21mm/F3.4 same quality as WATE 16-18-21 at 21mm? {merged}

[M8China]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would appreciate comments on the image quality taken with WATE 16-18-21 at 21mm focal length compare to those taken with 21mm/F3.4 Super-Elmar. I take architecture and landscapes and find the 28mm not wide enough.

 

Thanks.

[StephenPatterson]

I have very limited experience with the WATE, but in reviewing the photography of several of the members here, as well as their comments, it is my personal belief that this lens is an excellent combination of image quality and flexibility.

 

I had considered buying a WATE, but eventually decided to instead purchase the 18/3.8 and 21/3.4 Super Elmar M lenses (I also have the CV15). This decision was not based on a preference for the mechanical build quality, IQ and feel of the Leica prime lenses. For me the WATE and MATE just didn't feel right, but again this is just a personal observation and I do not expect others to share my opinion.

[lars_bergquist]

I don't know what you mean by 'quality'. Lots of different things are meant by that too-convenient catchall. Now if you mean the things like definition (as measured by the Modulation Transfer Function), distortion or vignetting, tech sheets with this information can be downloaded from Leica Camera AG - Photography and printed out for later contemplation. You can then decide which 'qualities' are most important to you.

 

I am sorry to say that this is the only honest answer. Waving a one-to-five all over consumer best buy rating I regard as blatant conmanship. It's not that simple and dumbing it down is a disservice to the end user.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[StephenPatterson]

 

I am sorry to say that this is the only honest answer. Waving a one-to-five all over consumer best buy rating I regard as blatant conmanship. It's not that simple and dumbing it down is a disservice to the end user.

 

Lars, I'm not sure if your's is the only honest answer, but it is certainly an answer. When I see a thread such as this I believe it's apparent that the OPs are not expecting an absolute solution to the question, but rather looking to poll the opinions of others who have gone before. Pouring over MTF charts is but one metric of a lens's overall ability to deliver a satisfactory ownership experience.

 

Why else come to a forum such as this seeking advice if not to try and find a consensus or trend of experienced opinion? Certainly not for the free coffee...

[sydkugelmass]

I currently use Lux 21, SEM 21 and ZM Biogon 21/4,5.

 

When straight lines must remain straight in the pic, the Biogon is the only way to go.

Distortion is low but not absent in the SEM, so in some critical situations I have to use the Biogon.

Lux 21 is more than interesting as it concerns the 'painting' properties it has, but it is a specialized lens, really useful at night with low light. It is not intended for architecture because of the high ('wave') distortion.

I do not own the WATE, but since it has the highest declared distortion of the lot, as written in Leica's own documentation, I suspect that the same considerations seen in the case of the Lux 21 could apply to it.

 

All in all the SEM 21 is an excellent choice, but in some cases the Biogon is the real winner, with the further caveat that the Biogon 21/4,5 can't be corrected by the M9 firmware directly, compelling instead the use of cornerfix program.

 

Definition and 'painting' properties are excellent, with some differences, in all the three cases I directly know. WATE reputation is very high, as I could hear of it, in this respect.

[MarkP]

I currently use Lux 21, SEM 21 and ZM Biogon 21/4,5.

 

When straight lines must remain straight in the pic, the Biogon is the only way to go.

Distortion is low but not absent in the SEM, so in some critical situations I have to use the Biogon.

Lux 21 is more than interesting as it concerns the 'painting' properties it has, but it is a specialized lens, really useful at night with low light. It is not intended for architecture because of the high ('wave') distortion.

I do not own the WATE, but since it has the highest declared distortion of the lot, as written in Leica's own documentation, I suspect that the same considerations seen in the case of the Lux 21 could apply to it.

 

All in all the SEM 21 is an excellent choice, but in some cases the Biogon is the real winner, with the further caveat that the Biogon 21/4,5 can't be corrected by the M9 firmware directly, compelling instead the use of cornerfix program.

 

Definition and 'painting' properties are excellent, with some differences, in all the three cases I directly know. WATE reputation is very high, as I could hear of it, in this respect.

 

 

To also digress from the direct comparison with the WATE, I also have all three lenses (but not the WATE) and I think you have described their different characteristics very well. I have often used the 21 Summilux for general daylight photography and I think it does indeed have a 'painterly' quality. Apart from the weight it is a very versatile lens.

 

The 4.5/21 Biogon is extraordinary for its lack of distortion (I also thought it was the best of the 21s for distortion but I think that was only until the SEM was released), contrast and clarity, and it's usability (small size and low weight). There is a level of clarity and sharpness with it's images I don't see with the other two lenses. However, it's a bit too slow and although I mainly shoot B&W the red edge was giving me the shits.

 

In the end I'm going to keep the 21 Summilux and SEM. The Biogon 4.5/21 is currently up for sale, albeit with mixed feelings as I really can't justify three 21mm lenses....I think...second thoughts...) Then again...maybe with the MM?

 

If I could only keep one I think it would still be the Summilux. It's just so versatile in use (not in size or weight) and produces outstanding images.

 

For what they are worth, architecture & landscape...

4.5/21 Biogon:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/219426-victorian-coastline-1-australia.html

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/219427-wilsons-promontory-1-australia.html

 

1.4/21 Summilux:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/architecture/170587-eiffel-tower-ad-nauseum.html

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/216756-ice-skaters-paris.html

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/architecture/171165-escalators.html

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/architecture/188958-berlin-again.html

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/architecture/172430-b-jet-fighters-tate-britain-followup.html

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/185389-monkeys.html

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/178496-defence-la-defense-per-doc-henry.html

 

3.4/21 SEM

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/222520-super-elmar-demo.html (post #7)

[Alnitak]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would appreciate comments on the image quality taken with WATE 16-18-21 at 21mm focal length compare to those taken with 21mm/F3.4 Super-Elmar. I take architecture and landscapes and find the 28mm not wide enough.

 

Thanks.

 

The 21SE is better than the WATE at 21mm, mostly because it has less distortion. For your architecture work this would be helpful, although at 21mm you're going to have distortion that would best be addressed by a tilt-shift lens. The advantage of the WATE is that you get three focal lengths, and it's the widest Leica you can buy. Better for travel. If you aren't going to use 16 or 18mm, the 21SE is a great lens.

 

Jeff

[sydkugelmass]

Fantastic pics. Thank You MarkP!

[cornellfrancis]

21 3.4 super elmar is in stock at Kurland photo!

[lars_bergquist]

The Super-Elmar is certainly a superb lens. Its distortion is quite low, of the kind that you simply do not notice under non-laboratory conditions (1.5% barrel at 15mm image height, which is good for any wide angle lens and extraordinary for a superwide one). Detail rendition is excellent, and the image file comes out of the camera with all desirable corrrection applied. No PP cheating necessary.

 

The WATE at 21mm and f:4 exhibits quite a bit of definition fall-off outside an image height of ca. 9mm, much more than than the Super-Elmar does at 3.4. Distortion is about the same (but increases with decreasing focal length until it reaches quite noticeable 3.2% barrel at 16mm). Vignetting is also about the same. But clearly the edges and corners of the format are not so good as with the SE.

 

(Optical distortion bends straight lines into curves outwards – barrel distortion – or inwards – pincushion – and different lenses have different amounts and kinds of it. All photographs also show perspectival effects, especially when made with a wide angle lens pointed up or down, but that is not a property of the lens. It is a property of space in our corner of the universe. Don't complain with Leica or Carl Zeiss, lodge your complaint with God, or possibly with Mssrs Newton & Einstein.)

 

This is not to say that the WATE is an inferior optic. It is not; compared to most other lenses in its focal length range, it is very good. Everything is relative. There are other issues however. You will have to operate with the large and complicated 'Frankenfinder', and you have to keep your wits about you in order to do the adjustments to both lens and finder in perfect parallel. There is no warning if you goof, and human nature being what it is, you will goof sooner or later in obedience to Murphy's Law: Everything that can go wrong will eventually go wrong. I would goof too. Again, make your own choice.

 

But as a case-hardened rangefinder photographer, I would say that the advantages or even the convenience of having immediately available a large number of not-very-different focal lengths, is much overrated, especially by SLR people. Mount a 21mm lens – or any other focal length – and you will also switch to your 21mm eyes, seeing 21mm pictures around you. I am capable of seeing in 21mm, or 35mm, or whatever during a whole afternoon without feeling the least restricted. My eyes (and my feet!) simply work that way.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[k-hawinkler]

Here is a list of Leica Lens Profile Corrections in CS6:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

The Super-Elmar-M 21/3.4 is on the list. The WATE is not.

For architectural work applying these corrections may be useful.

Of course, one always could use the Manual Lens Corrections"

 

[thighslapper]

I have both

 

The 21/3.4 is miles better

 

Pictures have an extra punch..... vibrancy and clarity that is quite obvious when you compare the two.......

 

..... but....... unless you had both you would not be unhappy with the results from the WATE at 21..... they are excellent..... it's just that the 21/3.4 is noticeably better.

 

However 'best' is not necessarily a good reason for choosing ..... with the WATE you have excellent 16/18 and 21 lenses in one compact package. It expands your photo opportunities and flexibility and that in my book more than offsets the better quality of the 21/3.4

 

If money was a constraint I would take a 2nd hand WATE every time.....

 

and the Frankenfinder isn't needed ... the 18mm finder does fine...... whole view for 16, M9 framelines for 18 and M8 framelines for 21. No finder is 100% accurate and this is near enough for general use.

[Alnitak]

One thing to point out: The new lens profiles in LR 4.x are quite effective at correcting the distortion from the 21mm Lux and the 21mm SEM. There is no profile for the WATE--hopefully they will add one in due course. The profile can't completely eliminate the "mustache" distortion of the 21mm Lux, but it makes a big difference, and it makes the 21 SEM appear essentially distortion-free.

 

Jeff

[Sp12]

Is distortion considered a valid metric of lens performance at all? If you're shooting RAW it's literally an automatic lens profile in Lightroom.

[lars_bergquist]

Is distortion considered a valid metric of lens performance at all? If you're shooting RAW it's literally an automatic lens profile in Lightroom.

Yes. Nearly everything you do to an image file in PP comes at a cost, because there has to be a recomputation of the file. There's no longer an 1:1 pixel-to-pixel representation. The benefit may well outweigh the cost, but the cost is always there.

 

Hence Leica's philosophy of getting the optical image on the sensor as right as possible from the start.

 

The old man from the Age B.C. (Before Computers)

[algrove]

I have both

 

The 21/3.4 is miles better

 

Pictures have an extra punch..... vibrancy and clarity that is quite obvious when you compare the two.......

 

..... but....... unless you had both you would not be unhappy with the results from the WATE at 21..... they are excellent..... it's just that the 21/3.4 is noticeably better.

 

However 'best' is not necessarily a good reason for choosing ..... with the WATE you have excellent 16/18 and 21 lenses in one compact package. It expands your photo opportunities and flexibility and that in my book more than offsets the better quality of the 21/3.4

 

If money was a constraint I would take a 2nd hand WATE every time.....

 

and the Frankenfinder isn't needed ... the 18mm finder does fine...... whole view for 16, M9 framelines for 18 and M8 framelines for 21. No finder is 100% accurate and this is near enough for general use.

I find your post well done with one exception. The Frankenfinder does one additional thing well for me when attempting near/far shots. That is its parallax adjustment which I often use. For me when I have a three minute window during a sunrise or sunset, the parallax adjustment comes in very handy not to say trial and error won't eventually work, but when time is of the essence, nothing beats the Frankenfinder. I also find using it in pre-framing landscape shots to be highly helpful since it affords one seeing a landscape from 16 to 28mm and then changing lenses accordingly if needed.

[rsh]

FYI, Quality Camera in Atlanta has a 21 Super Elmar Asph in stock. I was tempted, but in the end, I decided to keep the 21 Elmarit Asph.

[Guest snowboarder]

I think Glazers have it too, Ken Hansen has it also, and more places -

a shipment must have just showed up

[gyoung]

I know we are going well beyond the OPs original spec but I have found this post very interesting and informative, to complete the picture does anyone have experience of the 21/2.8 asph for distortion in architectural stuff? And perhaps the 15mm Voigtlander? I have used both on film and not noticed any problems myself, although for such things I find reflex easier generally, where I have 35 pc as well as wider, bit sadly not Leica, with leitax now available how would the 19/21 R lenses fit into this with regard to distortion etc.

Hope the mods don't think this is going too far OT, if so might be moved to a new thread

 

Gerry

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lars_bergquist]

All R lenses are not that great. The 19mm (last version) has close to 3% barrel distortion, twice the amount that the Super-Elmar has. The old Super-Angulon lenses belong in a different era and cannot even distantly compete with the Super-Elmar in regard to sharpness.

 

If you try the 15mm Super Wide-Heliar on a digital M, then you are in for a surprise. There is not only vignetting but also strong colour shifts at the edges and in the corners, so that you will have to create a correction profile for the lens in PP. The corrections will be so drastic that throwing in some distortion mending too is just a very peripheral issue. Sorry about the pun. But yes, the lens has quite a bit of linear distortion … I have never bothered to measure it however.

 

The old man from the Hologon Age