On getting wider...

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't have an 18mm lens, but I have the Zeiss 21/2.8, and it is magical on the M9. I took it with me to Japan along with the CV 35/1.4, Summicron 50 and CV 75/2.5. The 21 got at least a third of the use, maybe more. Its ability to capture entire rooms, streetscapes and buildings is immense. The sharpness, contrast and colour of this lens are all fantastic. Minimal, if any, red edge when one of the 21mm settings is selected.

 

Another vote for the ZM21mm Biogon f2.8 - a really excellent lens in all aspects. My favourite land/sea/city-scape lens on my M9 & M7. I also have the ZI 21mm viewfinder.

[IkarusJohn]

I'd love to know your views on the 18 and 21mm focal lengths on the M9. (I have neither, yet.)

 

And is there much difference between the two?

 

I'm not primarily asking about the technical quality of the various lenses so much as your thoughts about the aesthetic impact of the images they produce.

 

Also, whether you have experience of using them, and if so, how they affect the way you take photos with them.

 

I don't know whether these questions make sense, but I'm reasonably confident you'll know what I mean!

 

Thank you.

 

Much like you, Peter - I had an SLR with a 17 - 35 zoom. It wasn't particularly fast, but I was taking outdoors mostly. I found I was generally taking at the widest end of the range, mostly for dramatic effect.

 

When I switched to an M9, a good wide was early on my list. I considered 28 (too close to my 35), 24 or 21, or WATE. I decided the 21 fitted the range I had best.

 

I have found that framing needs care. People standing near the corners elongate, and you really need to think about the sweetspot with this lens.

 

Size? Well, the 21 Lux is bigger than the alternatives, but it doesn't bother me at all. As it's aluminium, it is lighter for it's size than my chrome lenses. Coming from an F5 with IFED Nikkor lenses, anything you put on an M9 is going to feel compact.

 

I appreciate your views may vary.

 

Cheers

John

[kanuck]

I ignored all the comments and stories on the internet and got a 15mm Voigtlander type II for my M9 and have been extremly happy with it so far. I just use corner fix and problem solved with the purple color casting takes under a minute to solve. I also had an 18mm Zeiss ZM, but had to sell it a few month ago because of my graduate studies. The Zeiss was also fantastic you'd love it. I used the cheaper 15mm viewfinder for it though and I wouldn't recommend doing this just get the Zeiss or $$$ Leica 18 viewfinder instead. Leica was made to go wide!

[philipir]

I have both the 21mm Elmarit ASPH and the 18 Super Elmar M ASPH. I use both a lot. I would disagree with some of the contributors here expressing similarities - they are very different!

 

The 18 needs lots (more) care with horizontals - buy a good spirit level. And it makes magenta casts over the short edges of the frame, at least all the ones I have seen.

 

And you can enjoy another of Leica's many jokes and shell out over 500 quid for the nice little 18mm viewfinder.

 

Both are wonderful, the 21 more useable than the insanely expensive and huge newer one and, of course, essential . . .

[rosuna]

There is a significant difference in aesthetic impact, in my opinon, between 24 mm and 21 mm. That's why lenses from 35 mm down to 24 mm, on 24 × 36 mm format, are considered wide-angle lenses, and 21 mm and shorter are categorised as super-wide-angle lenses. I elaborated on this topic before (—> search function).

 

Here are the posts:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/158794-lens-question.html#post1565130

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/133289-choosing-focal-lengths.html#post1396300

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/132389-elmarit-asph-21-2-8-24-a.html#post1388594

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/132389-elmarit-asph-21-2-8-24-a.html#post1388689

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/121272-18mm-21mm-24mm.html#post1291393

 

.

[lars_bergquist]

I have both a ZM 25mm and a ZM 18mm and I agree with Olaf, the 24/25mm is much easier to handle and gets more use in my case.

 

I may purchase the Elmar-M 1.3.8/21mm ASPH when it becomes available.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks to all who've taken the trouble to reply.

 

I settled on the biogon 21 2.8 and I have to say I am delighted with it so far. I haven't had it long enough to really get to know it but my first impressions are 100% good.

 

And I agree with those who say there is something about the 21mm focal length that feels just right.

[lars_bergquist]

[ ... ]

I may purchase the Elmar-M 1.3.8/21mm ASPH when it becomes available.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

 

Self-quoting is not supposed to be good form. But today I did actually order that lens – and I was told by my dealer, not only that it is in the works, but also that I am not the first man in the local queue.

 

The same old man

[proy]

Self-quoting is not supposed to be good form. But today I did actually order that lens – and I was told by my dealer, not only that it is in the works, but also that I am not the first man in the local queue.

 

The same old man

 

If I recall correctly, didn't you refer to it's slightly wider but similarly apertured brother as a "sunshine" lens? What changed in your thinking?

[jaapv]

I am a bit gobsmacked at Lars' qualification "dubious quality" of the Summilux 24. It is, after the Summilux 50 asph, the most beautifully drawing lens I have. I tend to use it as wide open as possible for its character. I find the results of the Elmarit 24 I had before quite flat in comparison .

[lars_bergquist]

If I recall correctly, didn't you refer to it's slightly wider but similarly apertured brother as a "sunshine" lens? What changed in your thinking?

 

Maybe it's a sunshine lens I want in this focal length. I do already own a f:2.8 25mm lens.

 

The old man

[lars_bergquist]

I am a bit gobsmacked at Lars' qualification "dubious quality" of the Summilux 24. It is, after the Summilux 50 asph, the most beautifully drawing lens I have. I tend to use it as wide open as possible for its character. I find the results of the Elmarit 24 I had before quite flat in comparison .

 

Jaap, are you sure you are not conflating your personal esthetic preferences (which are not quantifiable) with technical quality (which is, and well documented, to boot)?

 

Some people like to take pictures with Holga cameras. They like the "qualities" of Holga pictures, and they are welcome to them. But I doubt that you would be unable to see the difference between their "qualities" and optical quality, i.e. fidelity. I am simply not speaking esthetics here. I seldom do, because meaningful discourse on that aspect is well-nigh impossible for lack of an objective reference frame.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[jaapv]

I would replace Holga with Noctilux in this case. The lens is as good as it gets wide open and comparable to the Elmarit at smaller apertures. What are you looking for? Summicron 50 MTF curves at 24/1.4? I can only assume you haven't seen results from this lens yourself.

And if you want reviews, you might try Roger Hicks' one. Or Steve Huff's...

Or Erwin Puts:

the SX 21 and SX 24 do represent the cutting edge of current optical and mechanical design and manufacture.

 

And:

The SX24 compares favorably with the E24. This lens (the E24) delivers overall outstandingly good quality and it is an achievement of first order that the SX24 with the high speed of 1.4 can be compared without problems with a 24mm lens of more modest speed.

Another old man from an age of fair assessments.

[Guest]

I would replace Holga with Noctilux in this case. The lens is as good as it gets wide open and comparable to the Elmarit at smaller apertures. What are you looking for? Summicron 50 MTF curves at 24/1.4? I can only assume you haven't seen results from this lens yourself.

And if you want reviews, you might try Roger Hicks' one.

 

+1

 

And to the fans of the 35Lux:

please compare the difference in size between the 3.4/24 / 2.8/24 versus the 1.4/24 with the resulting 2 or 2.5 f:stops gain

to the difference in size between the 35LuxA versus 35CronA with the resulting 1 f:stop gain.

 

The main point still being: the 24Lux is comparable to the Elmarit at smaller apertures - on the copies I had and sold of the 21 ElmaritA and 24 Elmar (not great, returned it after the week-end).

 

In this small segment imo "the market is right" looking at 2nd hand prices of 24/21A Elmarits. They're squeezed between the Summiluxes and Biogons of the same focal length.

[marknorton]

LFI ran an interesing comparison a year or so ago, maybe a little more, of the 7 Leica wides below 28mm. That has been trimmed to 5 now that the Elmarits have been discontinued. Even if the Summiluxes were shown to be a bit soft wide open, they are huge achievements.

 

Fast lenses are not just about light gathering ability of course and the Summiluxes provide a look (specifically wide and shallow DoF when close focussed) which you cannot get any other way. Of course, not every shot benefits from this any more than every Noctilux shot benefits from being shot at f0.95/f1 but it extends the creative options to new areas which DSLR users with their kit lenses can only dream about.

 

Of course, I'm a Nikon user as well and their 24mm f1.4 provides similar performance to the 24mm Summilux but the combination still has a 2 - 3 stops noise advantage over the M9 which extends the creative options even further.

 

I do wonder whether, with the demise of the Elmarits, there are holes between "fast and expensive" and "slow and cheap". The 18mm Super Elmar and 24mm Elmar seem to be built down to a price and lack the second helicoid required to present a flat - or near flat - focussing cam to the camera. This is turn makes them sensitive to the camera roller position for critical focussing which, I assume, is deemed acceptable given the slow speed and deep depth of field. It does however make the lenses compact.

 

The Summiluxes, by comparison, are the business and have the TWO extra helicoids required for critical focus AND close focus correction. No wonder they are so much more expensive than the Elmars.

[scottygraham]

I own the Super Elmar 18mm, and it is my most used lens after the 35 summicron....I love that lens for my style of photography. The viewfinder was expensive, but a necessity. The only drawback to the lens, in my opinion, is the limitation of it being a f/3.8....but for most of my work, I have plenty of light and rarely shoot wide open, so not a big deal for me.....but if that is a factor for you, then maybe the 21 f/2.8 would be a better choice...but I sure like the 18mm....it is sharp edge to edge, and I haven't experienced the magenta cast someone above mentioned...to me the lens is the perfect lens for really wide angle work!!

 

Check out my blog (link below) for some samples from the 18mm...good luck in your decision.