Jump to content

21mm for MP-240


kengai

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

...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!

 

 

 

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by jrp
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

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...