21mm f1.4 or f3.4 for a Leica newbee/addict

[NateeM]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I apologize for not reading the whole thread but here is my comment as I have both the 21mm Summilux and the 21mm Super Elmar.

 

- The SE is noticeably sharper in the middle, and provides better micro contrast overall with less distortion. I took some photos of a drop of water on a leaf, and it showed the image quality very clearly at 1:1. The SE is superior in the middle at any apertures. Of course, it can not go faster than f3.4.

 

- The Summilux surprisingly gives better clarity and sharpness towards the corners even at f3.4.

 

- Wide open, the Summilux is soft!! At f5.6, if you don't magnify the picture 1:1, the Summilux almost equals the SE in sharpness and micro contrast. Color characteristics are also very similar from both lenses.

 

- Now, come to the popular question: why the hell would anyone want a fast 21mm lens for landscape where most of the shooting will be done on a firm tripod?

 

- The 21mm Summilux at f1.4 can offer shallow depth of filed that no other lens at this focal length can. (There are a few at 24mm though.) Its shallow depth of field combined with the wide perspective can render photos that look three dimensional!

 

- The 21mm Summilux is more for street shooting, portraits, and creative photography. It would not perform as well as the Super Elmar for landscape. For example, you could take photos of your girlfriend in a dimly lit bar and still showing the cool interior decoration in the background. Only the 21mm Summilux can do that hand held.

 

If you mostly do street shooting, buy the Summilux. Once you get used to it, it is not that big or heavy. If you do more landscape, get the Super Elmar with its superior sharpness and micro contrast, although at the cost of slower speed. Get both if you can afford them.

 

Edited August 29, 2012 by NateeM

[tobey bilek]

Purpose of M camera is small carryable, lightweight. I would choose the 3.4 9 time out of 10

[Advertisement]

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

[MarkP]

Purpose of M camera is small carryable, lightweight. I would choose the 3.4 9 time out of 10

 

But for that 1 (or more for me) out of 10 the Summilux is very useful.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Thanks for all the comments and suggestions I have decided to get the summilux:)

[MarkP]

Thanks for all the comments and suggestions I have decided to get the summilux:)

 

Enjoy it.

 

Please give us some feedback and post some photographs when you're ready.

 

Regards,

Mark

[LuxM9]

I have this lens (21 lux) since 5 month and it became to my "standard" lens on the M9-P, it is excellent for day ligth but under low light situations it is phantastic !!!! It is worth every cent I spent for this very exspensive lens.

[Fotofanatiker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There seems to be an additional option for you soon thanks to Cosina:

 

Voigtlaender 21mm f/1.8 Ultron lens announced | Leica News & Rumors

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Been out shooting with the 21mm summilux all day will post up Monday when I a sober but to forwarn you there a so nice shots

[MarkP]

Congratulations, and I'm pleased that you are happy with the 21 Summilux.

 

Why are you walking around drunk with such an expensive lens and camera?

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Congratulations, and I'm pleased that you are happy with the 21 Summilux.

 

Why are you walking around drunk with such an expensive lens and camera?

Mark,

They haven't made drinking and shooting an offence in Asia yet but I will defiantly remember that if I travel to Australia :D

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

The ONLY issue I had while out shooting with this puppy was finding the focus ring, I guess since only ever shooting with a 35mm summicron with the focus tab I found it hard to focus without hitting the aperture ring...............anyway I guess I will get used to it and may I add that I just love shooting with this focal length :)

 

My first shots with the new 21mm Summilux.............Enjoy

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!

[jrp]

This comparison provides an account of 4 21mm Leica compatible lenses, including the Zeiss and the Cosina Voigtlander, that matches my experience in trying them out briefly. The downloadable pictures are worth examining.

 

The Summilux is, in my view, too compromised for general use: limited, uneven resolution, thin depth of field, coma, etc, mean that it's probably best for a certain kind of reportage. The f3.4 provides much cleaner, crisper pictures, provided that you have enough light / a sufficiently still subject.

[MarkP]

This

The Summilux is, in my view, too compromised for general use: limited, uneven resolution, thin depth of field, coma, etc, mean that it's probably best for a certain kind of reportage. The f3.4 provides much cleaner, crisper pictures, provided that you have enough light / a sufficiently still subject.

 

I have both the 1.4/21 Summilux and the 3.4/21 SEM. I sold the 4.5/21 Biogon only because of red edging on the M9 but it was otherwise a superb lens.

 

Yes, the Summilux may be big and heavy, and does not quite match the image quality of the SEM but, 'too compromised' is significantly overstating its IQ limitations. Except for it's size it is a very versatile lens being 2+ stops faster than the SEM (a great low-light companion to my E60 Noctilux or any other Summilux for that matter), and the shallow DOF nice to have at times. We are takling about a 21mm lens that still puts most others to shame, just that the SEM is a bit better.

 

I really like the way the 21 Summilux renders:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/72811-albums5527-picture10132.html

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/72811-albums4973-picture7060.html

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/72811-albums4973-picture7062.html

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/72811-albums4682.html (most with 21, few with 35)

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/72811-albums4853.html (most with 21, few with 35)

[macjonny1]

 

I have both the 1.4/21 Summilux and the 3.4/21 SEM. I sold the 4.5/21 Biogon only because of red edging on the M9 but it was otherwise a superb lens.

 

Yes' date=' the Summilux may be big and heavy, and does not quite match the image quality of the SEM but, 'too compromised' is significantly overstating its IQ limitations. Except for it's size it is a very versatile lens being 2+ stops faster than the SEM (a great low-light companion to my E60 Noctilux or any other Summilux for that matter), and the shallow DOF nice to have at times. We are takling about a 21mm lens that still puts most others to shame, just that the SEM is a bit better.

 

I really like the way the 21 Summilux renders:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/72811-albums5527-picture10132.html

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/72811-albums4973-picture7060.html

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/72811-albums4973-picture7062.html

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/72811-albums4682.html (most with 21, few with 35)

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/72811-albums4853.html (most with 21, few with 35)

 

Very nice thanks for posting the links!!

[IWC Doppel]

Wonderful shots Wonderful lens

[jrp]

Nice pictures.

 

I am sorely tempted by the 1.4, but

• wide open it seems just as weak as the Nikon 24, 35, and 50mm 1.4s; it was the wide open performance of the 50mm Summilux that sold me on the Leica system
  
• the 3.4 is better for anything that can be shot with a tripod
  
• you need to stop down if there are lights or highlighted edges in the picture to avoid coma / purple fringing
  
• neither lens focuses particularly closely, for those exaggerated perspective shots
  
• so the 1.4 is going to be better for shots that can only be taken hand held and / or where the narrow depth of field is desirable or not going to be distracting (I agree that the rendering of the backgrounds is superb)
  

That is why I came to the conclusion that the limitations of the f1.4 are quite constraining for general shooting, especially as new bodies allow higher ISO to be used with impunity with slower lenses. (And that's before you get to the size, weight, filter limitations, etc, which to me are secondary.)

[macjonny1]

Nice pictures.

 

I am sorely tempted by the 1.4' date=' but

 

[*']wide open it seems just as weak as the Nikon 24, 35, and 50mm 1.4s; it was the wide open performance of the 50mm Summilux that sold me on the Leica system

[*]the 3.4 is better for anything that can be shot with a tripod

[*]you need to stop down if there are lights or highlighted edges in the picture to avoid coma / purple fringing

[*]neither lens focuses particularly closely, for those exaggerated perspective shots

[*]so the 1.4 is going to be better for shots that can only be taken hand held and / or where the narrow depth of field is desirable or not going to be distracting (I agree that the rendering of the backgrounds is superb)

That is why I came to the conclusion that the limitations of the f1.4 are quite constraining for general shooting, especially as new bodies allow higher ISO to be used with impunity with slower lenses. (And that's before you get to the size, weight, filter limitations, etc, which to me are secondary.)

 

It's the only f/1.4 21mm. Get it for that reason!

 

I have the 24mm lux. Very nice but it is big. IQ of the SE can't be beat I've owned that too but it doesn't shoot at f/1.4.

[philipus]

The Ultron 21/1.8 was reviewed favourably by Tom Abrahamsson in the latest Viewfinder. I doubt many would see much difference in actual usage between it and the 21/1.4. I'm definitely tempted by the Ultron, which is also 168gr lighter than the Summilux.

[jto555]

Sorry but that looks simply terrible. The problem of course is M9 which su$3s at high ISO.

But this lens also has a very bad CA and doesn't create an image which looks pleasing.

It's really funny how people here tell you f1.4 is so necessary because they shoot

at night, but they use a camera which is awful at high ISO. A contradiction right?

There is something strange in spending a lot of $ on a lens and get the results like that...

 

 

Hi Snowboarder, I think you missed where Algrove said that he canot hand hold at a shutter speed slower than 1/250 sec. So, unfortunately he cannot afford to drop the ISO down to a lower level because he would then rish camera shake.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jto555]

The Ultron 21/1.8 was reviewed favourably by Tom Abrahamsson in the latest Viewfinder. I doubt many would see much difference in actual usage between it and the 21/1.4. I'm definitely tempted by the Ultron, which is also 168gr lighter than the Summilux.

 

How about the Ultron 21 F1.8 for when you need a fast lens and a 21 F3.4foe walking around with. Both together are les than the Leica 21 F1.4. Just a thought.

 

 

John