[Leica] Advantages of M lenses on the SL compared to R lenses? Adapters?

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

The 24-70 I'd maybe start out with even though it?s a tad big but not really 
huge.
A classic normal zoom I'm very fond of though many serious shooters hate 
them.
I'm ok with a standard zoom all day out shooting with no other lens in my 
side bag.
I have a 24-85 on my camera now. Though it gives me a 35-130 with the crop 
factor.
I actually use to use a 35-135 lens shooting film an early AF.
It?s a classic lens from all I can see.
Nowadays the main lenses sold in the cropped formats are idiot zooms do all 
be all from ultra-wide to ultra-tele.
I keep looking for more conservatively designed ones which are more compact 
with less than a million elements in them.
I still think a zoom for each category is the way I like to go. Wide, 
standard and tele.

Robert I love my newish 50mm 1.8G its not super compact but is super light 
weight. Super sharp.  Super cheap. Super classic.
A darned shame the 35 1.8 could not be made more compact.

 
 

-- 

Mark William Rabiner
Photographer

?On 1/15/19, 11:37 PM, "LUG on behalf of Robert Baron via LUG" 
<lug-bounces+mark=rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of lug at 
leica-users.org> wrote:

    Mark, as I understand it the big lenses for compact mirrorless bodies are
    big because of the autofocus mechanical innards they require.  I would
    enjoy my new Nikon Z6 a whole lot more if I had a much smaller lens to 
put
    on it that would still autofocus and I hope and think that such will be
    available in the next little while.
    
    In the meantime in addition to the 24-70 f4 zoom that is a right nice 
'kit'
    lens I bought the prime 50mm 1.8.  It is no pancake but at least it 
doesn't
    extend itself beyond all propriety and gives me a focal length that 
brings
    back memories of the fifties and HCB.
    
    On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:00 PM Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> 
wrote:
    
    > I think I'm seeing both sides of the new lens sizes issue a little bit.
    > After years with the tight restraints of designing glass for the M 
system
    > Peter Kolb and others lens designers seem to be having a ball with the
    > generous lens mounts in the new mirrorless cameras giving them true 
room to
    > breathe.  They are way wider than Nikon F, And Canon etc. established 
from
    > the early SLR days though they didn?t have to worry about blocking a
    > viewfinder window.  Nikon is celebrating by coming out with a .95 lens 
soon
    > called a Noctilux I'd have thought that would be a Leica trademark. So 
they
    > are also having a ball with the huge new mounts.
    > In the past year or so I've re bought Nikon 1.8 primes in 35, 50, 85 
focal
    > lengths and which are as if someone inflated them with a bicycle pump.
    > They are inflated and hollow feeling. The filter sizes are several 
sizes
    > larger than the 52mm standard size of the classic SLR's. They don't 
look
    > ill proportioned on the DSLRS they are designed for though and balance
    > perfectly and better than my old compact D glass for the most part. So 
even
    > on small old mounts lenses are designed way more generously than 
before.
    > All the elements have room to breathe.
    >
    > That said these huge zoom lenses made now to put on the front of the 
new
    > flat, compact mirrorless cameras I'm not sold on getting myself. 
Getting
    > into mirrorless I'd use Leica M glass and a Nikon Z lens would have to 
be
    > of near pancake proportions for me to bite. I think maybe one is so 
far.
    > I'm not going to mount an air to ground missile on the front of scaled 
down
    > compact cutting edge designed camera body.. Might just ruin the 
unobtrusive
    > feeling of the body design. Part of good lens design to me is to not 
lose
    > sight right in the beginning what the camera system is supposed to be 
all
    > about. Mirrorless to me seems to not be about metal munching monsters. 
But
    > compactness and flexibility. And video. And keeping up with the 
Joneses.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Mark William Rabiner
    > Photographer
    >
    > ?On 1/15/19, 6:30 PM, "LUG on behalf of John McMaster" 
<lug-bounces+mark=
    > rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of john at 
mcmaster.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >     I was commenting on the size and weight of the SL lenses
    >
    >     john
    >
    >     -----Original Message-----
    >
    >     I thought the discussion was about SL and M lenses.
    >
    >     Jim Handsfield
    >     jhandsfield at att.net
    >
    >     > On Jan 15, 2019, at 12:55 PM, John McMaster <john at 
mcmaster.co.uk>
    > wrote:
    >     >
    >     > They are almost S lens size and weight, but only covering 35mm
    > format.....
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >     _______________________________________________
    >     Leica Users Group.
    >     See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more 
information
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > Leica Users Group.
    > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
    
    _______________________________________________
    Leica Users Group.
    See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information