Leica Vario-Elmarit R 21-35mm f/3.5 Lens

[ryee3]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

any one comment on this lens? Is it special with Leica glow. What is the going cost?

[masjah]

It's an excellent performer, made by Leica themselves - better than some of the R primes within its focal length range, though of course it doesn't have their aperture. Red Dot have got two, one at £1200, the other at £1600 (which latter is in my opinion unrealistically overpriced).

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[gvaliquette]

I have and use this lens a lot. It is indeed a fine lens. It also is very flare resistant, although I sometime miss the look of the flare from the 21mm f4.0 SuperAngulon-R, as it can add a special touch. I bought mine new for full retail price several years ago.

 

Guy

[gvaliquette]

PS:

 

How sad to think that Leica-R topics are now appropriately enterd in the Leica Collectors & Historica section of the forum!

 

Leica, could you not reconsider your decision about the R10???

 

Guy

[jaapv]

I find even 1200 GBP a bit pricey for an R lens nowadays - another sad thing

[thebarnman]

Most of what I see now is double or more than double that cost.  Check out this review...  http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/zooms/zoom24mm_f4.html there's six pages of mostly images between the competing lenses. The Leica Vario-Elmarit R 21-35mm f3.5 lens does not seem to do as well as I've been reading elsewhere.  I wonder if it's a different Leica lens they are testing? 

[ph.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 21-35 was among the last produced for the Rseries. No other Rzooms with that focal range.

 

The large book by Erwin Puts describing Leica lenses ranks it above all the fixed focal length varieties at the longer end. I have not performed any tests on mine, but it works well and is compact.

 

p.

[thebarnman]

That's the part that impressed me, the fact Erwin ranked it above all the fixed focal lengths at the longer end.  And in some cases; it even out shines the Leica R primes on the shorter end (in some cases, also from what Erwin wrote.)  That's why when I read (and saw the images) of the review between the Leica R 21-35, the Nikon 17-35mm, and the Sigma 12-24mm...with the Nikon more on top; I was pretty shocked.

 

This makes me wonder if the review between the three lenses is accurate.   

[michaelwj]

That's the part that impressed me, the fact Erwin ranked it above all the fixed focal lengths at the longer end. And in some cases; it even out shines the Leica R primes on the shorter end (in some cases, also from what Erwin wrote.) That's why when I read (and saw the images) of the review between the Leica R 21-35, the Nikon 17-35mm, and the Sigma 12-24mm...with the Nikon more on top; I was pretty shocked.

 

This makes me wonder if the review between the three lenses is accurate.

There is nothing contradictory.

The R zoom out performs the R primes.

The Nikon zoom out performs the R zoom.

Nikon are not slouches when it comes to lens design, especially wide angles. They've been making wide angle SLR lenses for a long time!

[thebarnman]

Welp; that's it then...thanks.   

 

Is there an adaptor to fit that lens on a Leica R9? 

[michaelwj]

I'll add that Nikon was designing and building their own wide angles since the F, and before that in their S mount.

Leica made their first wide angle in 1975 (2.8/19R), about 20 years behind Nikon. All Leica's previous wide angles had been outsourced to either Schneider, Minolta, or Zeiss.

So therefore one would expect that Nikon would have the jump on Leica in this area.

By the time Leica released this zoom in 2002, Nikon was on their second attempt, having released the 20-35 in 1993, before the 17-35 in 1999. The also released the variable aperture 18-35 in 2000.

I'd even go so far as to say that until the recent releases by Canon in the late 2000's, Nikon ruled the wide angle SLR world. They still do in primes.

Edited October 25, 2016 by michaelwj

[masjah]

Welp; that's it then...thanks.   

 

Is there an adaptor to fit that lens on a Leica R9? 

 

I don't know, but I would guess not.To put a Leica R on a Nikon you need to change the mount (kits from Leitax I think) which would suggest that there is very little difference between the flange/film distances of the two, and therefore not enough space, either way, for an adapter (at least if you want the full focus range to infinity).

 

The Leica 21-35 really does produce very nice images, and, since you have an R9, I think it would make sense to use that. I suspect differences in performances would be small, and probably quite a lot would be in terms of what set of design compromises Leica use compared with those used by Nikon; all lens design is an exercise in compromise. Personally I really like the Leica look. It may be the case that, as Shakespeare said, ripeness is all, but sharpness is certainly not all. But if you personally prefer the Nikon look (and that is every bit as valid a choice as prefering the Leica look) then I honestly think that you ought to be looking at a Nikon body.

Edited October 25, 2016 by masjah

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

Leicaflex/R = 47mm flange to film plane.

 

Nikon F = 46.5mm flange to film plane.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[chris_livsey]

It's an excellent performer, made by Leica themselves - better than some of the R primes within its focal length range, though of course it doesn't have their aperture. Red Dot have got two, one at £1200, the other at £1600 (which latter is in my opinion unrealistically overpriced).

 

Aperture at Rathbone Place London just marked one sold at £1690-00, from the pictures the Mint description appeared justified.

[masjah]

Aperture at Rathbone Place London just marked one sold at £1690-00, from the pictures the Mint description appeared justified.

 

Chris, doubtless absolutely true - but we are of course over six years on from my earlier post!

[thebarnman]

I'd even go so far as to say that until the recent releases by Canon in the late 2000's, Nikon ruled the wide angle SLR world. They still do in primes.

 

Are you saying Canon has a more modern wide zoom (possibly the EF 17-40mm) that out performs the Nikon 17-35...even their variable aperture 18-35 released in 2000?  If so, what one? 

 

Thanks

[thebarnman]

The Leica 21-35 really does produce very nice images, and, since you have an R9, I think it would make sense to use that. I suspect differences in performances would be small, and probably quite a lot would be in terms of what set of design compromises Leica use compared with those used by Nikon; all lens design is an exercise in compromise.

 

 

Personally I really like the Leica look. It may be the case that, as Shakespeare said, ripeness is all, but sharpness is certainly not all. But if you personally prefer the Nikon look (and that is every bit as valid a choice as prefering the Leica look) then I honestly think that you ought to be looking at a Nikon body.

 

The differences from what I can see from that review http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/zooms/zoom24mm_f4.html seems to me more than just about sharpness.  I understand about compromises, however enough time has probably passed since the Leica Elmarit Vario was designed that others have caught up and surpassed.  Of course, it would be nice if Leica would update it's design, though I'm about positive that's not going to happen in the year 2016 and beyond.   

 

As far as the Leica look, I'd have to see more between the two, and possibly from prints or really nice scans of full images to see the difference between the look of the competing lens.  But what I've seen from the test results from the link; it's obvious Leica could do better if they were to design a wide zoom today.   

Edited October 25, 2016 by thebarnman

[thebarnman]

Chris, doubtless absolutely true - but we are of course over six years on from my earlier post!

 

Yep...the cost of the competition is now about the same as what the Leica version was when it was new.  The cost on a Vario Elmarit R 21-35mm is almost double or so (for a mint condition one today.)  That's why I'm a bit shocked.  Then I was even more shocked when I saw how the competing lens perform today (for reflex cameras still being manufactured today.)  So that completely makes sense.  I just wasn't prepared for it is all. 

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Thebarnman,

 

It might help to remember that Leitz/Leica is 2 different categories at the same time.  Which can be interrelated at the same time.

 

Leitz/Leica is a "user" category where prices are partially determined by functionality.

 

At the same time: Leitz/Leica is also a "collector" category where prices are determined by factors such as rarity & whim.

 

When you mix the 2 categories together all kinds of things can happen.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited October 25, 2016 by Michael Geschlecht

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[masjah]

The differences from what I can see from that review http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/zooms/zoom24mm_f4.html seems to me more than just about sharpness.  I understand about compromises, however enough time has probably passed since the Leica Elmarit Vario was designed that others have caught up and surpassed.  Of course, it would be nice if Leica would update it's design, though I'm about positive that's not going to happen in the year 2016 and beyond.   

 

As far as the Leica look, I'd have to see more between the two, and possibly from prints or really nice scans of full images to see the difference between the look of the competing lens.  But what I've seen from the test results from the link; it's obvious Leica could do better if they were to design a wide zoom today.   

 

Yes indeed, there's little to disagree with in what you say; I still feel though that a Leica lens is more at home on a Leica body, and ditto for a Nikon. So if you prefer the Nikon wide overall, personally I wouldn't be trying to mount it on an R9.