What is best (non-Leica) digital slr back for Leica R lenses?

Recommendations please on the best value digital slr back Leica R
lenses can be adapted to.

 

The Leica Digital Modul-R will fit all R9 and later R8 bodies,
converting them from 35mm film to 10.3 MP digital bodies. Results are
outstanding as there is no anti-alias filter so resolution is
extremely good. Production of the Digital Modul-R has now ended but
they do appear on eBay and at Leica specialists, albeit at fairly high
prices.

Otherwise, the Canon EOS system is the obvious choice. I use two
Canon EOS 5D bodies with Leica and Carl Zeiss (Contax) lenses, plus
three Canon L zooms, and I am very happy with the results. I
recommend buying and using one adapter per lens; using one adapter for
several lenses is false economy and slows you down considerably.

Obviously you only get manual focus and you have to meter with them
lens stopped down. You can get adapters with focus confirmation but
they need to be carefully calibrated for the specific lens in use and
my experience with them has been poor, so I don't use them.

I have a Leica 21-35mm zoom, a 50mm f/2 and a 180mm f/3.4, plus Contax
18mm, 21mm, 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 lenses plus a Tamron 90mm macro.
The Canon L zooms are the 16-35mm f/2.8 II, the 24-105mm f/2.8 IS and
the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. For the work I do, this is as near to a
perfect outfit as I could imagine, although I am tempted to buy a
Nikon D3 and some Carl Zeiss ZF lenses, which would give me full
aperture metering. Maybe next year!

 

You seem to be tiptoeing around Nikkor lenses. Although I'm a Nikkor fan
of long-standing, I don't regard my preference as a religion, nor do I
indulge in the "Brand N is better than Brand Z" rhetoric.

Still, for the focal lengths you favor, (opinion alert!) I consider
classic Nikon glass like the 17-35/2.8, 180/2.8 (ED versions in MF or
AF), several of the 20's. 35's, and 85's, as well as the modern VR
zooms, to be superior in quality to the Canon counterparts, and any
pro-level Nikkor to be so close in IQ to the Leitz and Zeiss offerings
as to make the price premium of German lenses ridiculous.

(I should break that last sentence up into at least three.)

Sooooooo, why would you buy ZF's for a D3? I sometimes (not often)
manually focus my AF lenses, but basically have been won over by AF, and
it's been my observation that most comparisons (here's one)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=21244546
either favor Nikon outright, or at least acknowledge that differences
are slight, while price differential isn't.

 

My understanding is that there are Leica R to Canon 5D adapters.

The 5D is available for around US$2000, and it gives you full frame, 12.7MP,
a correctly designed sensor (Leica sensors lack IR and low-pass filters),
and good high-ISO performance.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

Best value? Canon's 5D body at around $1800 discounted. If you want
a pro body, Olympus's E-3.
If you really want to save money, Olympus's E-510 would be a good
choice at about $500. All can use adapters.

 

Many thanks for this info,

I have the Elmarit 19, 35 and 90mm F2.8 lenses. Fankly although the 35
and 90 are everything you expect from Leica it's only the 19mm wide
angle I would put on an adapter on a digital back. Probably on a Canon
EOS because of the huge range of Canon zoom lenses to use on auto with
the digital.

I want a 'super' wide angle lens for occasional shots

The 19mm lens is an 'old' 70's optical design and weighs so much it's
probably more an a Voigtlander 35mm rangefinder camera with a 15mm
super wide angle lens combined.

What are you recommendations on super wide prime lenses (manual use is
OK) which like Leica can go on a Canon digital back?
TJ

 

Having been a Nikon user for many years, I am well aware of the
existence of some great Nikon optics.

I left the Nikon system because the Nikkor lenses in some of my most
used focal lengths were disappointing. They might have been sharp but
their OOF rendition left a lot to be desired.

There are no really good Nikkors in 20mm, 35mm and 50mm focal lengths.
The 20mm has hideous "moustache" distortion which needs careful
correction. The 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 all have very harsh
bokeh. When I changed to Pentax I found an outstanding range of
lenses which had a combination of sharpness and bokeh that was only
bettered by Leica glass.

The Carl Zeiss ZF lenses for Nikon AIS bring new levels of optical
performance to Nikon bodies. And they are far from expensive,
probably because they are made in Japan by Cosina, but under Carl
Zeiss quality control.

Your assertions that, overall, Nikon's lenses are superior to Canon's
and equal to Zeiss and Leica (not Leitz any more) are not borne out in
practice. This is a classic case of brand worship obscuring the truth.

I'm not surprised that you chose to quote such a biased opinion,
because by sheer coincidence, it just happens to agree with your own
biased opinion!

The Zeiss lenses are not expensive. For the quality they offer, they
are actually remarkably cheap. And the reason that I would buy them
for a D3 is that Nikon's own lenses are still not good enough. Yes,
they are plenty sharp, but that is at the expense of other desirable
optical qualities.

People who judge lenses on sharpness alone are missing the point. It
is like judging a DSLR body solely on the number of megapixels its
sensor delivers. And there are a great many people who make that
silly mistake too.

It does seem to me that digital capture has blinded a great many
people to the more desirable optical qualities of a lens. Perhaps
they think that you can buy any old junk lens, make a few corrections
in software and get a superlative result. But you cannot.

 

This is an often overlooked - but true - assertion that can
never be over-emphasised.

Needless to say: I agree.

And then some :-(

 

Thanks, John.

 

I believe what you're saying, Tony, (and I have to agree with you) is
the thing that sets Pentax and German lens makers apart from the rest,
is somehow they put an extra piece of SOUL into the photograph the
others don't, irregardless of how sharp they are.

And SOUL can't be measured, only marveled at.

http://www.megapix65.talktalk.net/birds.jpg

TJ

 

Lovely photograph but doesn't the photographer provide the soul rather
than the lens?

 

Absolutely. And this soul appears to be increasingly lost to the new
generation of digital SLR users who cannot see beyond counting
megapixels and finding peak values of MTF.

A lovely shot!

 

Of course the photographer has a *huge* influence on the result, but
part of that influence comes from the photographer's choice of lens.

You can shoot exactly the same scene with three different brands of
50mm f/1.4 lens used wide open and get three surprisingly different
results. Or shoot them all at f/8 or f/11 and the differences are
small - sometimes impossible to tell apart. A good photographer will
know why that is, and use his/her knowledge to inform the choice of
equipment.