21 Summilux ASPH - Is it too fast and too expensive?

[StephenPatterson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 21 Summilux ASPH seems to be the only readily available lens in the Summilux family these days. Currently there are several on dealer shelves, or Amazon, selling for list price. The 24 Summilux ASPH, introduced at the same time, is a much harder lens to find.

 

Obviously at $6495 cost is an issue, as this is the 2nd most expensive lens in the M mount lineup, but people seem to be buying up all the 24 Summilux ASPHs which is the same price. Do you think it's the 21's natural propensity to exaggerate perspective or inability to create shallow DOF even wide open due to the ultra wide focal length that might explain why this lens isn't more popular?

 

Finally, do you think that, given the limited lens manufacturing capacity at Leica today, it might perhaps be wise to discontinue the 21 Summilux ASPH, possibly allowing increased production of lenses like the 24, 35 and 50 Summilux ASPH?

 

Stephen

[Advertisement]

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

[scsambrook]

Some interesting questions which should get the discussion going pretty quickly.

 

For me the 21/1.4 is way, way too costly. I can get a half decent motor car for that money. Does it actually 'distort', or are you thinking of the way ultra wide lenses seemingly exaggerate persepctive? I've always thought that 24mm was a better proposition than either a 21mm or a 28mm - for me, that is. But I think the 24/1.4 is also way too expensive. For me. As for the inability to create shallow depth of field, well I've always reckoned that one of the chief uses of a really wide lens was cram everything in the picture and get as much of it in focus as possible. So I wouldn't buy one to eliminate depth of field. All good reasons for me not to get the 21/1.4. And maybe for others.

 

Should Leica discontinue it to free up space for other lenses? I don't think discontinuing one line to make room for others is really a satisfactory business solution, unless the 21/1.4 simply doesn't sell in numbers great enough to justify its retention in the range. Even then, junking it might be seen as an admission of technological failure. No, they should keep it going. Even though I can't afford or even fancy one.

[IkarusJohn]

I agree it's expensive.

 

I don't agree it's too fast.

 

I love mine.

 

It is almost impossible to say with any certainty in what order Leica manufactures its lenses. For me, the M cameras are all about wide (my longest lens is 75 mm). Lens demand tends to be more about fashion and hype.

 

Erwin Puts is very complementary about the new SEM 21, but it is a different beast from the SX 21.

 

Cheers

John

[StephenPatterson]

Does it actually 'distort', or are you thinking of the way ultra wide lenses seemingly exaggerate persepctive?

 

Thanks, I've edited my original question to use "exaggerate perspective" instead of distort. I believe that is a more correct definition.

 

Stephen

[JimGoshorn]

As for the inability to create shallow depth of field, well I've always reckoned that one of the chief uses of a really wide lens was cram everything in the picture and get as much of it in focus as possible. So I wouldn't buy one to eliminate depth of field. All good reasons for me not to get the 21/1.4. And maybe for others.

 

That is something I have been wondering about. Once you go wider than 35 (which is still considered "normal"), how often do you make use of 1.4 to justify spending the significant difference?

 

Also, when shooting at common apertures to both Lux and Elmar lenses (or Lux and Cron lenses for that matter), do you really notice any differences in the printed images?

 

Jim

[lct]

It is a huge lens blocking a lot the VF and needing the use of an accessory finder. What's the point of getting a super fast lens if one has to use two different VFs for framing and focusing? Low light landscapes? If so OK but otherwise this lens is just an exercice de style to me, at least with current M cameras. With an EVF it could be another story eventually.

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If in fact the 21 luxs are sitting on dealer shelves, it could also mean Leica owners wanting a 21 are waiting for Leica to re-release the SEM21 f3.4 at less than half the cost of the Summilux 21.

[StephenPatterson]

If in fact the 21 luxs are sitting on dealer shelves, it could also mean Leica owners wanting a 21 are waiting for Leica to re-release the SEM21 f3.4 at less than half the cost of the Summilux 21.

 

In the interest of full disclosure I must admit that I am one of those Leica owners who have been patiently waiting for the 21/3.4 SEM since Summer. For me the decision was based on cost and that I didn't see a need for a fast 21mm lens. As for size I have used the 24 Summilux, and didn't find it's "girth" to be a major issue, at least for me.

[tdtaylor]

This thread poses some interesting questions, and got me to take a look at Lightroom and figure what I have been using. I use the WATE quite a bit, usually at 16 and 21mm, but usually at f5.6. I often shoot architectural interiors, usually (I hear the gasps already) on a tripod. But even when using it "around," I usually shoot it at smaller f-stops. I often shoot my longer lenses at the maximum aperture.

 

After taking it in, I guess I shoot for very different outcomes with my widest lenses vs. my more normal 35/50 lenses, i.e. a large aperture on a 21mm wouldn't be worth a lot to me. Of course, trying to get something out of focus with a 16mm can be futile.

 

Just a meandering thought...

[wattsy]

Yes, the 21 and 24 Summiluxes are very expensive but they do seem to have the best build quality of all the M lenses - including the more expensive F0.95 Noctilux. The fit and finish of the lens hood and the movement of the aperture ring seem to be in a different class to the rest of the M range.

 

Incidentally, I see greater availability of the 24 Summilux in the UK than I do its wider sibling. I doubt that either sell in large numbers.

[lars_bergquist]

I have tried the 21 SLX and I can afford it – but I won't ever buy it. It is large, heavy and clumsy and the people who think that it will automatically make great pictures because of shallow dof are just deceiving themselves. I am now using a 25mm Biogon and a 18mm Distagon, both great lenses, especially the Biogon which I think beats the late Elmarit, but I do want a 21mm lens.

 

So I have a 21mm Super-Elmar on order.

 

And hey, I grew up with auxiliary viewfinders and they hold no terror for me. Though they seem to do that for nervous old ladies of both sexes (and all ages).

 

The old man from the Age of the Leica IIIa

[Ecar]

IMO the Summilux 21 is primarily about low-light capabilities, not DOF control.

If you need/like to use a very wide lens in poorly-lit anvironments, and don't want to crank up the ISO, it's the only game in town (along with the Summilux 24, of course, if you find the 24mm FOV sufficient).

The WATE is a great lens, but sometimes f/4 is just not enough and I'm glad I can switch to the Summilux.

So no, it's not too fast.

That being said, I originally purchased the 21 for use with the M8 and, with hindsight, would have probably gone for the 24 on a full-frame sensor. But that's just me - although I suspect many others would find the 21mm FOV somewhat "too wide".

Whether the lens is too expensive, this is, as always, very subjective.

[MarkP]

If I may add my 'perspective' on this issue, without getting into the relative merits of 21 vs 24 which is clearly a personal decision:

 

I'm guessing but perhaps more 21s are available because there was a recent production run of significant numbers of 21s and more people may prefer a fast 24 (I certainly thought that way before I finally bought the 21 over the 24 when both were available for me to buy) particularly if they go wider to 18 or 15 .

 

I have a 21 Summilux which I think, like John, is a fantastic lens but outrageously expensive. I do not regret the purchase.

 

It's speed has allowed me to take photographs handheld at reasonably low ISO that I would not have otherwise captured (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/72811-albums4682.html). After all it is a full 2 stops faster than anything else readily available in M-mount. It was especially useful travelling through Europe in winter with limited ambient light.

 

The option of shallow DOF has it's uses at times, but I agree with Lars that it is not a prime motivator for buying the lens.

 

I always use a 21mm Leica external viewfinder (got rid of the Zeiss for reasons discussed here - see post #66: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/168679-21mm-viewfinder-leica-zeiss-4.html ). With more considered & carefully framed photographs one is needed, and for fast photography pre-focusing & pre-metering means that the external VF is even easier to use.

 

With regard to the comments about the 'perspective' of a 21mm, if it doesn't suit the photograph compose, shoot, and crop later for 24mm. There are more than adequate reserves of IQ with the M9 that cropping to 24 is not a problem. This gives you a 21 and 24 in the one lens if cropping is not an anathema to you. For this reason I find it more versatile than the 24 (and I also have a 28 Summicron ASPH which is too close to 24)

 

The lens is heavy, but to put into this into perspective it is lighter than a Noctilux at 580 vs 700gm. The weight usually doesn't bother me. Having said that I have recently acquired a 4.5/21 Biogon for when I want to travel light and I know I don't need the speed of the Sumilux. The Biogon has almost no distortion, costs about the same as the Leica 21mm external VF, and is 31mm long and weighs 190 gm. I decided against the 2.8 Biogon as although lighter it's not much smaller than the Summilux, and against the 3.4/21 Super-Elmar which is also not as compact and only~1 stop faster than the 4.5 Biogon).

 

As I've written previously, I see the 21 Summilux as a wide-angle Noctilux allowing versatility and similar low-light capability at lower ISO, but DOF not so shallow that precise focus is difficult, andwith both lenses I have lighter and more compact counterparts).

[gyoung]

Unless you use a Voigtlander R4 you will need a separate viewfinder for ANY 21mm

 

Gerry

[Peter H]

Does anyone know what Leica's margins are on these lenses? Could they cut the price by 40%, sell twice as many, and thereby increase their profits?

 

I imagine not. But if they could, might it be the sort of thing the new partners might encourage them to look at?

 

I doubt it would happen though, even if it were possible. Its very hard to recover the high-price-high-ground once you've surrendered it.

 

So we're stuck with a monstrously expensive, rare and beautiful lens. What's new?

[bocaburger]

FWIW all of Leica's current lenses are far more than I'm willing to pay. Especially the ones that have been around a while, and used to be a fraction of their current asking, but the new ones as well. I have a pre-ASPH 21 Elmarit I got LNIB about 5 yrs ago for $1100, and I thought that was expensive! My favorite 21 is the C/V Skopar. A 21 is a lens I'll use for maybe 5% of my shots on a trip, so the less space and weight it takes up, the better. That said, if the 21 Summilux cost $1500 I might get one.

[thighslapper]

I can't say I've ever understood the rationale of extreme aperture wide angle lenses such as the 21/1.4.....

 

You can already use very slow shutter speeds in low light to compensate for the usual modest aperture of most of the conventional lenses...

 

And quite what the use of limiting depth of field is in a panoramic lens eludes me...... usually it's the enormous depth of field that is available that is the picture maker.....

 

Plus the weight, size and price penalty far outweighs the benefits....

 

Strikes me that Leica is making these lenses because it can rather than because we really need them and perceives its market as people with more money than sense (I plead guilty)

[Ecar]

You can already use very slow shutter speeds in low light to compensate for the usual modest aperture of most of the conventional lenses...

Depends on how low the light really is, whether you need to stop movement, whether you are happy or not with high ISO - and, in most cases, a combination of these.

 

Plus the weight, size and price penalty far outweighs the benefits....

Only if the benefits mentioned above are not relevant to someone's particular needs - for some photographers, such benefits may well justify buying the lens.

 

Strikes me that Leica is making these lenses because it can rather than because we really need them and perceives its market as people with more money than sense (I plead guilty)

It's a specialist lens - nothing more. Think of it as the top-of-the-line model of a car manufacturer: who REALLY needs 300+ HP, ceramic brakes and supersized tires to drive on motorways with camera-enforced speed limits? Yet, from a marketing perspective, it reflects positively on their image and, ultimately, on the rest of the product range... and they even manage to sell some. Thank God there are a lot of people with more money than sense (I plead guilty too:p): without them, choices would be limited to the standard "one size fits all" product that provides the majority with the "best cost/benefit offering".

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[HughRyndle]

FWIW all of Leica's current lenses are far more than I'm willing to pay. . . . . .

 

I happily admit that pretty much all of the current Leica lenses cost more than I can afford to pay . . . but as it happens I'm content with my 1960s Leitz lens outfit on my M8 (which I bought as a used one in May). Coming back to looking at what's available after a long time with my M2 sitting in a cupboard doing nothing, seems to me as though Leica stuff is now priced up like those exclusive Swiss watches that justify the money 'cos of "exclusivity" rather than practicality. Is that right, does anybody anybody else think so?

[thighslapper]

I happily admit that pretty much all of the current Leica lenses cost more than I can afford to pay . . . but as it happens I'm content with my 1960s Leitz lens outfit on my M8 (which I bought as a used one in May). Coming back to looking at what's available after a long time with my M2 sitting in a cupboard doing nothing, seems to me as though Leica stuff is now priced up like those exclusive Swiss watches that justify the money 'cos of "exclusivity" rather than practicality. Is that right, does anybody anybody else think so?

 

Unfortunately they really are exquisitely realised and produced products which are possibly the best optics that money can buy... and I suspect Leicas mark-up comes nowhere close to the swiss watch scam.... which is a subdivision of the larger jewellery scam where the shop price can be anything up to 6x the cost of production.....