LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 21–35 mm f/3.5

[Thomas Glasgow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, I have a 21 - 35 vario elmar, its the only wide angle lens I have, I wonder if anyone knows how comparable the quality actually is to fixed focal wide angle lenses? I am and have been very happy with it so far handy with my DMR.

 

Thanks

 

Thomas

[Advertisement]

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

[masjah]

Hi, I have a 21 - 35 vario elmar, its the only wide angle lens I have, I wonder if anyone knows how comparable the quality actually is to fixed focal wide angle lenses? I am and have been very happy with it so far handy with my DMR.

 

Thanks

 

Thomas

 

It's an excellent performer, every bit as good, and in some cases better, than the primes, except of course in respect of maximum aperture.

[Rinse]

Thomas, is this the lens you have?

http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1893.pdf

 

Rinse

[troyfreund]

I've got a 1980s version of the Elmarit 19mm/f2.8 and got to use the 21-35mm (only once). The 21-35 really seems like a great lens, but I know I've really appreciate my 2.8/19mm---for its aperture and it's angle of view (I use it on a R8/DMR). I've really gotten used to primes and don't feel I'm missing out on anything. Heck, if I had the 21-35, I think I'd still want the 19mm, but don't feel the opposite would be true.

[Thomas Glasgow]

Hi thanks for posting replies, Yeah Rinse thats my Lens, its handy, especially if your into travel/documentary photography - you can get a wide shot in a train carriage for instance out both windows with 21mm and 2 secs on take a 35mm close in shot filling the frame with a person within the same scene, nice that. Also it has the Leica look about the images, liquid but sharp and lots of colour. Only reason i was asking is I've been working with some bands and tend to need to use wide angle shots for planned photography, and want the best quality wide shot, I know this lens is good and have been satisfied but everything is relative and wonder if I should get a fixed focal. Anyway, I have now took the plunge and bought a Elmarit-R f2.8 28mm (ll) so I'll do some tests with it see the difference when it arrives, prob wont be much different at F8.

 

Thanks

 

Thomas

[grduprey]

I think you will find the 21~35 will out perform the 28/2.8 by a mile, it is a much newer design. The 21~35 was rated the best WA zoom of its size by several mags when it came out, by a large margin. I would love to have one...

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some basic laws never change. A good prime will be better than a good zoom. I compared my Mandler 35 Summicron against the 21-35 and in my very unscientific test, the prime was better - but the zoom offers a lot of convenience if that's more important.

[Ivar B]

Some basic laws never change. A good prime will be better than a good zoom. I compared my Mandler 35 Summicron against the 21-35 and in my very unscientific test, the prime was better - but the zoom offers a lot of convenience if that's more important.

 

That is a statement which needs to be modified a lot. Several of the recent Leica zoom lenses are better than the primes. The 21 - 35 is clearly superior to the 4/21, for example, and the 50mm R lenses could not match the 2.8/35-70.

 

Obviously these lenses are designed in very different time periods, but for example Erwin Puts argues that zoom lenses offer correctional possibilites which fixed lenses do not have.

[lct]

...The 21 - 35 is clearly superior to the 4/21, for example...

Would you say the same about the 35/2 or the latest 28/2.8? Just curious as i don't have this zoom.

[earleygallery]

I'm simply going on my own photographic evidence when I compare the zoom to my Summicron.

 

Yes I'm sure that some zooms are better than some primes, but generally not as a zoom is always a compromise to some degree in design terms.

[tobey bilek]

It is a first class zoom like all the later R zooms. The older 21 3.4 R, rare lens, 21 4.0, 24 2.8, first 28 2.8 were not as good. Last 35 2.8 was probably better as was the last 19 and last 28.

 

Primes are always better if designed in the same era. But the later zooms were very much improved over earlier ones and I never hesitate to use mine.

[Ivar B]

Would you say the same about the 35/2 or the latest 28/2.8? Just curious as i don't have this zoom.

 

Let me just quote Erwin Puts who conduct very strict tests and he maintains that the 21-35 is better than most of the primes, but possibly not the 2,8/28. He says

 

"The older Super-Angulon 21mm has significanty less overall contrast and much softer definition of fine details. The Elmarit-R 24mm has good center performance but much softer recording of fine detail in the outer zones and blurred edges of very fine detail.

The Elmarit-R 28mm has a slightly higher overall contrast and of course one stop wider aperture,

The Summicron-R 2/35mm is at apertures 4 and 5.6 a bit weak and has lower contrast. In the center the Summicron can hold its own, but overall it is an older design and this shows".

[lct]

Thank you Ivar.

[hamey]

Hello LCT.

 

I have just brought a S/H 21-35mm, I have also got the 28mm2.8 Rom as soon as I have the opportunity I will test them and let you know.

The 28mm 2.8 Rom is a lovely lens, last year I compared it to my..M. 35mm f2 ASPH with the same film

Kodak E100 G, 28mm on the R7 and the 35mm on the M7.

The only difference I could see was the 28mm had a slightly warmer scene compared to a cooler image

of the 35mm M.

 

 

Ken.

[lct]

Hi Ken great. I have a late Elmarit-R 28/2.8 as well. Works fairly well on the 5D but it vignettes a lot so it behaves like a f/4 lens more or less. Would be interesting to compare it to another "f/4" lens like the 21-35.