Lens Question

[minks73]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi. Sorry, I don't mean to re-hash old discussions. I have read numerous threads on 21mm Elmarit vs. 24mm Elmarit issue (as well as 21mm Elmarit vs. 21mm Summilux issue) but just cannot come to a conclusion on the matter.

 

I am looking for a wide angle lens to add to my arsenal of 50mm Lux and 35mm Cron both of which I am very happy with (but I just feel the need to go wide at certain times). I have used the 21mm Elmarit (both pre-asph and asph) and am aware of the issues of loss of shapness and dark edges when wide open as well as some distortions but still think it is a neat lens (actually prefer the pre-asph). I have read on this forum and at other places that 24mm Elmarit is a "dream" and that it is optically superior. What makes the 24mm such a "dream"? I see that the 24mm usually commands a premium over the 21mm and wonder if the price reflects this sentiment. Is the 24mm such a superior lens that I will just be missing out a lot if I "settle" with the 21mm? Is the combination of focal lengths (as mentioned above) a consideration as well?

 

I have also considered the Voigtlander Cosina 21mm/4.0 due to its size and cost advantage but have read that it is not good for the M9 given its rear nodal point being too close to the sensor.

 

Pleaes help me with some feedback. Thank you for your help.

[01af]

I have read on this forum and at other places that Elmarit-M 24 mm is a "dream" and that it is optically superior. What makes the 24 mm such a "dream"? I see that the 24 mm usually commands a premium over the 21 mm and wonder if the price reflects this sentiment. Is the 24 mm such a superior lens that I will just be missing out a lot if I "settle" with the 21 mm? Is the combination of focal lengths (as mentioned above) a consideration as well?

The wider the angle of view, the harder it is to correct for aberrations, especially (of course) near the frame's borders. So a well-made 24 mm lens will always be superior in terms of sharpness and evenness of illumination to an equally-well-made 21 mm lens of the same speed and image circle diameter.

 

However in modern top-class lenses (such as Leica M lenses), the difference is hardly worth mentioning anymore. So if you want a 21 mm lens then don't get a 24 mm lens.

 

Regarding your existing lenses—a 21 mm super-wide will pair just nicely with a 35 mm lens. But then—so will a 24 mm wide-angle. The basic difference between 21 mm and 24 mm (on 35-mm full-frame format) is that 21 mm is super-wide while 24 mm is not. What does that mean? It means that 21 mm will virtually always inherently add some element of surrealism to your images. It's hard to create a photograph with a 21 mm lens that doesn't obviously scream 'super-wide!' at the viewer's face. That can lead to fresh interpretations of familiar objects or scenes, but it can also get in the way of composing a coherent and natural-looking image. A super-wide-angle lens is like a monkey on the photographer's shoulder that keeps adding its own freaky contributions to whatever the photographer tries to accomplish. That's why super-wide-angles are not so easy to master, but in experienced hands can lead to amazing and breath-taking results.

 

If you want to avoid this and want just wider vistas without that extra bit of surrealism popping up everywhere then better get a 24 mm lens. It all depends on what type of guy you are ... are you more into documentary-style photography? Do you like your verticals straight and your compositions like excerpts from nature? Then you shouldn't go wider than 24 mm. Or do like to experiment, show familiar things in unseen and mind-boggling ways, and love images 'bigger than life'? Then 21 mm (or maybe even 18 mm) is for you.

[Nicoleica]

If ultimate speed is not your prime concern, I can recommend the 24mm Elmar 3.8. It is so sharp that you can almost hear the photons scream as they pass through it. It's also very reasonably priced for a Leica lens.

[microview]

It's been variously posted that the 24 Elmarit is now no longer in production. No matter if this is so, as the 24 f3.8 is its equal (albeit a little slower) in resolution/colour/etc. I sold my f2.8 and have no regrets especially (as noted above) in view of its price. It is very good for architectural subjects as well as landscapes.

[Humood]

Today I took my M9 with the 24mm Summilux to photograph the famous ocean drive in Miami Beach I wanted to take pictures of the retro buildings on the drive, I found out that 24mm is enough to frame the whole building from across the street and include part of the sky above as well. Now my lust for a 21mm lens is gone!

[Shadow Blaster]

I'll add my vote for the 24mm 3.8 Elmar, which I absolutely love. It is as sharp as can be.

 

John S.

[giordano]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think O1af exaggerates the difference between 24mm and 21mm but he's absolutely right about its nature.

[01af]

... the Voigtländer 21 mm 1:4 [...] is not good for the M9 given its rear nodal point being too close to the sensor.

Oh, by the way ... all 21 mm lenses have their rear nodal points at exactly the same position—that is, 21 mm before the sensor (or film plane). It's the positions of the exit pupils which make the difference.

[jaapv]

Wouldn't the Zeiss Biogon 21/2.8 be a good compromise? Not too expensive and an image quality that is very close to Leica. Coding can be done by any number of third-party services.

[MarkP]

I recently commented on the problems with distortion especially horizontal stretching of people at the edges of images shot with my 21mm Lux (I decided on a 21 rather than 24mm as my previous widest lens was a 24 mm with my Nikon F3/T system and often not quite wide enough).

 

One of the more experienced forum members suggested that for such images I simply compose for approx 24mm and later crop the image accordingly (I still use the 21mm VF but could probably use a 24 for tighter composition). There is more than adequate reserve IQ for the slight enlargement for most subsequent prints.

 

 

He is right in that although there are obvious limitations, one can effectively have a 21 and 24mm f1.4 in the same lens by cropping when composing the image (I await abuse from the anti-croppers)

 

You may want to consider this if you are swaying towards the 21mm

 

Mark

[NZDavid]

24/2.8 Elmarit ASPH is a beauty. Ultra sharp, very fine contrast visible even in big enlargements. Zeiss 21 Biogon is also excellent with a slightly different character -- maybe slightly more contrasty and a cooler color rendition.

 

24mm lens covers 84º, a 21mm lens covers 92º.

 

24mm is probably more of a general purpose lens (travel, landscapes, street scenes, interiors); the 21 is more specialized (tight interiors and buildings, ultra wide landscape vistas).

[jacarape]

NZ, I think you summed the main differences well. At 90 degrees wide so to speak, the 21 really is tough to use in a vertical position. I never liked mine as there was way to much foreground that needed excessive cropping. But when you need 21, 24 isn't going to work as well.

 

Some will repeat "crop with your feet", and while that sounds good in reality it's empty. If your back is against an interior wall, or if your standing on a wall to compose a landscape, you either have the right lens or you don't.

 

Zeiss has been making Biogons for a long time, and for a FL that really won't be used very much I'd take a look at both 2.8 and 4.5 versions of the 21. Nobody can dispute the quality of either L or Z.

[peter_n]

My 24mm Elmarit is an old one and the thing I like about mine is that it's not super sharp. Renders images beautifully though. If you want sharp I think the ZM Biogon 25/2.8 is the one to go for. All the modern lens enthusiasts love it.

[minks73]

Oh, by the way ... all 21 mm lenses have their rear nodal points at exactly the same position—that is, 21 mm before the sensor (or film plane). It's the positions of the exit pupils which make the difference.

 

 

O1af - do you mean to say that Voigtlander may be an acceptable lens for M9 or are you making a technical correction to what I said? Just wondering whether I should put the Voigtlander back in the mix.

[minks73]

Thank you everyone for your valuable input. Today, I went to my Leica dealer and tried out the following lenses:

 

21mm f/2.8 Elmarit ASPH

21mm f/2.8 Elmarit pre-ASPH

21mm f/2.8 Biogon

21mm f/4.5 C Biogon

25mm f/2.8 Biogon

 

While I did not use them extensively enough to give a feedback on each lens, I found the below to be generally true.

 

In the 21mm family, Zeiss had less distortion and were sharper than Leica pre-ASPH but significantly worse red edge problem even with coding. I felt that Leica ASPH was probably the best lens among the bunch. It was sharp with the least vignetting when wide open. I saw that depending on what one prefers to trade off between little less sharpness and distortion vs. red-edge problem, one may have different preferences toward either Leica or Zeiss.

 

Unfortunately, I did not get to try out the 24mm Elmar which several of you recommended. However, I decided that I prefer the 21mm over the 24/25mm. Between the Zeiss and Leica, I found Leica more appealing and ended up settling with a used 21mm Elmarit pre-ASPH for less than half the cost of a new 21mm Elmarit ESPH.

 

Thanks again for all your feedback.

[NZDavid]

Sounds like a good deal, and I am sure you will be delighted with your new lens. Please post pictures when you have some time!

[01af]

Do you mean to say that Voigtlander may be an acceptable lens for M9 ...

No. I don't say it's acceptable. I don't say it's not acceptable. I don't have any experience with that lens so I don't have an opinion about it.

 

 

... or are you making a technical correction to what I said?

Exactly. You were confusing rear nodal point and exit pupil.

 

The position of the rear nodal point only depends on the lens' focal length. In fact, the distance between the rear nodal plane and the image plane is the focal length (when focus is at infinity). In contrast, the exit pupil's position depends on the lens design; it can be at the rear nodal plane or before that or behind that. A longer exit pupil distance usually is considered beneficial with regard to vignetting, especially for wide-angle lenses used on digital imaging sensors.