Which set should I get?Leica R8 + 35-70/f4 + 80-200/f4 or Contax AX + 28-85/f3.3 + 80-200/f4?

-- Michael Fan (fanmichael@hotmail.com), April 06, 2002

Answers

Sorry, but if you're going to spend this amount on an SLR system I really believe an EOS 1N with 28-70 2.8 and 70-210 2.8 IS lenses or an F5/F100 and equivilent lenses would be a much superior set-up.

Why? AF, Metering, motordrive, features, ergonomics, accessories, IS lenses, lense range, back-up, availability, build quality, reliability, etc, etc.

Leica make the best RF's but SLR's? - No.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), April 06, 2002.

To expand a bit on the point that I think Giles was making, I think you may want to take a hard look at what you want from an SLR system before making a final decision. Both the Leica R and the Contax SLRs are (IMHO) at least a decade behind the SLR features of Nikon or Canon. The pro-level lenses from Nikon and Canon are close to Leica and Zeiss, but still fall short in most cases, I believe. In general, however, the Nikon and Canon lenses will have a more up-to-date feature set, even if somewhat behind in pure optical characteristics.

Thus, where the balance point falls for you personally may be a function of how you personally balance between SLR features and optical characteristics. While I haven't done a comparison between the Leica R lenses and corresponding lenses from Zeiss, my general impression would be that Leica lenses may have more "character" as compared to the "precision" optical treatment of Zeiss lenses. You'll want to listen to someone who has more experience with Rs and Contax SLRs than I, however. Personally, I use Nikon SLR gear because for the work that I do with those cameras, I need the more modern feature set, and a system that includes digital using the same lenses. For work where the optical characteristics are of greater importance, I use my M6 TTL, or medium or large format.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), April 06, 2002.

I agree with Giles there! Added to which is that both your choices are intensely ugly. Apart from the half-arsed AF there is nothing the Contax AX can do that the RX can't. The RTS is better than either. But if AF is important enough to you stick to Canon or Nikon.

-- Tim Franklin (tim_franklin@mac.com), April 06, 2002.

To answer your question - the leica. The AX was/is notoriously unreliable (a dealer told me he couldn't risk sending one by post) and is anyway (regrettably) part of a dead system. Get a late serial R8 (even if it's new stock check it hasn't been sitting on a shelf for years). The 2 zooms you mention are excellent - but what about a 902.8 (c.£300 mint) and a 50f2 (c. 250 mint)? In any case good luck - check out Norbert Rosing's latest pictures in the National Geographic using an R8. Not everybody uses Nikon and Canon... (although if you would like to work as a paparazzo you probably should get an F5)

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), April 06, 2002.

BTW, I've used both contax mm/ae and Leica R. The Zeiss lenses give more saturated colours while the Leica R lenses have more subtle tonality with (slightly) less saturation. The best contax lenses are the old, german produced ones (tend to be ae versions). In general, Leica images are a bit more "solid" and sharp, the contax images are arguably more flattering for portraiture (maybe partly because they're not quite so sharp). I think both ranges give images which are full of character. FWIW and IMO, the new "N" range of "zeiss" lenses do not have the same character (neither, imo, do the contax 645 lenses).

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), April 06, 2002.

I also agree with those who believe you should consider an autofocus camera. For years I resisted buying autofocus but now that I have an SLR autofocus outfit, I have no regrets. As a result, I'm gradually selling off my manual SLR equipment. Although others have mentioned Canon and Nikon, do not discount the merits of Minolta. The Maxxum 7 is a magnificant camera and there are Minolta lenses that compete with the best (see Photodo MTF results). Good luck, Dennis

-- Dennis Buss (dbuss@rider.edu), April 06, 2002.

I say this as a satisfied Contax G1 owner - The main reason people buy a Contax is because they can't afford a Leica.

-- Sanford (sanford@usa.com), April 06, 2002.

I have the R8 and the 35-70/4 and 80-200/4 lenses you mention. From the specs on Photodo I can't see where the differences between the Leica and Contax lenses could be any more than in color balance and "fingerprint" since the MTF data are on a par. However the Contax system is much harder to re-sell. In any event I would not bother with the AX if I were to get into Contax. I would probably look for a mint used RTSIII with an S2 or perhaps an Aria as backup. As regards the comments many people posted with respect to Canon and Nikon, I agree and disagree. I owned Nikon F5's and AF-S lenses and recently switched to Canon. IMO Image Stabilization is the best thing to come along since TTL metering and Nikon is once again way behind the curve. The fact that digital bodies are available for Nikon and Canon is a big plus for those interested, as well as for the long-term re-sale value of lenses. Since adaptors are available that let me use my Leica R lenses on EOS digital bodies, that was another reason I switched. However, the Canon and Nikon zoomlenses in the 28mm-200mm range you specify fall into two categories: those that are as small and compact as the Leica and Zeiss lenses are nowhere near as good optically; and the Nikon AF-S and Canon L lenses which are very close to the L/Z in optics but are much bulkier and heavier. The one exception is Canon's 70-210/4L, but that is not an IS lens.

So there are trade-offs to be made, it's not a simple issue.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 06, 2002.

Get the one you like!

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), April 06, 2002.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the current Leica 80 200 f4.0 lens is made for them by Zeiss.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 06, 2002.

Jay

Could you give me a little more information on the Leica R to Canon lens adapters? I have an R system and will probably soon be picking up an EOS D60. If I could use my Leica primes on the camera I would be one happy camper.

Thanks - Seth

-- Seth Honeyman (shoneyma@nycap.rr.com), April 06, 2002.

I totally agree with the first poster.....oh hang on it's Giles!!! And he has a great point. Other than my tradtionaly old M6, I would prefer an AF camera, well one with great silent AF. Canon would probably be the best bet. Canon EOS 1n/3/7 with a EF 28-135mm IS lens and EF 70-200mm f/4L.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 06, 2002.

Andrew: The 80-200 F4 is made by Kyocera for Leica. Michael: I dumped my Nikon system for the R8 and have no regrets. The final decision is yours (obviously!!) and the major factors to consider are the need for AF and IS (in this area Canon is #1 by a mile.) If you need these, then the answer is simple: Canon. Otherwise Leica is your choice (I say this because the Contax AX system is very limited and the lenses slow. If you are going for a system, go for a real system.) Good luck with your choice.

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), April 06, 2002.

Folks, I'm not sure if we're a part of a Leica discussion group in general, or just a Leica M users' group. I don't quite understand why anyone is a big fan of the Leica M system, but when it comes to an SLR, there are so many opinions about other "superior" SLR brands besides Leica. It may be true that Leica's SLR are 10 years or more behind Nikon or Canon, but how far behind the Japanese camera makers does the M system find itself?

I own both an M6 and the R7. Why, because I like owning and using Leicas in general, even the point and shoot automatic cameras. I like the fact the Leica allows (forces) me to slow down, focus on my own, and so forth. And I like the results that Leica glass yields. Sorry, but if I want to invest in Japanese glass, I'll go with Nikon or Canon (or Minolta, Pentax, Cosina, etc.). Modern and more expensive Contax lenses are fine perfomers, but they are still made in Japan, not Germany.

I recommend adding the R8 to your Leica gear. Good luck.

-- Steve Brantley (superglidesport@mindspring.com), April 06, 2002.

Thank you Kristian, if two old adversaries like us can agree there's hope yet for the Middle East! And please, this is not meant in a flippant manner.

As I have said before, I believe the best SLR companion to an all manual Leica (with it's photographic limitations) is an all-singing, all-dancing whizz kid of an SLR marvel able to take advantage of the technology in AF/AE/IS lenses etc - it will still work in fully manual if needed - but IS, focus prediction, 8 fps etc IS useful.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), April 07, 2002.

Why do so many people insist on a/ not answering the question?b.not making any reference to the image quality?

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), April 07, 2002.

I cannot speak about the Leica SLR since I only use Leica M series cameras, but I also use a Contax SLR. Leica glass is different from the one from Contax (whoever makes it) by being featuring mor contrast. Bear this in mind when choosing a camera.
If I were to buy a new one, I'd take the RX or RTS III over every AX, since the AX body is really huge. Taken into account that the MF Contax SLR line will be discontinued in the future, I'd also rather consider a Contax N1 or the new NX instead if you do not mind the AF. Since the N-series also takes the 645 Contax medium format lenses, this may offer a nice alternative to switch formats.
In general you cannot say a set is 'better', they offer different features and ergonomics. So try to rent one of these or at least try them out at a shop before you make a decision. My personal preference is Contax for SLR, but that is just me. But I'd take a Leica M any time over a Contax G ;-)

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), April 07, 2002.

I think the Leica is a better system with more lenses available new and secondhand and of a consistently higher quality in my opinion. Build quality of the Leica is superior and they retain their value better. Leica are more expensive though.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 08, 2002.

From your original post I take it you want a huge, backbreaking camera body and the convenience of 2 basic zooms. I cannot determine if AF is a criteria, as the R-8 is not and the AX is. I suggest neither. You want huge? Go Canon ( hope you like plastic bodied lenses with no aperature ring and gaudy but functional off white tele=zooms ). If AF is not a crteria, I'd suggest hunting down a R-6.2 ( small but tough) and 3 prime Leica lenses: 35/1.4 or /2, 100/2.8 APO Macro, 180/2.8 APO. These are Killer optics and are functionally a reason to own a SLR. If you really study your own shooting style, you may discover in reality that you consistantly use only a few focal lengths. Most tele-zooms are used at max focal length 90% of the time, and cannot compare to primes optically. It's either convenience or better images.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 10, 2002.