Dan's earlier post a few down prompted this question -- as many of you know I'm looking to re-vamp my SLR system to something more caompatible with the M. But here is where I get stuck...

If I have an M6 system with 21 through 135 lenses, should I consider duplication of focal lengths in the R8 (or R6.2) system -- ie; 19, 35, 50, 85, 100 -- or should I just get the longer lenses and/or zooms -- ie; 35-70, 70-180, 180 APO, 400? Specifically, for those of you that use both systems regularly, which lenses do you use with which bodies and when? I love my M's but sometimes wish (okay, lust) for Leica optics in the 180 and 400 lengths... Thanks for your input!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 27, 2001

Answers

I would aim to duplicate the lenses. I basically have. The R, I use the R6.2, is great where you have the time and can set up on a tripod. Composition is as you see through the lens. You can stop down to see effect. You can lock up the mirror. All of these contribute to great compositions and sharp pictures. On the run, take the M.

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), November 27, 2001.

when traveling light (always the case for me), i like to use the M for wide angle and standard (35 sumicron, 50 sumicron) and the R for tele (90 sumicron). While shooting, i have both handy (i also hate changing lenses, and ideally would have another M) and they cover most of the shots i need.

-jeremyT, lifeinblue.com

-- jT (jerthomas@lifeinblue.com), November 27, 2001.

I have Leica M but not R, however I have other SLR systems.

I prefer the Leica M for the wider end of the spectrum ... 35, 24, 50, 15, 90 is about my usage pattern at present in order of frequency. It goes from 70-80% of the time with the 35 to less than 2%of the time with the 90. Having the M and 15mm/24mm lenses, I generally don't consider an ultrawide lens a necessity for the SLR system, but I'd certainly want both 50 and 100mm for the SLR as they are my most used focal lengths. Longer than that I don't use the M and would concentrate on buying R lenses.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), November 27, 2001.

Jack

It pains me to say it but a good deal of duplication is probably best otherwise you end up taking more than one system with you. The only way to avoid this is if you use the two systems for quite different things. If you are a street shooting M person then you might not need the 90mm and 135mm in the M. For example. Or you say "I will have faster lenses for the M for available light shots etc.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), November 27, 2001.

Jack:

A certain amount of duplication will be unavoidable if you want to maintain two separate but versatile camera systems. For my Leica M kit, I have 21-35-50-90 lenses (I just sold the 135s because I was rarely using them). For my R8 system, I had 28-50-60-90-100 APO-135 lenses. The M system is perfect for wide angle and standard focal length shots. The R system is better for portrait and telephoto lenses. Depending on your budget and needs, you can pick up a 28-50- 135 Leica R lens outfit on EBAy for a very reasonable outlay. A more expensive and better outfit would be 19/21-28-50/60 Macro-100APO. Eventually you will want the 180 APO with a 2X APO extender! :-)

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), November 27, 2001.

I use 3 different systems, LSM's for fun and M & N(ikon) for serious stuff. My inclination is to try to have complimentary systems (better bang for the buck) rather than simply duplicate lens'. For the M4-P I have 35-50-90.For the N I use 28-50-200 with closeup tubes and 2power multiplyer to give added flexibility. The only lens that is duplicated is 50 and it is so handy that I don't feel it wastes $'s.

-- Peter J. Hanlon (peter.hanlon@3web.net), November 27, 2001.

Robin's on the money again - slow versions of the fast m lenses is the way forward -i.e. 35f2.8 and 90f2.8 etc on the R. That assumes you can get along with e.g. 751.4 on the m...

-- stephen jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), November 27, 2001.

I have duplications because as has been said, unless you want to carry both systems (including a backup body for each)it's pretty well unavoidable. Even if I'm out shooting wildlife with long glass I still want something in the wide-normal range in case a shot arises that calls for it. For the M system I carry a Komura 2x in case 135mm isn't long enough. I also own a 400/6.8 which is a Visoflex lens and doubles on the R bodies with the 14167 adaptor. So basically I've got almost the same coverage with both systems, although the 15 Heliar, 21/ASPH and 35/1.4ASPH give the M's the performance edge at the wide end, and the 280/4APO and 280/2.8APO + teleconverters give it to the R at the long end.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 27, 2001.

AAARRRRGGHHHH! Duplication of Leica lenses was NOT what I wanted to hear! $ka-ching, $$ka-ching!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 27, 2001.

Jack,

I have both M and R. I have a M3 and M6 with 21 through 200 Viso lenses. I use my M when I travel (21+35+50+90). If you were thinking about getting a R and want to avoid duplication, consider getting the 60-Macro, 100 Apo-Elmarit, and 180 APO. All these are awesome glass that represent the best of best. I would leave the wider stuff to the M though the short focal R lenses are not that shabby at all.

-- Gerald (hsus@netzero.net), November 27, 2001.

I don't use the M or R, but I use Nikon, Voigtlander and Contax. I use prime lenses on the rangefinders and zooms on the slrs.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), November 27, 2001.

Jack,

The trouble with R is that it's b****y heavy! If you don't have some overlap of focal lengths, as others have said, you end up having to cart two systems around. If you chose a much smaller and lighter SLR - Olympus OM, for instance - carrying two systems wouldn't be such a great burden, but R ...

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), November 27, 2001.

When I use the R I concentrate on prime lenses - mostly 19, 35/2 60 macro, 100 APO macro, 180/2.8 APO, 2x APO converter. Not fast, but superior image. If I want long, zoom, and/or autofocus lenses, the Nikon f/2.8's. If I want fast lenses, the M.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), November 28, 2001.

I use my rangefinders for the 28-35-50 range where I feel most comfortable. The R8 is for everything else especially the long zoom and of course macro. I know the 21mm ASPH is a wonderful lens but for really wides I prefer the SLR because it is important to see what you will get.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), November 28, 2001.

Some posters here are billionaires, and more power to their wallet!

For those Leicaphiles who work for a living in more standard revenue brackets (by Western standards that is, all our crap does not really interest the Filippino working man), the only way into Leicadom is a careful management of assets and investments.

In those circumstances, duplicating focal lengths in 2 different systems seems like utter and complete nonsense.

Look at your real life applications: what are you shooting. For over 90% of applications where productivity is not a crucial issue (not discussing pro sports photographers here for example), the M system is the most able system around. As long as you enjoy the rangefinder concept, obviously. So, invest first there, and go for fastest possible apertures for each focal length, according to your financial possibilities.

When you are happy with what you have, take a deep breath, and check out what would be best suited for those 10% of shots you'd like to do but that you cannot produce with that system. Most probably, you'll decide you need a good macro, a 180/200mm and maybe something even longer. Then decide if you can afford Leica R prices for the newer desirable versions of those lenses, and if you produce enough images to justify the small incremental imaging advantage compared to 2nd hand Nicaminopentax alternatives at between 1/5th and 1/20th of the price.

I you are a compulsive hardware collecting billionaire such as one of our friends above, then, obviously, duplicate at will! I also suggest to get and the Ferrari and the Porsche and the Range Rover and the Series 7, and the Central Park flat and the Caiman villa and the Paris penthouse and the Marrakesh casbah house. This should cover your basic needs.

-- Jacques (jacquesblathazar@hotmail.com), November 28, 2001.

Not a billionaire, but I had my SLR Outfit before I got my first Leica. For Leica the lens choices are quite clear, most M-people here have a 35 and 50, some have a 90 and some a 21 or 24 or even a 15. These is quite natural choices.

Starting with an SLR you usually make the same choices (I did at least), and doing so I built a system 'before Leica' which is almost the same as my Leica stuff: In Leica M I have a 35/2.8, a 50/2 and a 90/4 while I have a 24/2.8, a 35/2.8, a 50/1.7 and a 85/2.8 plus a teleconverter in C/Y for SLR. No big wallet, just the 'natural choices'. If I had to build a SLR-system again I'd make the same choices, maybe changing the 85/2.8 for 100/2 ($$$) and adding a 180/2.8, a 200/4 or a 100-300 at the long end. This yould be my system, it may differ from other people's wishes as I do almost no macro work, so this aspect is neclegted with these lens considerations. The selection is also based on compactness and price, otherwise some performance-zooms like a 28-85 and a 100-300 would be an alternative if you like to work with these.

Kai

-- Kai Blanke (Kai.blanke@iname.com), November 28, 2001.

Jacques

It is a common misconception that Leica owners are Central Park apartment owning, Porsche driving trust fund babies. I'm not and many of us are not. As I often point out, one can get a very good Leica R system secondhand and the financial pain is no worse than buying a new Canon or Nikon pro system which people are doing all the time. It is all a question of what you choose to spend your money on. I never buy new and do not buy what I do not need. Whilst it is much more expensive than buying an OM system secondhand, I personally feel the reward from the resulting pictures is more than enough to make up for the pain of purchase. Most of us Leica users do consider the optics and results (and indeed philosophy of the company) superior to the competition. If you must buy the latest then you are certainly going to be putting away a lot of money, but with Leica R there is heaps of s/h stuff around and often at good prices. Many, many photographers I know are constantly exchanging their Canon or Nikon lenses for the later version, even when the optical difference is indistiguishable from the one they had originally. I met one worker at B & H who was 21 years old had a Hasselbald system and said he had earmarked $3,000 for his next purchase (Nikon). How did he pay for it? That astonishes me! I guess they get a store discount....

Leica, in my opinion, generally get it right first time and (usually) only update the lens when they can produce a genuinely better lens. With this philosophy (partly due to their small size) it is no wonder that they cost more.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), November 28, 2001.

Unless you have a lot of spare cash, duplication is a waiste of money. The best strategy is to emphasize the strength of M and R, and avoid each's weakness.

COMPLIMENTARY is far better strategy then duplication.

For M, short focal length lenses.

For R, get MACRO, ZOOM, and long teles.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), November 28, 2001.

Leica R I use because it is cheaper to afford and I like the feel and am more used to the SLR. Plus I don't have the Amex funds to justify a M6 yet...

Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), November 30, 2001.

Hi Jack

I bought into the M series because it was truly different from by hasselblad; really light, really quiet and a rangefinder (have a hexar as well might only have bought that had it existed then.)

I looked at the prices of the R system in the uk and I cannot understand for the life of me why anybody would spend that kind of cash on a 35mm SLR - it just cannot be that much better than canon or nikon and certainly no better than zeiss.

The lenses are as much as blad lenses and if it is quality you want mf is a quantum leap above anything 35mm can produce - a lot of mf gear is no heavier than big 35mm SLRs.

I you need flexibility there are cheaper, lighter systems with no loss of quality.

Tapas

-- Tapas Maiti (tapasmaiti@aol.com), December 01, 2001.

The only advantage I can see to buying leica reflex if you're already using the rangefinders, would be that the controls turn in the same direction. I have a hard enough time carrying 2 M bodies and three lenses around all day, so the reflex route isn't somewhere I want to go, but if I did, I'd go either Canon or Nikon to get all the advantages of a sophisticated modern system.

The much hyped advantages of the M (total control) are all very well in theory, but it's annoying to lose shots becuase you're trying to focus and set exposure at the same time in a crowd, for instance. There are many times I'd be happy to have an F100 with 17-35 (my wife does) on full just-take-the-damn-picture mode for street shooting. For the more deliberate, intimate stuff, in people's homes and so on, the M's do a good job. Sure, I know how to get what I want with the M, but I'm well aware of its limitations.

Don't know if any of this is relevant, I'm sure Jack will get the Leica gear anyway. It certainly is nice to play with, but I've yet to see any PJ's using it, while lots of them will have an M6 for other applications.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 01, 2001.

Thank you all for your erudite contributions. Given the cost vs reliability problems mentioned with the R's, I will likely stay with Nikon, and perhaps add a few primes -- a MUCH cheaper alternative to switching to R. In the meantime, I'll keep an eye out for R bargains, or perhaps somebody that want to trade out of R for some M gear -- so Rob may be correct!

Martin: I agree that complimentary systems makes more sense than duplicative systems, but the others points about carrying one system are valid too. However, I think I would be willing to pack an R+180 along with my M's if I thought I was going to need to cover all spectrums.

Tapas: I did consider Hassy as an alternative, but I really want fast- handling with 90, 180 and 300 equivalent lenses, and good macro. Other than the 90 and macro equivalents, that is really big bucks and not-so-fast-handling in Hassy.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), December 01, 2001.