Leica Elmarit-M f2.8/21mm ASPH or Leica Super-Elmar-M 21mm f/3.4 ASPH

[Lord Fluff]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would agree with the quality of the Zeiss 21mm lenses. I had the 4.5/21 Biogon which I thought was extraordinary but sold it due to the red edge on digital being too annoying to fix all of the time.

 

In case anyone thinks this problem extends to the 2.8 version - it doesn't. The 'long tube' aspect of the 2.8 version seems to alleviate any coloured-corner issues.

 

Again, superb lens.

[thighslapper]

The new Leica 21/3.4 is astonishingly good.

 

I did not have high expectations and have been mightily impressed.

 

You can crop any bits of the images and use them at 100% and they still look terrific.

[DBAUDUI1]

Hello,

 

I have the Elmarit 21 Asph chrome version and the Super Elmar 18 f3.8. I use them both on the M240, with live view and both of them are fantastic. I use the 21 in low light and the 18 everywhere else, when I need super wide. The Super Elmar 18 is very sharp up to the corners with vivid colours already wide open. The Elmarit is always very sharp in the 2/3 central part of the picture wide open and you need to close the diaphragm up to 4 or 5.6 to get it very sharp also up to the corners. It has also nice colours, but less vivid or contrasty than the super elmar 18. It is already sharp in the corners wide open, but less than the super elmar is in the corners, but it is also a 2.8 lens for sure. The mechanics of the Elmarit 21 2.8 Asph in brass and chrome are nicer!

The Super Elmar is more compact and light than the Elmarit 21 Asph (which I have in chrome and brass); the super elmar sunshade is also better.

 

Greetings.

 

Dominique.