Jump to content
🇩🇪 Neu: Leica SL3 Reporter ×
🇺🇸🇬🇧 New: Leica SL3 Reporter ×

Summilux or Elmarit 21mm on the M9?

DFV

By DFV
in Leica M9 / M-E

Recommended Posts

DFV

DFV

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I had the 18 and both 21 and 24 Elmarits. Noticed that the 21 was 90% of the time on the M9 when doing wide angle. I tested (not in depth...) all three and found that the 21 gave me the best results so I am selling the other two. They are like new but I have to accumulate redundant gear, plus having less choices makes life easier... sometimes. ;) I must also admit that for the last 23 years the Elmarit 21mm has been my favorite wide angle. First the regular and then the ASPH. On the M9 the Aspherical version was quite an upgrade to the previous version, especially in the corners.

 

Looking at the data from the 21mm f3.4 I was tempted to switch but I do many interior shots and need the extra speed. The Summilux 21mm could be an option but I am not sure that I get better quality at f2.8 and above when compared to the Elmarit. Does anybody know of a head-to-head comparison that I can access online? My priority is edge-to-edge quality, then speed, then weight/size. If the Summilux would give me at least the same quality from f2.8 and upwards as the Elmarit but with two extra f-stops I would jump on it no questions asked. However, does anybody have or had the chance to compare them head-to-head on the M9 (NOT on the M8 please...)?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobu

Bobu

Posted
Posted

If your no. 1 priority is edge-to-edge sharpness, I would choose the 3,4/21mm. Edge/corner performance of this lens is nearly perfect, even wide open, and should be significantly better than the 1,4/21mm or the 2,8/21mm.

So far I've used only the 3,4/21, but there was a comparision in the LFI between the 2,8 and 3,4 lenses and also a look at the MTFs will confirm this.

 

Boris

Link to post
Share on other sites
DFV

DFV

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Great, many thanks! Very impressive result especially at f8. Definitely a lens to take into consideration for daytime landscape. Unfortunately, I do need the extra speed indoors so anything above f2.8 is not an option. Also, from reading posts bellow this lens seem to be difficult to source right now due to a recall. So, after waiting for over 2 years for my Summilux 35 I am not counting on that one anytime soon... :o

 

My question remains if it is worth to "upgrade" from the Elmarit to the Summilux... In order to make that decision it must be every bit as good as the Elmarit from 2.8 and upwards. The extra speed 1.4 of the Summilux would make the difference but not enough to loose performance at 2.8 and above when compared to the Elmarit. If the Summilux can't do that than the extra speed, weight and price are simply not worth the upgrade at least for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobu

Bobu

Posted
Posted

Do you think the difference between 3.4 and 2.8 is that important? In my opinion the 3.4 Super-Elmar is perfectly useable wide open, while the 2.8 has soft corners wide open (at least from the examples I've seen). But of course it's up to you.

I was also thinking about buying the Summilux 21. My main reason not to buy it was the odd filter size.

 

Boris

Link to post
Share on other sites
DFV

DFV

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Do you think the difference between 3.4 and 2.8 is that important? In my opinion the 3.4 Super-Elmar is perfectly useable wide open, while the 2.8 has soft corners wide open (at least from the examples I've seen). But of course it's up to you.

I was also thinking about buying the Summilux 21. My main reason not to buy it was the odd filter size.

 

Boris

 

I wish it where not so but many times (indoors) the difference between 1/15th of a second and 1/30th of a second is the difference between making the shot or not making it. I find myself on that fine line quite often. That is why I replaced my WATE that served me so well in bright light but a bit too slow for indoors.

 

The performance on my Elmarit at least, is very acceptable from corner to corner fully open to be honest it looks similar in performance to that of your test shots. So loosing that extra speed is not worth the extra sharpness in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shade

Shade

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 21 Lux is a fantastic lens. However, it's huge and heavy, not to mention the hefty price tag on it as well. When doing wide angles, DOF is no longer relevant, the only usage of the 1.4 fast aperture is if you do very lowlight wide angles alot of the time, if not, I think you should pass on it and get the elmarit instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MarkP

MarkP

Posted
Posted

I have a 21 Summilux but can't compare it to the 21 Elmarit for you.

 

If you haven't read them you may find these reviews of the 21 Summilux helpful:

Erwin Puts

SX21 and SX24

SX21SX24, part 2

SEM21: "It is illustrative to compare the performance of the SEM 21mm with the current SX 21mm: at f/2.8 the SX shows some curvature of field and astigmatism that is visible in the very fine structures and a visible drop in image quality in the outer zonal areas. At f/5.6 the SX 21mm almost equals the quality of the SEM 21mm, at least in the definition of the subject outlines and fine detail representation (5 -10 lp/mm), whereas the very fine textural details become softer. These two designs show the different balancing act between a high-speed lens and a compact lens with moderate aperture."

ie: everything is a trade-off but I wonder whether this is really visible in use. However I find the IQ of the 21 Summilux to still be extraordinary.

 

Sean Reid-

also has an excellent review of the 21 Summilux with detailed studies of lens performance. If you don't already have one, the small cost of the subscription is well worthwhile:

Welcome to ReidReviews

 

To digress from the specific question if I may:

the 21 Summilux is big and heavy but allows extraordinary low light (or reduced DOF) opportunities that are simply NOT available to slower lenses especially when hand-held. By no means does this make me a better photographer but it does give me more options. There are times I would like the option of the lighter lens but I don't use this FL enough (yet) to justify a second lens. I could not have taken these handheld at night with a slower lens:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/72811-albums4682.html

(some of my other Albums here have been shot with the 21 Summilux but not in low light)

 

I suspect that when shooting in low light that the final IQ with a 21 Summilux would easily surpass the IQ with a slower lens handheld at lower speed and higher ISO. At comparable apertures not shooting brick walls or pixel-peeping I wonder whether one really would notice the difference.

 

One could think of the lens as a wide-ange Noctilux. Although it is about one stop slower the 21 Summilux can be handheld at much lower shutter-speeds than the Noctilux but without the same degree of focussing problems associated with the razor thin DOF of the Noctilux.

 

Regards,

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

You say you need the extra speed for interior shots. But don't interior shots need a reasonable zone of sharpness as well? If you start using the Summilux wide open the relatively narrow DOF, even if it is a 21, will become apparent. I think an Super Elmar 21 and a tripod would suit your needs better. It would leave you financial space to add a Super Elmar 18 too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
k_g_wolf ✝

k_g_wolf ✝

Posted
Posted

I would second the suggestion, that very small apertures could be

problematic for internal shots where you prefer lots of detail and a fair

amount of dof.

 

In case a smaller aperture is o. k., give the TRI-Elmar 16-18-21 mm a try.

For narrower interiors the focal lengths < 21 mm come VERY handy.

And with the designated v/f which comes with the lens (normally) you have a very

precise instrument to handle the camera.

 

Since I got the w/a-TRI-Elmar my 21 mm- lens leads an easy life on a shelf somewhere.

 

 

 

Best

GEORG

Link to post
Share on other sites
DFV

DFV

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yes, to all but here is my reasoning...

 

At 2.8 with my current Elmarit I am more than covered when sooting at infinite inside a church for instance. Most of what I want to have into focus will be in focus. Pretty much, saving the distance, with the shots of the Eiffel Tower (wonderful pictures if I might add) that even at 1.4 all is in focus as you can see. If I want dramatic up close shots I can do that with my Elmarit as well although the Summilux would do better that is...

 

My issue is simply to know if the Summilux between f2.8 and f16 is AT LEAST as good as the Elmarit. If it is as good then I can see it being worth spending the extra cash for two more apertures. If the performance is NOT as good as the Elmarit at the same apertures than the extra money, size and weight are simply NOT worth the extra speed. That is the only thing I need to know...

 

Based on the testimony and examples shown I am sure that the Super-Elmar 21mm is superior in corner to corner IQ. However, it is too slow. The Elmar on the other hand does give me a bit more speed and great quality. I require that same minimum quality in order to decide to go for what I consider to be a VERY expensive piece of kit. Yes, I can afford to buy the Summilux but I certainly can not afford to throw money away. Just that.

 

Whether one shoots one way or the other, that is besides the point here. Even if at f1.4 there is a narrow depth of field, obviously, at least you have the option of making the shot which is always better than nothing. 1/15th of a second is a world compared to 1/4th of a second...

 

Thanks Jaap, but I am not really a fan of carrying a tripod everywhere, just too lazy. ;) Seriously, part of having a fast lens is being fast on your feet as well and with a tripod that is just not as convenient. And an absolute rule of thumb is; "Where is a Cop when you need one!?!" and the same is true with "Where is a tripod when you need one?!?". :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

In that case, rest assured. The Summilux is so close to the Super Elmar ( and Elmarit) that you will only see a difference if you do test shots using a heavy tripod. In the real world there is no difference in image quality, although we could go and argue fingerprints...;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
DFV

DFV

Posted
  • Author
Posted
In that case, rest assured. The Summilux is so close to the Super Elmar ( and Elmarit) that you will only see a difference if you do test shots using a heavy tripod. In the real world there is no difference in image quality, although we could go and argue fingerprints...;)

 

Ufff, fingerprints... let's not go there. :o That thread would go on too long without going anywhere. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...