Is there any real difference in lens quality between M and R lenses? I have used both and am unable to detect any difference, overall. Thank you in advance.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), October 03, 2001

Answers

The short answer is, given that the overwhelming majority of published photographs shot in 35mm format by the most famous, highly- paid photographers of today were taken with Canon or Nikon lenses, if there are differences between M and R lenses they are probably not sufficient to propel any of us here into the above ranks. The long answer is, if you look hard and critically under high magnification you will indeed see differences between comparable R and M lenses, and different versions within each group, at various apertures and subject distances under various lighting conditions. Many of the current M lenses are quite new designs while few of the R lenses are. Many people find that they can get sharper images handholding the M as opposed to the R. Other people find the M's approximate finder coverage gives them poorer compositional input than the SLR. The R bodies also have more consistency in their shutter speeds which makes transparency exposures more consistent. SLR's are harder to focus accurately with wide-angle lenses and are generally more dependent upon the users's eyesight. All these factors and more contribute so much to the final outcome of real-world photography that minute details of optical performance alluded to by "lens testers" make for little more than interesting reading.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), October 03, 2001.

John

Most people think there is not much difference, perhaps the more important thing is when the current lens was designed. There again many people swear by the older designs anyway. The M and Rs have the same characteristics. It seems that the consensus is that the wides on the M have the edge over the R equivalents- mainly because they are new ASPH designs, otherwise it seems they are roughly equivalent, some being much the same (100mm APO-R and 90mm APO-M) and 75mm and 80mm Summiluxes, 50mm Summicrons. The 50mm Summilux-R is a more recent design than the venerable 50 Summilux-M. All of the current Leica R long teles are new designs.

As with most things Leica M stuff has the mystique so is agonised over more.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), October 03, 2001.

John:

The M lenses that have been redesigned in the last few years are better in terms of optical performance than their R counterparts. For example, the 21mm/f2.8 ASPH, 28mm/f2 ASPH, 35mm/f1.4 and f2 ASPH lenses, and the 90mm/f2 and 135mm/f3.4 APO ASPH lenses are significantly superior to the R lenses of the same focal lengths, some of which are old designs and are no longer made. For comparative tests and evaluations, see Erwin Puts' website. The older Leica lenses have a different optical signature, and many users, including myself, prefer them for certain types of situations.........

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), October 03, 2001.

John

In all of the focal lengths for which both M/R lenses exist, the M lenses are better (21/2.8 ASPH, 24/2.8 ASPH, 2.8/2.8, 28/2.0 ASPH, 35/2.0 and 1.4 ASPH, 50/2.0, 90/2.0 Apo-ASPH, 135/3.4 APO) the M lenses are better. This also includes the comparison of the 75/1.4- M, whcih is a little better than the 80/1.4-R (see Erwin's website). The only exceptions are the 50/1.4 (newly designed for Leica R) and the 90/2.8, for which the M and R versions are identical.

When one states that the M and R lenses are essentially the same, it is ignoring the design efforts of the last 10 years or so in producing a whole new generation of outstanding M glass. In terms of the R system, Leica seems to have put most of their design effort into their APO tele lenses, all 180 mm or longer except for the outstanding 100 mm/2.8 Apo-Macro-Elmarit.

The history is that the R lenses, until this recent generation of excellent APO tele glass, have not had a grreat reputation optically, not the type of reputation that the M lenses have enjoyed.

Whether the improved characteristics of the new generation of M lenses would actually result in better photographs as compared with the R system is another matter. I don't believe that most photographers ever push their lenses to the limits of their optical capabilities. (This is not meant as a critique, just a statement as to how photography is commonly practiced.)

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), October 03, 2001.

Eliot

Our point is that similar generation lenses offer broadly the same performance. No one is arguing that the Apo 90mm-M is not better than the 90mm Summicron-R, but this lens is discontinued and the current lens in the R line up that it should be compared to it is the 100mm Apo. Even here they are not really comparable being differing focal lengths and apertures. Similarly a 19mm-R and 21mm-M is difficult to compare directly. I would anticipate a 21mm to be a better performer than a 19mm all things being equal. Likewise the 21mm R SA is discontinued, as is the 135mm-R, so again really are out of the equation. My experience is that the M and R lenses offer comparable performance when the same generations are compared. Taken as a whole in the 21-35 range then the performance of Ms are better, above this and you have some problem directly comparing the current set anyway, but there is not a great deal of difference in the ones that can be compared (do you compare a 100mm APO with a 90mm or a 135mm-M?). No doubt if there is a new 90mm-R then it will provide the likes of Erwin with paroxyms of pleasure comparing the M and the R versions.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), October 03, 2001.

Robin,

The history of the two systems has always been that Leica M lens have exceeded the R lenses in their reputation for performance (no doubt in their actual performance too). I'm talking here about comparing older generation M vs older generation R (eg., 50/2.0, 35/2.0, etc.): the latter have never been up to the standards of the M system since the introduction of the first Leicaflex.

For those of us who have been around Leica a long time (like me), it is the reason I chose Leica M and never got into Leica R. It seems that only recently (last 10 years or so) has Leica started to put increased effort into producing high performance R lenses, most of them 180 mm or over, but also including the 50/1.4 Summilux and 100 mm/2.8 Apo-Macro-Elmarit.

The other relatively recent R lenses I don't think are up to the standards of their closes M mates: 19/2.8-R and 28/2.8-R, which, according to Erwin, are not at the levels of M-lenses.

As a group, I believe the M lenses are better, although that in part reflects the fact that most are newer designs than their R counterparts.

BTW, I understand (from other posts on these pages) that Leica is planning to introduce an R version of the 90/2.0 Apo-Summicron-ASPH with the same optical formula as the M lens. This should make R users happy.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), October 03, 2001.

Eliot

My contention is (and this is based on M and R use) that the M series has an mystique that colors all afficionados' views of the lens line. The M camera has been legendary since 1954. There are often hyperbolic claims put onto the M cameras by Leicaphiles. There is a good deal of truth in some of them. R cameras are rated second in the Leica world. In my opinion this is not warranted - I use and admire both cameras. I still maintain that, on balance, the Leica R line is essentially comparable to the M line in general lens quality in practical use, even if on paper some M lenses may be better. That is my view from my experience, such as it is.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), October 03, 2001.

There is also, of course, the system-sharpness factor. An M 50 1.4 may well be sharper hand-held at 1/60 than even the new R 50 1.4, due to mirror shake. I've never had much luck trying R lenses (except the really hot new APO zooms/teles on an R8 at 1/500), but since some of the lenses really ARE identical (90 Elmarit post 1989, e.g.) I give the lenses the benefit of the doubt and assume some of the failings are due to SLR artifacts.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), October 03, 2001.

I have both systems and have used them long enough and what I want to say is they are very close to each other. M-21 vs R-19, M-28 (both summicron and elmarit) vs R-28 (both regular and PC), M-50 vs R-50 (summicron and summilux), M-75 vs R-80, M-90APO vs R-100APO, M-135APO vs R-180APO (I know they are not the same focal length but..). In fact, I prefer R system due to three fabulous zooms (35-70 ASPH, yes I got one; 70-180 APO, and 105-280). I don't know why people can comment on this without even owning both of them at least for a while. Erwin Puts is good but I suggest people use complete paragraph as quotation instead of saying "this is better than that,..., by Erwin Put". I don't think Erwin would like this kind of quotation.

-- Dajie (dajielin@home.com), October 04, 2001.

John,

No, you are absolutely right, there is no *real* difference in lens quality in the current line-ups, with only one exception: the M 35mm f1.4 Asph is *really* better at large apertures than the venerable R 35mm f1.4.

Again, if we limit this to the current catalogue, there is NO visible (for me visible=real, of course) difference in quality between any other comparable focal lengths in both systems.

However, the R zooms are *infinitely* better than the M zooms, obviously. And the Noctilux M is *infinitely* better than the R equivalent. Again obviously...;-)

One might add that with any focal length longer than 135mm, all current R lenses are *infinitely* better than current M equivalents !

More seriously, the differenciators between M & R are linked to system architecture and functionality, not optical quality. Do not pay any attention to those who confuse lab benchmarks and photography. When it comes to capturing images, you do not detect any difference, I do not detect any difference, and they do not detect any difference.

Have fun !

-- Douglas (benelug1@yahoo.co.uk), October 04, 2001.

Douglas

"Do not pay any attention to those who confuse lab benchmarks and photography."

I'm afraid it is you who appears to be a little confused. The M lenses are better: Because you or someone else cannot detect a difference in your every day photographic practice is not evidence that they are not.

Rather what it most likely means is that most photographers (on this site and in general) do not push these lenses to their limits or use them in a way in which differences would be noticed. I think that the way some photographers practice, Leica lenses would hardly give better results than those of most other manufacturers.

To appreciate completely the capabilities built into modern M lenses, you would have to utilize high quality slow speed slide film, the correct exposure to capture shadow detail, a steady hand or tripod, and project the images to large size with a high quality slide projector. Small color or B & W prints with high speed print film just isn't good enough to discriminate lens performance. I can shoot a roll of color print film and have a lab print them to 4 X 6 size print film: they will look no better than an Olympus Stylus Epic P & S.

If you properly push the lenses to their limits, especially at large apertures, under difficult conditions (eg., low light, against the light), the Leica M will significantly outperform the R in most cases, as noted above. Here the M performance is breathtaking and the R performance just average. Once you have seen what a high quality M lens can do, you will never forget.

Yes, the numbers and MTF charts do translate into performance, but only if you have the skill and tenacity to push the lens to its limits. I see so many high speed (800, 1600, even higher) B & W scanned photos on this site. That may be OK for fine arts photography, but they do NOT in any way reflect the inherent capabilities of the lenses used. Sitting in fron of a computer, you will never be able to see the difference in M vs R performances, nor will you be able to appreciate the full capabilities of the lenses.

I suggest Brian Bowers book "Lens, Light, and Landscape" as it describes and illustrates the ways one can get the maximum performance out of Leica M lenses.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), October 04, 2001.

"To appreciate completely the capabilities built into modern M lenses, you would have to etc...."

Just as I said: in real life, there is no real difference. For lab maniacs, shooting M on a sturdy 20 kg tripod and examining Velvia/Technical Pan under a 50x microscope *might* -for a couple of lenses in the current catalogue (24,35,50f1.4)- *maybe* yield more detail at full aperture than shooting R on same sturdy 20 kg tripod.

"High quality slide projector" is not stringent enough for such minute comparisons: you need PERFECT alignement and parallelism between screen and projector (which in turn, for all practical purposes, supposes a fixed setup in a dedicated room), PERFECT focus throughout the slide surface (which BTW entails glass mounts that BTW introduce marginal optical artifacts) and, of course, a set of slides duplicating each M shot with a R shot of same subject with same settings. Not my idea of a slide show.

Anyhow, systematic tripod shooting with a M is painfully antithetic to the M's destination.

So, I guess we agree.... ;-)

-- Douglas (benelug1@yahoo.co.uk),), October 05, 2001.

Well, I never use a tripod, but I have used both M and R equipment extensively. When I saw the results from the 35/1.4 asph they stood out totally from anything I'd ever seen before, including the R 35/2 which is a very highly spoken of lens (and which I like very much myself, I used it almost exclusively for over a year). But the M asphs (24 + 35) seem to engrave details sharply into the emulsion while maintaining an incredible three dimensionality in the overall image. To my mind they may not be better by the numbers, but they have a distinctive look which I never saw so much in the R series lenses.

This is all just my personal feeling, obviously.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), October 05, 2001.

Eliot

A lot of us here are quite as careful as you (it may surprise you to learn) and own both systems, so we do have practical experience of these matters. We all accept the current 21-35mm ASPH M lenses are exceptional.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), October 05, 2001.

Robin

My comment was really meant to address Douglas. Perhaps it was an over-generalization to include others. I am aware that many of the people who post on this site are experts who know how to use their equipment well.

I jst didn't like his comment about the lack of value of lens test results in practical every day photography.

'm sure that you and most Leica users appreciate the fact that without these benchmarks, it wouldn't be possible to design a better lens, since there would be no standard for comparison.

Best wishes.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), October 05, 2001.

I own and use more than a dozen Leica M and R lenses. I have the same impression of the new M ASPH lenses as Rob (see above). They are simply better (and different!) than equivalent R lenses...

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), October 05, 2001.

Erwin (bless his heart!) has started testing Sigma lenses

FWIW: Among his other comments: the new Sigma 24 f/1.8 is as good at f/ 1.8 as the Leica-R 24 at f/2.8(!!)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), October 05, 2001.

I had the Leica R 24/2.8 and it was nice but not a patch on the M version. Erwin has long said that it was pretty much equivalent to the Nikon version. Both are pretty old designs, I believe.

I really do feel the M asphs atre the cuting edge of lens design and that advantage is evident even in journalistic or documentary applications. And, I think, even in relatively lowrez scans.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), October 05, 2001.