Comments about 18 SE vs 21 SX ?

[gpwhite]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Given just a couple of weeks with my M9, I am learning that focus is more demanding than my M8... perhaps because DOF is shallower. I shoot open to f/4 at smallest. So I have started to think about how different lenses may suit one or the other body.

 

21 SX is amazing on M8 at f/1.4~2.0, but not as crisp on my M9. I am wondering about the 18 Super-Elmar, which I have not tried. I imagine the character of this lens is quite different than the 21 SX. I would love to hear comments about the 18 SE on M9 and, in particular, comparisons by forum members who have both lenses (I presume that I am not the only WA addict out there ).

[innerimager]

I wonder if your M9 RF needs adjustment? Focus should not be less accurate on the M9 than the M8, and that's been my experience for sure. In particular my 21mm summilux is tack sharp wide open on my M9. best....Peter

[michael_b_elmer]

Given just a couple of weeks with my M9, I am learning that focus is more demanding than my M8... perhaps because DOF is shallower. I shoot open to f/4 at smallest. So I have started to think about how different lenses may suit one or the other body.

 

21 SX is amazing on M8 at f/1.4~2.0, but not as crisp on my M9. I am wondering about the 18 Super-Elmar, which I have not tried. I imagine the character of this lens is quite different than the 21 SX. I would love to hear comments about the 18 SE on M9 and, in particular, comparisons by forum members who have both lenses (I presume that I am not the only WA addict out there ).

 

Pictures with the 21 SX on the M8 only represent the center of the lens, so they should only be compared with a similar crop of pictures taken with the 21 SX on the M9. Like all other lenses, the 21 SX gets softer at the corners, especially at big openings, and that may have an influence also on your perception of a full image taken with the M9.

 

Are your pictures with other lenses, for instance the 50 SX A, equally crisp with the M9 as with the M8? If not, Innerimager is right to porpose a check of your M9.

 

BTW, I have both lenses. The strength of the SX 21 is its big opening, which opens up interesting perspectives and possibilities, but its weakness is its weight and big size. The SE 18 is lighter and more handy and a bit wider than the 21 SX, but the difference of perspective at say 5.6 is not so much different from that of the 21. If you do not get tired by the weight, then the 21 SX should be fine for most users.

 

One could, of course, always dream about a fixed focus 16 mm from Leica at Photokina.

[glenerrolrd]

You should definitely check the focus accuracy of both your camera and the 21. Even a slight calibration error on the camera can throw images out of focus ...be sure to test both close up 1M and at some distance 7M . A really simple test is to put your hat on the lawn at about 7 large steps out . Then check the DOF around your point of focus. Take 6 captures refocusing each time. You should get 5 out of 6 around a similar focus point. It also will tell you how much is the equipment and how much is the photographer.

 

The 21 and the 24 summiluxes both seem to have some level of focus shift. I honestly never saw it until I tested but its there . If you start with a accurate focus at 1.4 you are Ok but if you are slightly back then the focus shift kills you as you stop down ...everything is just a little out until 5.6 where you have enough DOF to cover it .

 

I also have learned to bracket my focus at 1.4 if I have time . Two captures on the eyes and one on the bridge of the nose.

 

Plus you know with the M9 especially at ISO 160 you can see detail that the M8 didn t have and with less DOF you become more critical. I felt the same way when I went from my M8.2 s to the M9. Now if you are missing with a 21 at F4 something needs to be fixed. The 18 isn t the solution.

[gpwhite]

Thank you for all of the comments. My experience is that my 50SX and 28SN (2004 lenses, but now 6-bit coded and "adjusted" at Leica New Jersey) are both outstanding wide open on both my M8 and M9. My 35SX, which remains in 1995 form, is fine on both M's, yet quirkier in terms of contrast and focus at f/1.4~2 on the M9.

 

Re my 21SX, I can get good sharpness at f1.4 on the M9, but the images do not snap with contrast like they do on the M8. (A rough analogy would be like saying that the contrast drops to Nikon levels, but I don't want to upset anyone, ). Perhaps I need to fiddle with more exposure bracketing on the M9, as well as be more mindful about the direction of the light source. I notice chromatic aberrations around shadows at f/1.4~2 on my M9 that never appeared at those settings with my M8... it could be that the larger image circle somehow conveys more messiness in the image (sorry that my term is so weak).

 

Anyway, my question about 18SE vs. 21SX really had to do with character, or contrast. The data sheets from Leica suggest that the 18SE produces greater contrast than the 21SX, and Puts comments and images seem to suggest that too. It's hard to tell with Puts, however, because he likes to use film for his lens tests.

 

Perhaps michael_b_elmer could comment-- at f/5.6 (or even f/4), do the 18SE images snap more than the 21SX? Other than FOV, can you characterize any differences in how images of the same scene come out between the two lenses, in terms of color and contrast?

 

glenerrolrd, I like your idea about focus bracketing! I have sometimes used that approach with my 50SX and had good benefits. I never thought of refocusing between aperture brackets, but your suggestion makes great sense. I will try that.

 

I appreciate your patience with questions that may seem picky, even by the norms of Leicadom. I am trying to enjoy my M9 as much as my M8, but it is a struggle. Certainly the images from my M9 + 50SX are reason alone to have the new body, but I would hope all of my lenses would be great on the M9.

 

Peter

[michael_b_elmer]

... Anyway, my question about 18SE vs. 21SX really had to do with character, or contrast. The data sheets from Leica suggest that the 18SE produces greater contrast than the 21SX, and Puts comments and images seem to suggest that too. It's hard to tell with Puts, however, because he likes to use film for his lens tests.

 

Perhaps michael_b_elmer could comment-- at f/5.6 (or even f/4), do the 18SE images snap more than the 21SX? Other than FOV, can you characterize any differences in how images of the same scene come out between the two lenses, in terms of color and contrast? ...

 

In todays strong sunshine with dark shadows I snapped some pics from the same standpoint with the 21 SX, the 18 SE and for comparison the 24 'rit which is also WA and generally recognized as one of Leica's best and most contrasty lenses. It was really difficult to find the right exposure, so I used bracketing with each lens. The difficulty in comparing the pictures and, accordingly, the lenses, lies in their different angle of view and, thus, what they bring onto the sensor.

 

To my surprise, LR3 - which I normally use for viewing pictures - had difficulties in showing these high contrast pictures correctly, they looked much more dark that they should. Capture One Pro 5.1.2 had no trouble in showing the pictures correctly, and, furthermore, is easier to use, since you do not need to import the pictures into the program which is time consuming and often produces errors, in my experience. It is easier with Capture One Pro where you just copy the files into the proper folder in your file browser.

 

Comparing the pictures in C1, my conclusion was that the 18 SE is a bit contrastier and sharper at f 4.0 than the 21 SX and very close to the high quality of the 24 'rit. However, such a comparison does not give the 21 SX full credit for its capabilities, since its strongest point is its big opening and, thus, its possibility of insulating a sharp foreground from a wide, but blurred, background. So, the 21 SX and the 18 SE are designed for different forms of use, and I must revise my former advice to you and recommend you to take both. (It would, probably, be a different matter if you had to choose between the 21 'rit and the 18 SE).

 

If you are interested I could send you the uncompressed raw files for your own comparison if you send me your mail adress on michaelatelmerdoteu. Each file is ca. 35 MB.

[markowich]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

the 18mm SE is very sharp even open but -for my taste- shows unbearable distorsion of moustache type. very hard to correct in PP. peter

[Hacker]

There was an LFI article some months ago on the wide lenses. Some distortion on the 18mm that is not as well corrected as the Zeiss. My fave would be the 24mm f/2.8 and the 21mm f/1.4.

 

[michael_b_elmer]

There was an LFI article some months ago on the wide lenses. Some distortion on the 18mm that is not as well corrected as the Zeiss. My fave would be the 24mm f/2.8 and the 21mm f/1.4. ...

 

Yes, the article was in LFI number 5/2009 (July).

 

It should be pointed out that your statement above about "distortion on the 18/3,8 that is not as well corrected as the Zeiss" is your personal view and has no support in the article in LFI, in which the author (OS=Olaf Stefanus) only has very positive remarks about the 18/3.8 (SE 18) and declares that his favourite combination [of Leica's WA's up to 24 mm) would be the SX 24 and the SE 18.

 

I must admit that I do not know what is meant by "distortion of moustache type" in Peter Markovich's post. Frankly speaking, I do not see any "moustache", and you really have to search for distortion effect on pictures taken with the M9 and this masterpiece lens, cf. also Puts' review, where he stresses that distortion might be more visible on the M8 or M8.2.

[markowich]

Yes, the article was in LFI number 5/2009 (July).

 

It should be pointed out that your statement above about "distortion on the 18/3,8 that is not as well corrected as the Zeiss" is your personal view and has no support in the article in LFI, in which the author (OS=Olaf Stefanus) only has very positive remarks about the 18/3.8 (SE 18) and declares that his favourite combination [of Leica's WA's up to 24 mm) would be the SX 24 and the SE 18.

 

I must admit that I do not know what is meant by "distortion of moustache type" in Peter Markovich's post. Frankly speaking, I do not see any "moustache", and you really have to search for distortion effect on pictures taken with the M9 and this masterpiece lens, cf. also Puts' review, where he stresses that distortion might be more visible on the M8 or M8.2.

 

here it is. SE 18mm. according to leica this is design-inherent. in my view it is unacceptable for a 2300.-Euro lens.

peter

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!

[michael_b_elmer]

Peter, I do remember your picture from a former thread on 18 mm SE service.

 

I do not know whether Leica M and the M-lenses are designed for architectural photography. I would tend to think that the R-series and the R 28 PC might be more appropriate for that type of photography, and not knowing the building on the picture and the point, from where you took the picture, and whether it is taken with an M8 or M9, it is difficult to judge why there are curved lines, where you might not expect them.

 

It could be interesting to see a picture with another SE 18 taken under similar circumstances, and also to see a picture of this motive taken not directly from the front (90degrees) but more from the side (45 degrees).

 

Pillow distortion is not completely unknown in WA lenses and probably cannot be completely avoided. Sometimes lens producers accept some distortion in favour of other qualities in the lens. However, it could appear as if you have a faulty copy of this lens - since all others are very happy with this lens and have difficulties in finding any distortion. Have you tried other copies of the SE 18?

[gpwhite]

from Markowich:

here it is. SE 18mm. according to leica this is design-inherent. in my view it is unacceptable for a 2300.-Euro lens.

peter

 

Yes, I remember your post of this shot as well. Was it wide open (the corners appear that way)? Although you can see that the film plane,, was not really parallel to the architect's gingerbread, the wings of the moustache are quite unique! What did Leica say about this?

 

Nice photo though. I will bet you that the architect would love it.

[michael_b_elmer]

Nice photo though. I will bet you that the architect would love it.

 

Why should the film plane be parallel to the building, when you can in this way and with this lens produce a picture of a house with irregular curves which Friedrich Hundertwasser would have loved to have built?

[gpwhite]

There was an LFI article some months ago on the wide lenses. Some distortion on the 18mm that is not as well corrected as the Zeiss. My fave would be the 24mm f/2.8 and the 21mm f/1.4.

 

 

Wow! I feel much better knowing that someone has twice as many Leica WA as I do and enjoys all of them too.

 

My original question was whether the 18SE would give me a snappy, higher contrast image on my M9 than I am getting with the 21SX. I agree with everyone's exaltation of the 21SX... on my M8, it was my favorite lens. On my M9, it is more painterly, and I would like a hyper-perspective lens with the snap of the 28SM.

 

The convergence of all of these very helpful comments to my post seems to be that both lenses are superb, yet different. So there is good reason to have yet another very WA in addition to the 21SX. That is what I hoped to find out-- now to find an 18 I can test without having to buy it first....

[gpwhite]

Why should the film plane be parallel to the building, when you can in this way and with this lens produce a picture of a house with irregular curves which Friedrich Hundertwasser would have loved to have built?

 

VERY Funny! It is actually the contractor who would love it because all of that symmetrical distortion is so expensive to make. This is perhaps why the Solms lens was more expensive than the Cosina version of a Zeiss lens?

 

And Michael, thank you for your earlier replies re this thread. I guess I am disappointed that all of my lens are not equal or better on M9 vs M8, but I will just keep both bodies and fret about how to best pair things.

[markowich]

M9, f5.6, camera slightly tilted upwards. and yes, all the lines are -in reality- straight.

leica says it is not a faulty lens, this kind of distorsion is design-inherent.

i agree that there are better systems (than M) for architecture. still, this kind of distorsion makes the lens unusable for me. i would not even use it for land/seascapes. just think of a moustache-type sea-horizon.

meanwhile i bought the Zeiss 21mm biogon, which i am very happy with. very little distorsion. great buy for about 1000.- euros.

peter

 

 

 

Peter, I do remember your picture from a former thread on 18 mm SE service.

 

I do not know whether Leica M and the M-lenses are designed for architectural photography. I would tend to think that the R-series and the R 28 PC might be more appropriate for that type of photography, and not knowing the building on the picture and the point, from where you took the picture, and whether it is taken with an M8 or M9, it is difficult to judge why there are curved lines, where you might not expect them.

 

It could be interesting to see a picture with another SE 18 taken under similar circumstances, and also to see a picture of this motive taken not directly from the front (90degrees) but more from the side (45 degrees).

 

Pillow distortion is not completely unknown in WA lenses and probably cannot be completely avoided. Sometimes lens producers accept some distortion in favour of other qualities in the lens. However, it could appear as if you have a faulty copy of this lens - since all others are very happy with this lens and have difficulties in finding any distortion. Have you tried other copies of the SE 18?

[michael_b_elmer]

This is perhaps why the Solms lens was more expensive than the Cosina version of a Zeiss lens?

 

Of course, so much extra curvature must cost a lot extra!

 

Congratulations with your decision to get both the SX 21 and the 18 SE. When presented with two possibilities and being unable to eliminate my doubt, also I always choose both possibilities. And you won't regret having both these lenses, since they each have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

However, when buying the M9 I did not hesitate to sell my M8 and M8.2. It is wonderful to get rid of the UV/IR-filters, and it would be far too difficult and time consuming for me to have to change filters on a lens every time you put it on another camera. So I would not hesitate to advice you to keep the M9 and to sell the M8 through a dealer and to use the income therefrom to buy new (eventually used) lenses. Good luck!

[Hacker]

My original question was whether the 18SE would give me a snappy, higher contrast image on my M9 than I am getting with the 21SX. I agree with everyone's exaltation of the 21SX... on my M8, it was my favorite lens. On my M9, it is more painterly, and I would like a hyper-perspective lens with the snap of the 28SM.

 

The 28 Elmarit ASPH is often considered to possess the highest contrast of all the Leica lenses, and the 18SE is very close.

[Hacker]

VERY Funny! It is actually the contractor who would love it because all of that symmetrical distortion is so expensive to make. This is perhaps why the Solms lens was more expensive than the Cosina version of a Zeiss lens?

 

There is another version of the Cosina lens :

 

 

Smaller too when compared to the SE18!

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[gpwhite]

The 28 Elmarit ASPH is often considered to possess the highest contrast of all the Leica lenses, and the 18SE is very close.

 

Hacker, thanks for your comments and images. You mention the 28 2.8 ASPH, and I have an older 28 2.0 ASPH (which has delightful contrast too). I am curious, since you suggest an overall rating: do you also have the 135 APO and can make a comparison with the 28 2.8 that you compare to the 18 SE? By transitive inference, it sounds like the 18 SE is as contrasty as the 135 APO, which I find to be just extraordinary (even if it is not so easy to use).

 

What lens did you use for the two-shot you just posted below your M8? So you still use both an M8 and an M9? How do you decide between the two? I noted that michael_b_elmer, who shares our tastes in glass, clearly prefers the M9.