Jump to content

21mm f1.4 or f3.4 for a Leica newbee/addict


Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Recommended Posts

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Guys,

I have just been offered a Leica 21mm f1.4 and I would like to get some feedback on this lens before I make my mind up on which 21mm lens I should buy. The reason is I have already ordered a 21mm f3.4 from my dealer in the UK as that was the initial lens of my choice.

Anyway basically I am looking for a pros and cons of the two lenses considering that I mainly shoot street and landscape

My only Leica lens that I currently have on my M9-P is the 35mm f2 and I have a 50mm f1.4 on order.

Any help tips and comments would be much appreciated

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS
Isn't it not normal to walk into a shop and buy both. Then test it, keep it, sell one or simply let one of it collect dust?:p

 

Sorry, could not resist.

Steve

Funny stuff:):):)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it not normal to walk into a shop and buy both. Then test it, keep it, sell one or simply let one of it collect dust?:p

 

Sorry, could not resist.

Steve

 

Well, at the moment I have a brand new 24mm collecting dust, a 50mm Canon .95 and a brand new 75mm all collecting dust. I'll eBay them when my cash reserves run low!! The 21,35,50 and 90 are enough in the bag for my taste.

 

I do hope someone gives you some views on your question as I am also interested to hear the various takes on these lenses. (not that I'll be paying for a 1.4 !)

Edited by Your Old Dog
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two totally different beasts. The Summilux is a superlens, but specialized because of the aperture and weight/size.

The Super-Elmar is an allrounder in its focal length, light, superior performance, suitable for reportage and travel.

 

If you have no compelling reason to go for the Summilux like shallow-DOF/WA or low light ( But then the Summilux 24 might be the better choice) I would opt for the Super-Elmar.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica Camera AG - Photography - NEW: LEICA SUPER-ELMAR-M 1:3,4/21 mm ASPH.

 

Leica Camera AG - Photography - LEICA SUMMILUX-M 21 mm f/1.4 ASPH.

 

That is what the Leica website is for....

 

You are talking 580 grams vs 280 grams, with a size difference to match..:rolleyes:

Edited by jaapv
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, of course it's normal (but expensive) to own both:D, but not to buy them at the same time:rolleyes: I have both the 1.4/21 Summilux ASPH and 3.4/21 SEM ASPH as 21mm is one of my favourite focal lengths. I bought the Sumilux two years ago and the SEM six months ago.

 

I think there is a difference in the outstanding rendering of both lenses. The colour and rendering of the SEM reminds me of my 28 Summicron ASPH, and that of the Summilux more like the modern 35 & 50 Summilux FLE lenses, perhaps just a bit gentler.

 

However, the SEM is sharp all the way down from 3.4 whilst the Summilux obviously shows some softness wider open (but let's get real here, this is by Leica standards), and then I think that there is really little real-world difference between the lenses from there down - and I print up to A2.

 

There is a little distortion from the Summilux, but if for critical architectural work the SEM is better as it is effectively distortion free.

 

The Summilux is about 3 stops faster than the SEM which is a lot of light! There are photographs that I just would not have been able to take with a slower lens. I've commented before that the Summilux is like a wide-angle Noctilux (in fact the two pair very nicely). The Summilux may be a stop slower than the Noctilux but the 21mm can be handheld at lower shutterspeeds and ISO, and it offers reduced DOF but still maintaining reliable focus accuracy if you want to use for this. Sometimes it is really nice to have some control over DOF in an ultra-wide lens.

 

The Summilux is big and heavy by Leica standards (similar to the noctilux) but comfortable in the hand. The size of the SEM is obviously 'just right', and the choice lens when lighting is adequate.

 

I use the Summilux where I know I'll be be shooting in low light, or am uncertain of lighting conditions I may encounter, but where I expect adequate light or want less weight then I will always take the SEM.

 

Personally, if I could only have one of these lenses it would probably still be the Summilux because of it's versatility in photograph taking, but not in weight and size. I'm lucky that I can afford both.

 

For almost all photographic situations I would not lose sleep about the IQ differences between these two outstanding lenses - so decide on price, size & weight, and whether you would use the lens at f1.4-2.8

Edited by MarkP
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

I would have thought that "to reply" was a choice not a chore……..anyway enough of that cr#$

Thanks for the links but I was hoping to get feedback from the members here with their experiences of these to 21mm lenses:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don´t you think you got quite a bit of info aready, Neil?

 

There is hardly anything more personal in photography - besides the

photographs you take of course - than choosing ones cameras and lenses.

It´s only you who knows about your cash and your photographic ambitions to decide about

such an expensive item like a LEICA-lens.

 

I wish you luck in your decision.

 

If I would have to move between Scotland and Asia regularly it would be the 3.4 ...

 

 

 

best

GEORG

 

________________

PS

I reckon, there are only a few people around having had a chance to use both lenses.

But anything is possible in the world of LEICA. The LEICA hp should have sample photos

taken with both lenses.

 

See MarkP´s post above ...

Edited by k_g_wolf
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

I have just been offered a Leica 21mm f1.4 and I would like to get some feedback on this lens before I make my mind up on which 21mm lens I should buy. The reason is I have already ordered a 21mm f3.4 from my dealer in the UK as that was the initial lens of my choice.

Anyway basically I am looking for a pros and cons of the two lenses considering that I mainly shoot street and landscape

My only Leica lens that I currently have on my M9-P is the 35mm f2 and I have a 50mm f1.4 on order.

Any help tips and comments would be much appreciated

Neil

 

Neil-

I own both lenses, but even though a monster of a lens I always go for the 21/1.4. Yes, it is a considerable sum of money and one must decide how he will use the lens. I use mine for street mostly. I use the 18mm more for landscapes where I want wide vistas or am in a narrow canyon or situation.

 

Of course the 21/1.4 can work for landscapes and the extra few stops comes in handy more for my street shots than anything else. I also tend to engage in night time photography (street included) where I find the lux (1.4) part of the lens comes in very handy. I shoot wide open unless I need DOF. I know that I am the culprit in most of my inferior images due to camera shake so even in the daytime with this lens (or any 1.4 or better for that matter) I can use very high shutter speeds to try and ameliorate my shake issues.

 

As I've come to realize my short comings I find myself using the fastest glass I can acquire for any focal length. They just serve me better than slower glass unless of course you are in extremely brightly lit situations more than dark environments or shooting with tripod all day long.

 

One thing if you should get the 21/1.4, it requires Series 8 filters which can be expensive and sometimes hard to find. In addition since they do not screw in place changing filters can be tedious.

 

Just yesterday I commented somewhere about this lens versus the 24/1.4 on another thread-but don't remember which thread right off hand.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two totally different beasts. The Summilux is a superlens, but specialized because of the aperture and weight/size.

The Super-Elmar is an allrounder in its focal length, light, superior performance, suitable for reportage and travel.

 

If you have no compelling reason to go for the Summilux like shallow-DOF/WA or low light ( But then the Summilux 24 might be the better choice) I would opt for the Super-Elmar.

 

Hi Jaapv,

 

As I have intention to place an order for the 21 lux in the near future, can I understand why you would think that the 24 lux is a better choice here than the 21 lux .

 

Thanks,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS
Yes, of course it's normal (but expensive) to own both:D, but not to buy them at the same time:rolleyes: I have both the 1.4/21 Summilux ASPH and 3.4/21 SEM ASPH as 21mm is one of my favourite focal lengths. I bought the Sumilux two years ago and the SEM six months ago.

 

I think there is a difference in the outstanding rendering of both lenses. The colour and rendering of the SEM reminds me of my 28 Summicron ASPH, and that of the Summilux more like the modern 35 & 50 Summilux FLE lenses, perhaps just a bit gentler.

 

However, the SEM is sharp all the way down from 3.4 whilst the Summilux obviously shows some softness wider open (but let's get real here, this is by Leica standards), and then I think that there is really little real-world difference between the lenses from there down - and I print up to A2.

 

There is a little distortion from the Summilux, but if for critical architectural work the SEM is better as it is effectively distortion free.

 

The Summilux is about 3 stops faster than the SEM which is a lot of light! There are photographs that I just would not have been able to take with a slower lens. I've commented before that the Summilux is like a wide-angle Noctilux (in fact the two pair very nicely). The Summilux may be a stop slower than the Noctilux but the 21mm can be handheld at lower shutterspeeds and ISO, and it offers reduced DOF but still maintaining reliable focus accuracy if you want to use for this. Sometimes it is really nice to have some control over DOF in an ultra-wide lens.

 

The Summilux is big and heavy by Leica standards (similar to the noctilux) but comfortable in the hand. The size of the SEM is obviously 'just right', and the choice lens when lighting is adequate.

 

I use the Summilux where I know I'll be be shooting in low light, or am uncertain of lighting conditions I may encounter, but where I expect adequate light or want less weight then I will always take the SEM.

 

Personally, if I could only have one of these lenses it would probably still be the Summilux because of it's versatility in photograph taking, but not in weight and size. I'm lucky that I can afford both.

 

For almost all photographic situations I would not lose sleep about the IQ differences between these two outstanding lenses - so decide on price, size & weight, and whether you would use the lens at f1.4-2.8

Thanks Mark much appreciated; You have answered my question perfectly and I thank you for that

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS
Neil-

I own both lenses, but even though a monster of a lens I always go for the 21/1.4. Yes, it is a considerable sum of money and one must decide how he will use the lens. I use mine for street mostly. I use the 18mm more for landscapes where I want wide vistas or am in a narrow canyon or situation.

 

Of course the 21/1.4 can work for landscapes and the extra few stops comes in handy more for my street shots than anything else. I also tend to engage in night time photography (street included) where I find the lux (1.4) part of the lens comes in very handy. I shoot wide open unless I need DOF. I know that I am the culprit in most of my inferior images due to camera shake so even in the daytime with this lens (or any 1.4 or better for that matter) I can use very high shutter speeds to try and ameliorate my shake issues.

 

As I've come to realize my short comings I find myself using the fastest glass I can acquire for any focal length. They just serve me better than slower glass unless of course you are in extremely brightly lit situations more than dark environments or shooting with tripod all day long.

 

One thing if you should get the 21/1.4, it requires Series 8 filters which can be expensive and sometimes hard to find. In addition since they do not screw in place changing filters can be tedious.

 

Just yesterday I commented somewhere about this lens versus the 24/1.4 on another thread-but don't remember which thread right off hand.

Thanks for the info regarding the Filters, I have 2 sets of Lee RF75 GND an ND filters that I just bought with adapters for 39mm, 46mm, and 49mm I guess if I go for the f1.4 I had better start looking for a filter holder for it………………..dare I ask here or should I use the trusted GOOGLE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, of course it's normal (but expensive) to own both :D [...] I have both the Summilux-M 21 Asph and Super-Elmar-M 21 Asph, as 21 mm is one of my favourite focal lengths.

Yeah—I know what you mean. I have amassed five different Leica 50 mm lenses lately, and these don't even include a Summicron :D ... and I like them all.

 

The rule is, you can have too many lenses but never enough.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS
You do not need a filter holder. The series VIII filter drops into the lens hood.

Tanks Japp...........excuse my lack of knowledge but is the series VIII filter a Lee filter or a Leica filter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...