rramesh Posted July 7, 2012 Share #1 Posted July 7, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I currently have a 21 f/4 Voigtlander Color-Skopar. It is an M-mount, is serving me well and I have no red edges on an M9-P with the latest firmware. what I like about it is its compact size and ease of use. Most of the time I use it during travels and for landscape or architecture. Note that I use it only 10-15% of the time and rarely to photograph people for which I prefer using the 35 or 90. I have read a lot of users praising the LEICA 21mm f/3.4 ASPH SUPER-ELMAR-M. I have also read reviews and comparisons by Sean Reid, Ken Rockwell and others. I am keen to understand from users the following: Is it a upgrade that would be worth it? What will I gain or lose if I upgrade my 21 to this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 Hi rramesh, Take a look here Upgrade to 21 Super Elmar-M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted July 7, 2012 Share #2 Posted July 7, 2012 This is a question that i asked to myself as well but the Skopar 21/4 is so good and blocks so little the VF that i went for the Elmar 24/3.8 instead. But i use both lenses on crop cams and i don't like external finders so YMM vastly V. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 7, 2012 Share #3 Posted July 7, 2012 If you are considering a new lens it would be more useful to add the Super-Elmar 18 I should think. The added creative possibilities are preferable to the quality gain imo. And a wideangle is no hindrance when photographing people btw http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/245831-master-work.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted July 7, 2012 Share #4 Posted July 7, 2012 I currently have a 21 f/4 Voigtlander Color-Skopar. It is an M-mount, is serving me well and I have no red edges on an M9-P with the latest firmware. what I like about it is its compact size and ease of use. Most of the time I use it during travels and for landscape or architecture. Note that I use it only 10-15% of the time and rarely to photograph people for which I prefer using the 35 or 90. I have read a lot of users praising the LEICA 21mm f/3.4 ASPH SUPER-ELMAR-M. I have also read reviews and comparisons by Sean Reid, Ken Rockwell and others. I am keen to understand from users the following: Is it a upgrade that would be worth it? What will I gain or lose if I upgrade my 21 to this? The upgrade will give you an astonishing lens!!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 7, 2012 Share #5 Posted July 7, 2012 I have to agree with Jaap. You will be spending a lot of cash for not much extra that is visible at normal photo sizes. The 18 is a super lens and the extra width gives you more flexibility, especially indoors.... Having said that.... if I didn't have a wide angle below 35, the 21/3.4 SE would be THE lens to go for.... its astonishingly good... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted July 8, 2012 Author Share #6 Posted July 8, 2012 If you are considering a new lens it would be more useful to add the Super-Elmar 18 I should think. I am not a big fan of an external viewfinder. I wanted to initially buy the 21/3.4 SE. However a friend suggested the Skopar to get familiar with the 21 format as it was really cheap. Having used it now, I find the Skopar to be one amazing lens for its small size. Over time I have learnt to use it without the need for the viewfinder. Jaap, wouldn't the 18 require use of a viewfinder? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 8, 2012 Share #7 Posted July 8, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Guesstimating the 21mm (aka 28mm) FoV w/o external VF is not difficult on the M8 but my hat off for being able to do it on the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted July 8, 2012 Share #8 Posted July 8, 2012 It sounds as though you are pleased with the 21 Skopar. In my experience, I have found out (the hard way at times), that if I'm happy with a lens I should keep it. You can't go wrong with the 21 SE, but it is an expensive replacement for a lens you're satisfied with... Especially one you don't use that much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 8, 2012 Share #9 Posted July 8, 2012 I am not a big fan of an external viewfinder. I wanted to initially buy the 21/3.4 SE. However a friend suggested the Skopar to get familiar with the 21 format as it was really cheap. Having used it now, I find the Skopar to be one amazing lens for its small size. Over time I have learnt to use it without the need for the viewfinder. Jaap, wouldn't the 18 require use of a viewfinder? If you are good at visualizing maybe not, but it sure makes life a lot easier. As you go wider critical focus gets less important, especially @ 3.4 and smaller. I find it no hindrance to use one for the 18, for the 24 1.4 I tend to use the camera viewfinder, because, like you, I dislike the uncertainty of switching viewfinders for focus and framing. I could not say for the 21, it is a focal length I rarely use on the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.