Which wide to add to this lens set for M9

[thetoness]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For my M9 I presently own the following lenses: Summicron 28 2.0 , Summilux 50 1.4 and 90 Summicron 2.0.

I would like to get a wide angle lens for street and some architecture to compliment and round out the above. I am thinking of the following: Elmairit 21 2.8, WATE or the Summilux 21 1.4

Any help, comments and thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Cary

Edited December 12, 2010 by thetoness

[wlaidlaw]

For my M9 I presently own the following lenses: Summicron 28 2.0 , Summilux 50 1.4 and 90 Summicron 2.0.

I would like to get a wide angle lens for street and some architecture to compliment and round out the above. I am thinking of the following: Elmairit 21 2.8, WATE or the Summilux 21 1.4

Any help, comments and thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Cary

 

Cary,

 

I have a WATE which I have ended up not using as much on my M9 as I used to on my M8. One issue is that I am still getting red edges on the WATE and I keep hoping for a firmware update to cure this. I also get asymmetric vignetting, which I cure in a lens correction routine in CS5. I personally feel that now, I would use a 21/1.4 much more that I currently use my WATE. The wide lens I use most is my 25/2.8 Zeiss ZM Biogon, which is IMHO, the best of the Biogons and a stunning good lens. In your case however, probably too close to your Summicron 28. The only 28 I have is on my MATE. A lot of folks think the Zeiss 21 Biogon is at least equal if not better than the 21 Elmarit at a substantially lower price point (Puts included). I had one, which I sold to a friend when I got my WATE. A great lens in every way. If you can afford it, my choice would be the 21/1.4 ever time. A unique lens.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

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

[MikeD700]

The line-up seems perfect as it is, but apparently it isn't.

 

I suggest trading in the 28 for a 24 and a 35; of any denomination really, it's the field of view that counts. You don't really need the 28; it's an "inbetween" lens.

 

To be honest: you're always wrong. I went out with the 24 and the 50 (still talking full frame) today, and occasionally missed the 35. It's probably the all-time, do-it-all great!

[glenerrolrd]

We use the same lenses..28cron,501.4asph and the 90cron. IMHO this is a great set for a M9 . 21 gives you the right FOV and is frequently my 4 lens. I have the three 21 s you mention . The 21/2.8 apsh renders the closest to your current lenses and is my favorite . Its small size makes adding to my vest/jacket/bag an easy decision. It has a little more macro contrast than the 28cron but the images work well together.

 

Two downsides on the 21/2.8asph /M9 ..it suffers from the Red Edge on the left side problem . I have found it pretty easy to work with in LR using a graduated filter in the local area adjustments but it can be irritating . This is not a lens I would use for weddings for this reason. The only other issue is that its slow ...2.8 just isn t fast enough for much night shooting on the street.

 

The WATE is a nice lens and if you want a 16 as well its a good solution . But F4 is too slow for interiors for example. I use my WATE as a 16/4 . I really do like the color saturation and micro contrast but this lens isn t quite as sharp as your other three (doubt you would notice ).

 

The 21/1.4 is excellent all around . Three issues (1) rendering is as the newer lenses and it can be overly crisp (people call it clinical) when shooting people...but if you want that high resolution ,high contrast look its really excellent (2) its large and heavier than you other lenses ...similar to your 90/2 ...it balances well on the M9 ..its not hard to use. (3) its very expensive and hard to find a good deal on a used lens.

 

The best IQ IMHO is from the newer 21/1.4 asph but keep in mind that this is a lens for reportage and is optimized for speed ,center sharpness etc.

 

I ve seen used 21/2.8 asph for half of the price of the 21/1.4asph . If I have good or high contrast light I go with the 21/2.8 ..if its overcast or I need the speed indoors its the 21/1.4asph. If I was shooting landscapes I would use the Zeiss 21/2.8 M .

 

Each alternative has strengths and weaknesses and the "best" relates to a specific application. E.Putts has some nice reviews on these lenses as does Sean Reid (pay site).

[freusen]

I suggest trading in the 28mm for a 24mm and a 35mm; of any denomination really, it's the field of view that counts.

You don't really need the 28; it's an "inbetween" lens.

 

I will never sell the 28mm Summicron, it's my most used lens for architecture and landscape. I also have the 21mm and

24mm Elmarit but use them very little and thinking selling them and buy the 18mm Super-Elmar instead.

 

FrankR

[texasrancher]

We have a similar set of lenses. While the WATE may be too slow for street photography, it is an ideal lens for architectural shots with the Frankenfinder & its built-in bubble level. In a pinch, I can hand hold the WATE set to 16mm with good vertical alignment at 1/15th second at an ISO of 640 to capture quite sharp interior shots. I have never experienced any red-edging with my WATE, but apparently there is a lot of that with the faster ultra-wides.

[Broadoaker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You have the same lens set as me apart from an 18 mm Super Elmar f3.8, which I think is a real bargain for what you get.

[D&A]

Hi,

 

I too have basically the same set-up and you do (with a few additional focal lengths.

 

Without my contributing a single extra word to glenerrolrd's post (above), I completely agree word for word with his entire assessment on the aspects of each lens he mentioned, based on my own personal experience of shooting with these too.

 

Dave (D&A)

[thighslapper]

You have the same lens set as me apart from an 18 mm Super Elmar f3.8, which I think is a real bargain for what you get.

 

Ditto.

 

I have 18, 28, 50, 75, 135

 

I would go for the 18/3.8 which take stunning and take pics that are a big enough jump away from 28 to look very different and original.

 

I originally had concerns about the 3.8 bit, but as you can take hand held pics at 1/6 sec if you are careful its never been an issue. Also, for me, correction of vignetting and 'red edge' on the M9 with lens has been spot on....

[Adam Marelli]

Hey Cary,

 

Since you already have the 28mm, unless you are just aching for the 21mm then I would go for the 18mm. Its going to be more dramatic for architecture.

 

The 21mm is certainly usable, if not wonderful for shooting groups of people (2 or more), but it really depends on how you shoot. If I were to buy the 21mm I would sell the 28mm. They feel too close for me.

 

If you find yourself wanting more architectural shots, then the 18mm will make the biggest impact, but if you really need the speed and plan on shooting small groups of people in very low light then the 21mm will be the way to go.

 

Here are two pics at the Leica booth from the 21mm f 1.4.

 

Best-Adam

 

Adam Marelli Photo

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!

[freusen]

If I were to buy the 21mm I would sell the 28mm. They feel too close for me.

 

Never heard something more ridiculous!!!....................................................................

 

By the way, nice examples of photos which demonstrates how to use a 21mm lens.

 

I would buy the 18mm Super-Elmar instead of a 21mm lens, because it's more dramatical.

 

FrankR

Edited December 14, 2010 by freusen

[MarkoM8]

How about a Zeiss 18 / 4 Distagon?

Does anyone have experience with it?

[AGeoJO]

My lens lineup is similar to the OP, as well. Plus, I do have a Leica 21mm Summilux. While I love that lens, especially the speed, I agree with the notion that the difference between 21mm and 28mm is not that dramatic.

 

A week ago, I received a CV 15mm f/4.5 Heliar with native M mount as my widest wide angle lens. I am impressed with the sharpness of that lens but I am a little frustrated with the edge issue (on the left). Yes, I can minimize the appearance of the red edge using LR (I didn't have much luck with those issues using Cornerfix) but it gets old fast. More recenty, I had a chance to buy a Zeiss 18mm Distagon ZM (with a trade of a Canon lens) with pits for coding on the mount. I will get that next week and play around with it. I have all reasons to believe, based on available reviews, that this Zeiss lens will perform as well as the similar Leica 18mm Super Elmar at a fraction of the price, especially mine is a used copy. We will see.

[Shade]

If you're shooting architecture, the 21 lux would just add burden to your setup. The 21 elmarit is probably much better, you'd going to need it stopped down anyhow.

 

However, I would suggest the 18mm instead - with your set up.

[ndjambrose]

Hey Cary,

 

If I were to buy the 21mm I would sell the 28mm. They feel too close for me.

 

21mm and 24mm are close. But 21mm and 28mm are dramatically different - in perspective, depth and framing, and also in how the lens is used.

[thetoness]

Great advice all! I think I have narrowed it down to the following: Super-Elmar-M 18 mm f/3.8 ASPH or the Elmarit-M 21 mm f/2.8 ASPH. Considering that I already own the 28 mm Summicron, any further advice on the ultimate choice? In other words, go for the faster lens or the wider lens? Thanks again.

Cary

[tgray]

While I still shoot film (no M9), I do use a 28/50/90 setup. The same as yours except for the 90. I also have a Zeiss 21.

 

Like many here have stated, maybe look at one of the 21's or 18's available. Personally, I was interested in the Leica 18 until I saw a shot someone had posted with nasty mustache distortion. The Zeiss 18 is a good choice from what I've seen. Of course if you want 21 the Leica 21/2.8 is supposed to be good or the Zeiss 21/2.8. I personally have the Zeiss 21/4.5 which is fantastic, but understand isn't desirable on the M9. The Leica 21/1.4 is too expensive for me, too big for me, slower to use (external finder), and would begin to create an overlap with my 28/2 (fast and wide) that would create too much confusion for me.

 

While I do find 21 and 28 closer together than my other focal lengths, they do distinguish themselves enough for my use. However, I rarely use them side by side. The 21, due to its slowness, is strictly a lens for good light or the tripod. Also because of the need to use an external finder, it's slower to use. I'm sure I could sub in an 18 here for the 21 and not really notice. f/2.8, f/3.8, f/4.5 don't really matter since again, it's a daylight/tripod lens for me.

 

The 28 on the other hand is my do anything lens. It works as a landscape/architecture lens if I want it to (though I think I prefer the 21 here), but it is also great in low light, indoor shots, people shots, etc. It's a much better all around lens. I also find it much faster to use since I can use the built in finder. And because of the subjects I often shoot with it (people, etc.) I find minding the horizontal is a bit less important, which makes it a bit faster to use.

[Shade]

Wow, from the two pictures posted above... I can't believe the dof of the 21 Lux... quite shallow for such a wide lens!

[gib_robinson]

21mm and 24mm are close. But 21mm and 28mm are dramatically different - in perspective, depth and framing, and also in how the lens is used.

 

+1

 

I own both the 28mm Summicron and a 21 f/2.8 Zeiss. I use them both and find the perspectives very different. Both are useful. Both are superb lenses.

 

--Gib

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Shade]

If you do a lot of lowlight work, go for the faster lens. However I have tried the 18 super elmar and its one fantastic lens. Very compact too!

 

You can also consider the voigtlander 21mm counterpart. I have heard wonders about the lens with a very very frendly price tag..