21mm Elmarit-mf2.8ASPH

[Paulus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Super-Elmar is marginally better than the Elmarit. 'Marginally' is the operative word. If I owned the Elmarit I would not upgrade. Just as I would not upgrade to a 50mm Apo-Summicron from the plain Summicron.

 

The old man from the Super-Angular Age

 

If I had a 2,8 already, I would not upgrade, but if you like the handling and sharpness of this small lens. It's really lovely!

 

I have it for 5 months now and all my other lenses stay in the bag! it's one of the best lenses in every aspect I ever bought not counting my 50asph.

[Paulus]

Is the left lens the 21/3.4 that we are comparing to the 21/2.8? I think not.

 

left lens is not a SE 21 .

[luigi bertolotti]

To be sincere, the Elmarit Aph "bulkyness" is mainly an effect of its hood... when deprived of, its look is much more normal.

[lct]

Well matter of tastes of course but even w/o hood the 21/2.8 asph is still significantly bulkier than the CV 21/4 (pic). Reason why my 21/2.8 asph remains on the shelf most of the time i'm afraid. Quite a pity for a good lens like that but Leica seem to satisfy themselves by making smaller lenses than Zeiss so far. I was tempted by the last Elmar 21/3.4 but it still blocks a lot M viewfinders i've been told and i don't like accessory OVFs at all. Best compromise i've found is to go for an Elmar 24/3.8 instead but it is still a bulkier lens than both Skopars 21/4 and 25/4 by a significant margin. Very good lens otherwise.

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!

[Double Negative]

If you NEED f/2.8 - it's not bulky. It is what it is.

 

We all know that speed/quality, cost and size/weight are parts of the equation.

[lars_bergquist]

Well matter of tastes of course but even w/o hood the 21/2.8 asph is still significantly bulkier than the CV 21/4 (pic). Reason why my 21/2.8 asph remains on the shelf most of the time i'm afraid. Quite a pity for a good lens like that but Leica seem to satisfy themselves by making smaller lenses than Zeiss so far. I was tempted by the last Elmar 21/3.4 but it still blocks a lot M viewfinders i've been told and i don't like accessory OVFs at all. Best compromise i've found is to go for an Elmar 24/3.8 instead but it is still a bulkier lens than both Skopars 21/4 and 25/4 by a significant margin. Very good lens otherwise.

 

If you are trying to shoot 21mm pictures by just aiming the camera in the general direction – which is what you are doing if you cannot bring yourself to using an accessory viewfinder – then the question what lens you are using is moot indeed.

 

You might just as well keep your eyes shut and aim the camera by hearing.

 

Of course when I started in photography just about anything except a 5cm lens demanded an accessory finder. And those who were too rigid, or too bone lazy, to learn using them did at least restrict themselves to 5cm lenses lest they should make a spectacle of themselves.

 

If you cannot summon the energy or the self-discipline to learn to use your tools properly, then don't complain about them. This is neither invective, nor a rant; it is a plain statement of the way things are.

 

The old man from the Age of the IIIa

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Really now, less than 1cm higher is not bulky in most people's definition of bulky. As we all know and mentioned above the 2.8 MUST be larger to get f 2.8 versus f3.4.

 

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!

[lct]

...If you cannot summon the energy or the self-discipline to learn to use your tools properly, then don't complain about them...

I beg your pardon?

[gyoung]

I have to say that I too find the idea of photography without framing through a viewfinder of pretty good accuracy utterly, utterly, bizarre, reducing the results to accident or happenstance.

 

Gerry

[Double Negative]

I have to say that I too find the idea of photography without framing through a viewfinder of pretty good accuracy utterly, utterly, bizarre, reducing the results to accident or happenstance.

 

Or experience/skill.

[lars_bergquist]

If your standards are that sloppy, you're welcome to them. But most of us do still put them slightly higher.

 

The old man from the Photo Age

[lct]

Or experience/skill.

Yes or simply just a matter of being used to it, at least with the M8. With a 21mm lens on the later, the frame coverage of its entire VF is close to that of the M8 framelines i.e. about 93%. In practice, with a bit of luck, i don't need to crop my pics at all but even if i do, i always gain in speed anyway so thanks no thanks for accessory finders. For wider frames, i prefer DSLRs so far but an M10 with EVF could interest me if don't have to use two finders to take a single pic which has always sounded somewhat ridiculous to me. YMMV.

[giovanni]

Well matter of tastes of course but even w/o hood the 21/2.8 asph is still significantly bulkier than the CV 21/4 (pic). Reason why my 21/2.8 asph remains on the shelf most of the time i'm afraid. .... Best compromise i've found is to go for an Elmar 24/3.8 instead but it is still a bulkier lens than both Skopars 21/4 and 25/4 by a significant margin. Very good lens otherwise.

Leica lenses are every day better but larger/heavier. High quality but far from the original idea of compactness. In this focal length, I would probably buy Voigtlander's.

[Double Negative]

Leica lenses are every day better but larger/heavier. High quality but far from the original idea of compactness. In this focal length, I would probably buy Voigtlander's.

 

There's a lot to be said for the lil' Skopar (21mm) - it's a pretty darn good lens and super small. Great to slip in/out of a pocket for street shooting, for example. In fact all of the Color Skopars are so small (especially the LTM versions) that you can have a full kit in your pocket(s). Love them immensely for that!