Super Elmar 18mm

[pig882009]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just got my new Super Elamr 18mm this week. I tried the new lens on the field today and I realised that the image quality is no where near my 35mm Lux.

 

I am no expert in analysing the technical aspect of Leica lens, but I cant easily see the difference between the photo quality between these two lens.

 

The image produced by Elmar is not as sharp as the Lux and the distortion seemed a lot worse.

 

My question is, is this normal?

[jaapv]

No - this is an excellent lens.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/253160-emptiness.html#post2166396

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/200548-wing.html#post1830504

 

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited September 1, 2012 by jaapv

[Advertisement]

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

[becker]

the elmar is razor sharp, you compare a near to normal focus with a swa.

bought it second hand or new? may be it ha s a mistake, its the sharpest rendering lense

i own.

post an example

Edited September 1, 2012 by becker

[jaapv]

Could it be that you are running into underexposure problems? - a super wideangle can be quite demanding in that respect and until you have gone through the learning curve you are bound to have quite a few images for the bin.

[lars_bergquist]

The facts are published (see Leica Camera AG - Photography - Lenses) and can be compared. We have quantitative evidence and do not have to make do with general armwaving.

 

The Super-Elmar's linear distortion is maximum 1.8%, as against the 35mm Summilux at 1.6%, a negligible difference. You can also compare the MTF curves. There, the Super-Elmar clobbers the Summilux flat, at all apertures – and the 'lux is no slouch, either! Especially the Super-Elmar's edge sharpness is superb at any image height. What are you complaining about?

 

Now, if we compare apples and oranges … Suppose you make a photograph of a small, distant object, like a house in the far distance, with both lenses, and print the house to the same size from both files. Then the print from the 35mm file will be sharper than that from the 18mm file. But the house in the 18mm file has been enlarged twice as much as that in the 35mm file, because the 35mm lens has twice the focal length and half the image angle of the 18mm lens, and therefore that house is twice as large on the sensor and demands just half the amount of enlargement.

 

It is a general fact that wide angle lenses have less 'object resolution' than longer lenses. This is nothing special with the Super-Elmar. I hope that I have made this clear enough.

 

The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Elmar

[pig882009]

thanks for all your responses. It may be my photography skill that cause the issue. I will test this new lens again today and see how it performs.

[Spotshooter]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have owned the 18mm Super Elmar for 6 months now, and it is one of my favorite lenses. Big, bold, wide, and sharp.

 

Here are a few pics I took of Seahawk Stadium in Seattle:

 

Stadium - a set on Flickr

[ramosa]

Well, let's be clear that very, very few lenses are in the ballpark of the Lux 35. (In fact, that's my favorite lens ever.) The Super Elmar isn't in that stratosphere (I had one for a while), but it's no slouch.

[MichaelRabern]

thanks for all your responses. It may be my photography skill that cause the issue. I will test this new lens again today and see how it performs.

 

Its tough to compare focal lengths like that. Maybe the 18mm is not right for your eye or maybe you are wanting something the 18mm can't technically deliver.

 

(i.e. I prefer the 35mm, but I am partial to 28mm and I always have my 21mm. And it all started from the 50mm. Pro vs. cons--tracking?)

 

Do you want to discuss your shots? It maybe a good idea to post a few of the shots that made you feel you needed to compare lenses. I would allow for the criticism of the image structure and maybe you might feel different about the lens performance.

[lars_bergquist]

Well, let's be clear that very, very few lenses are in the ballpark of the Lux 35. (In fact, that's my favorite lens ever.) The Super Elmar isn't in that stratosphere (I had one for a while), but it's no slouch.

 

The v.2 Summilux 1:1.4/35mm ASPH is a superb lens, and i own it, and love it. It is in fact my 'standard lens' even though I also own and love the 50mm Summilux ASPH. I just tend to wide angles.

 

But Leica has currently three wide angle lenses with very similar optical layouts, which blow the 35 'lux out of the water when it comes to MTF performance: the Elmar 1:3.8/24mm ASPH, the Super-Elmar 1:3.4/21mm ASPH, and the Super-Elmar 1:3.8/18mm ASPH. They do it in various degrees, but all of them decisively. Especially the 21mm offer levels of edge sharpness and micro-contrast that can compare with the new 50mm Apo-Summicron. This has curves that are even flatter at 5.6, but hey, it has one half the acceptance angle of the Super-Elmar!

 

The point, as I have stated, is that with double the image angle, the Super-Elmar has to spend this endowment on a larger acreage. So if you shoot your sweetheart with both lenses from the same distance, the wart on her nose will be pictured with higher resolution by the Summilux, even though the Super-Elmar will cram more practical resolution into its total coverage.

 

The old man from the Angular Age