21mm Elmarit vs. the TRI-ELMAR-M 16-18-21mm

[arnoldkramer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been wanting to understand the difference (in terms of optical performance) between this 21mm Elmarit and the TRI-ELMAR-M 16-18-21mm when used at the 21mm focal length. If, other than the one stop speed difference, they are the same, why would one purchase the 21mm? The prices are the same.

 

Thanks for any info.

[marknorton]

That one stop speed difference might not sound much but elsewhere in the Leica M lens range (28, 35, 50, 75), an extra stop adds 50%+ to the cost of a lens. It's up to the user to balance the benefit of the extra stop against the limited 1.31:1 "zoom" ratio of the WATE.

[macusque]

Preliminar images taken with the WATE showed relatively high distortion, most noticeable at 16mm but still present at 21mm.

 

The shape of distortion is also rather odd, don't know if it would be easily adjustable in PS.

 

I guess there's a reason why the 21 Elmarit asph is not much cheaper, apart from being one stop faster.

[woodyspedden]

I really like the 21 asph and of course have no experience with the WATE. Should the difference come down to only the extra stop, one may want to consider whether it is prudent to spend $2800 for the 21 asph. But I think we have to wait for analytical reports on the WATE before deciding on anything with regard to this lens (other than its desirability if its' three focal lengths are all "Leica" quality). If not, we have options e.g. 21 asph, 15 CV 4.5 and the very pricey, but very good, Zeiss 15.

 

Let's wait for the results

 

Woody Spedden