/4 APO.
The issue I've found is that except for the 90/2, adapter flex is a problem with large bodies like the EOS 1D
Only a lens conversion is going to eliminate the problem.
In my view now, the Leica 280/4 APO offers some advantage over the Canon EF 300/2.8L, but they're very hard to distinguish. It's not detail in question, it's contrast and color saturation. Perhaps with 30-40MP cameras we'll see more of a difference emerge, but the tiniest focus error renders the difference moot.
robsteve
Subscriber
Lloyd:
Have you tried one of the original R-EOS adapters that was just a single machined piece of brass? I have had one for about ten years now and it is pretty solid.
Robert
woodyspedden
New member
Robert
My feeling is that if you really want to use a 5D and Leica glass you should go ahead and have the mirror shaved to accept all the lenses. Then you can use the super lenses e.g. 19 2.0. If later you want to sell the 5D with a pristine mirror Canon will supply a new one for $300! No sweat
Woody
woodyspedden
New member
Robert
My feeling is that if you really want to use a 5D and Leica glass you should go ahead and have the mirror shaved to accept all the lenses. Then you can use the super lenses e.g. 19 2.0. If later you want to sell the 5D with a pristine mirror Canon will supply a new one for $300! installed. No sweat
Woody
Stuart Richardson
Active member
Is the mirror situation the same in the 5D Mark II?
