kengai Posted January 7, 2017 Share #1 Posted January 7, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) which 21mm for my MP-240?State that I am not looking for a lens very bright but rather a good quality file, I found:Elmarit-M f / 2.8, 11 134Ultron ASPH f / 1.8Color Skopar f / 4.0Super-Elmar-M f / 3.4 ASPH, 11145 On which of these guide the choice? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Hi kengai, Take a look here 21mm for MP-240. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Mark Pope Posted January 7, 2017 Share #2 Posted January 7, 2017 Don't forget the Zeiss 21mm f2.8. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 7, 2017 Share #3 Posted January 7, 2017 Don't forget the Zeiss 21mm f2.8. Which is very close to the Elmarit in quality and the same speed. If you are prepared to lose some aperture the Super-Elmar is the clear winner here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted January 7, 2017 Share #4 Posted January 7, 2017 SEM 21 rules the daylight world at 21mm L1049757 by unoh7, on Flickr The Bright Rim by unoh7, on Flickr above M9 below Kolari A7: Rippin it by unoh7, on Flickr Apparition by unoh7, on Flickr Fantastic on M240. 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted January 7, 2017 Share #5 Posted January 7, 2017 Great photos and I completely agree about the 3.4/21 SEM 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 7, 2017 Share #6 Posted January 7, 2017 I've not used all of these lenses, so can't compare. I can confirm that the SEM 21 rocks on an M body. Great lens optically, compact, and incredibly well-built. For me, the difficult choice was between the SEM 18 and SEM 21. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 7, 2017 Share #7 Posted January 7, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've not used all of these lenses, so can't compare. I can confirm that the SEM 21 rocks on an M body. Great lens optically, compact, and incredibly well-built. For me, the difficult choice was between the SEM 18 and SEM 21. That is true. I went for the 18 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! Notice: absolutely no coma or other nasties in the corners. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Notice: absolutely no coma or other nasties in the corners. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268039-21mm-for-mp-240/?do=findComment&comment=3180859'>More sharing options...
otho Posted January 7, 2017 Share #8 Posted January 7, 2017 I have Ultron 21 f/1.8. Only 2 cons: weight (412g) and "permanent" leens hood, but some find the solution : https://johnleathwick.wordpress.com/removing-the-permanent-lens-hood-from-a-voigtlander-wide-angle-lens/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 7, 2017 Share #9 Posted January 7, 2017 SEM 21 rules the daylight world at 21 mm ... and the world at night as well: Leica M (Typ 240), Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph 21 mm, f/3.4, 1/8 s hand-held, ISO 3200/36° 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted January 7, 2017 Share #10 Posted January 7, 2017 ...and the world at night as well: Moonrise, Joadja NSW M240, 3.4/21 SEM 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! 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268039-21mm-for-mp-240/?do=findComment&comment=3180885'>More sharing options...
Mark Pope Posted January 7, 2017 Share #11 Posted January 7, 2017 Some Zeiss 21 shots...I have posted these elsewhere, but I quite like them... L1004059.jpg by Mark Pope, on Flickr L1003937.jpg by Mark Pope, on Flickr 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 7, 2017 Share #12 Posted January 7, 2017 For me, the difficult choice was between the Super-Elmar-M 18 mm Asph and Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph. And the solution is so simple: Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 mm Asph. No, really! At 18 mm, it is on par with the Super-Elmar-M 18 mm Asph. When fussily examining test shots, the Super-Elmar is slightly better here, the Tri-Elmar is slightly better there; no lens can clearly out-perform the other. At 21 mm, the Super-Elmar is slightly better in the corners at full aperture, but nothing to write home about. On the other hand, the Tri-Elmar has less vignetting—I appreciate this. Technically, the Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph is the world's best 21 mm lens for 35-mm-format cameras. And it gets away with 46 mm filters. Still, I prefer the second-best which is the Tri-Elmar. At 16 mm, there's no competition anyway 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted January 7, 2017 Share #13 Posted January 7, 2017 At 15mm you have the Voigtlander which is -- again slightly -- better than the WATE (apparently). The definitive comparison of 21mm M mount lenses is http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?page_id=130 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 7, 2017 Share #14 Posted January 7, 2017 At 15 mm you have the Voigtländer which is—again slightly—better than the WATE (apparently) ... Definitely not. The Ultra-Wide Heliar 12 mm is a surprisingly good lens on Leica M cameras, but the Super-Wide Heliar 15 mm is not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted January 7, 2017 Share #15 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) Are you referring too the Mk III version, which is what I have, and with which I am satisfied. I thought that the 12mm and 10mm were supposed to be remarkable for their focal length but increasingly less capable (at the edges) than the 15mm. I have seen a comparison of the WATE and 15mm Voigtlander here: https://vieribottazzini.com/2016/07/leica-16-18-21mm-tri-elmar-vs-voigtlander-15mm-super-wide-heliar-iii-review-leica-sl.html It gives the nod to the former. Edited January 7, 2017 by jrp Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonPB Posted January 7, 2017 Share #16 Posted January 7, 2017 In my opinion: The Super-Elmar is unsurpassed among photographic lenses at 21mm for technical quality. You want to shoot at 21mm and have the scene render cleanly? This is your lens. Period. I'd expect it to surpass any other lens (until perhaps Zeiss comes out with an Otus ~21mm) in this range. I suspect the Super-Elmar also has the highest mechanical quality of comparable lenses. But I didn't buy a Super-Elmar. I went with an Elmarit Asph. This lens has a moderate amount of field curvature, which I find is essential for my style of capturing artistic images, but which also makes it difficult to anticipate where the plane of peak resolution will fall. This lens, like other 1990's Leica lenses, has a fair amount of "blooming," a sense of luminance that I absolutely adore but which seems to be considered vaguely muddy by folks who aren't fan of the look. I only just ordered one, so I don't have samples, but here's an example that shows some of the beautiful yet irregular rendering of this lens: https://flic.kr/p/ifz3bd All of that said, none of the lenses I looked at were bad. The Voigtlander 21/4 is an extraordinary value, but I don't trust its construction; the Zeiss 21/2.8 is an excellent value, but, simply, I value consistent ergonomics and do not want to jump into a full Zeiss kit (which is arguably irrational); the Zeiss 21/4.5 has too much sensor-stack coloration; the Voigtlander 21/1.8 has too much chromatic abberration; and the older Leica lenses are gorgeous but insufficient for my desires when I want to stop down and get a clean, crisp image. Funds permitting, I'd have a Voigtlander 21/4 for walkabout, a Leica 21/3.4 for technical work, and a 21/2.8 pre-asph for creative compositions, but they don't permit and I found a "user" condition 21/2.8 Asph that I suspect will fit the bill nicely. I think it is the best solution for my needs. Hope this helps, Jon 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCR33 Posted January 7, 2017 Share #17 Posted January 7, 2017 Elmarit-M f / 2.8 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djmay Posted January 7, 2017 Share #18 Posted January 7, 2017 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! I bought a second-hand 21mm Elmarit-M about 6 weeks ago and have not taken it off the M-P 240. I have not used the SEM 21, so I cannot compare. The Elmarit-M was "economical" and the results are excellent. Jesse 10 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! I bought a second-hand 21mm Elmarit-M about 6 weeks ago and have not taken it off the M-P 240. I have not used the SEM 21, so I cannot compare. The Elmarit-M was "economical" and the results are excellent. Jesse ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268039-21mm-for-mp-240/?do=findComment&comment=3181285'>More sharing options...
MarkP Posted January 7, 2017 Share #19 Posted January 7, 2017 Lowres-1007080-2.jpg I bought a second-hand 21mm Elmarit-M about 6 weeks ago and have not taken it off the M-P 240. I have not used the SEM 21, so I cannot compare. The Elmarit-M was "economical" and the results are excellent. Jesse So you use the M by day and the S by night? :-) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 8, 2017 Share #20 Posted January 8, 2017 Definitely not. The Ultra-Wide Heliar 12 mm is a surprisingly good lens on Leica M cameras, but the Super-Wide Heliar 15 mm is not. Are you referring too the Mk III version, which is what I have, and with which I am satisfied. I used to use the Voigtlander Super-Wide Heliar III 15 mm. It was a nicely built lens. However, my experience on the M240 was that the lens caused some dreadful chromatic aberrations in highlights toward the edge of frame. Not uniform edge colour hues, but colour shift higher light intensity. I'd had high hopes for the 15 mm, but just felt I couldn't trust it to deliver and so got rid of it. (If anyone cares to recommend a better / best 15 mm for digital M, I'm all ears, but that might be another thread.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.