gpwhite Posted March 26, 2014 Share #61  Posted March 26, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Except that 18 mm and 21 mm lenses are super-wide-angles, and a 24 mm is just a wide-angle. So the naming scheme is perfectly appropriate. One might only argue why the Summilux-M 21 mm Asph isn't called Super-Summilux ...  Thank you, but now I wonder why my superlative Elmarit-R 19mm is not a Super Elmarit-R... an SER, so to speak.  Oh well, these are all such wonderful lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Hi gpwhite, Take a look here Elmar 24 mm f3.8 lens. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
RoySmith Posted March 26, 2014 Share #62 Â Posted March 26, 2014 I have always felt that the 24mm Elmar should be labeled at least Super Elmar M (SEM), given that it eclipses the wonderful 18 SEM and 21 SEM in all respects. Perhaps Leica decided to use the Super category as indicator of price point, rather than relative imaging capability? Â I had always thought of my 18mm Super-Elmar M and 24mm Elmar-M as sisters. What does adding "Super" to a Leica lens's name actually mean ? Initially I thought it could mean an upgraded design, but the 18mm SEM is the first 18mm. Is it specific to a lens design feature ? Does it mean higher quality ? Â Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 26, 2014 Share #63 Â Posted March 26, 2014 We've got Super-Angulons for ages but it is a Schneider trademark IINW. Since then 21/2.8 lenses were called Elmarit whilst the current 21/3.4 is a Super-Elmar for unknown (by me) reasons. Perhaps because Elmarits are f/2.8 lenses and Elmars f/4 ones normally so Super-Elmars would be faster Elmars sort of. Just a guess though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted March 26, 2014 Share #64 Â Posted March 26, 2014 What does adding "Super" to a Leica lens' name actually mean? See post #59. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoySmith Posted March 27, 2014 Share #65 Â Posted March 27, 2014 See post #59. Â You may be right that it just refers to super wide, but as you said in post #59: One might only argue why the Summilux-M 21 mm Asph isn't called Super-Summilux .. Also the 21mm Elmarit M is not labelled as a Super Elmarit. Schneider-Kreuznach labelled several of their lenses from 21 mm to 28mm as Super Angulon. I just wondered if there was another reason, like the lens design, for the "Super" designation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted March 27, 2014 Share #66  Posted March 27, 2014 You may be right that it just refers to super wide, but as you said in post #59: Also the 21mm Elmarit M is not labelled as a Super Elmarit. Schneider-Kreuznach labelled several of their lenses from 21 mm to 28mm as Super Angulon. I just wondered if there was another reason, like the lens design, for the "Super" designation.  "A little mystery will keep us employed."  - Ernesto Colnago  Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirekti Posted June 13, 2014 Share #67 Â Posted June 13, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I was indecisive whether to get a 21 SEM or 24 Elmar. I finally made up my mind, placed an order and 24mm Elmar has a first owner from tomorrow morning. It was a tough call, especially after reading all the good things about 21SEM, but 24mm is the perspective that will suit me better. Still a bit concerned about 24mm being to close to the 35FLE, but once I start using it I will know how to appreciate the difference between those two lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvaliquette Posted June 13, 2014 Share #68  Posted June 13, 2014 ... Still a bit concerned about 24mm being to close to the 35FLE? But once I start using it I will know how to appreciate the difference between those two lenses.  I have both the 35 Summilux FLE and the Elmar 24 ASPH. They are very different.  Get it, it's a really great lens, for a not astronomical price i(for Leica)  Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted January 31, 2015 Share #69 Â Posted January 31, 2015 See post #59. Â Anyway, the different naming and maximum aperture makes the Elmar 24mm seems like the poor brother of the Super-Elmar 21mm. Â From a pure marketing perspective, I would call Super-Elmar to all these new lenses with maximum aperture below f2.8. In doing so you compensate the relatively modest aperture with the "Super" addition. meaning something like "last generation", "super corrected" lenses, if you like it. Â Moreover, it doesn't make any sense to offer a 21mm "super" lens with f/3.4 as maximum aperture and a 24mm "just Elmar" lens with f/3.8. What is the reason for that? Â I insist: from a marketing perspective, the Elmar 24mm seems like the poor brother of the Super-Elmar 21mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted February 1, 2015 Share #70  Posted February 1, 2015 Anyway, the different naming and maximum aperture makes the Elmar 24mm seems like the poor brother of the Super-Elmar 21mm. From a pure marketing perspective, I would call Super-Elmar to all these new lenses with maximum aperture below f2.8. In doing so you compensate the relatively modest aperture with the "Super" addition. meaning something like "last generation", "super corrected" lenses, if you like it.  Moreover, it doesn't make any sense to offer a 21mm "super" lens with f/3.4 as maximum aperture and a 24mm "just Elmar" lens with f/3.8. What is the reason for that?  I insist: from a marketing perspective, the Elmar 24mm seems like the poor brother of the Super-Elmar 21mm.  I vote for Superlative Elmar-M 24/ 3.8 Because there is not enough room on the front lens ring, I think Leica could inscribe Ueber-Elmar (but with an uemlaut) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted February 1, 2015 Share #71 Â Posted February 1, 2015 I would call it Super-Elmar-M 24mm f3.8 ASPH. Â I would adjust the maximum aperture to f3.4, so the name would be Super-Elmar-M 24mm f3.4 ASPH. Â In fact, the have a Super-Elmar-S 24 mm f/3.5 ASPH. Â But it is a 1/4 stop. I don't know if a general redesign is necessary (it wasn't for the new Summarits). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted February 1, 2015 Share #72 Â Posted February 1, 2015 There is another annoying difference between Super-Elmar 21 and Elmar 24... the lens hood. Â The Super-Elmar has a shorter, more balanced design. The Elmar has a longer, more trumpet-like design which adds to the general size and volume of the unit and makes the general look a bit... strange, unbalanced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 1, 2015 Share #73 Â Posted February 1, 2015 Hi Ruben, my 12464 (24/3.8) and 12465 (21/3.4, 35/1.4) lens hoods look identical at first glance. Which order numbers are yours if i may ask? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted February 1, 2015 Share #74 Â Posted February 1, 2015 Hi Ruben, my 12464 (24/3.8) and 12465 (21/3.4, 35/1.4) lens hoods look identical at first glance. Which order numbers are yours if i may ask? Â I don't have one, yet. I just see them in pictures. They look really different. I refer to the whole looking of the lenses: Â Â Â You say they are the identical, so the "problem" is in the design of the lens barrel itself? Â Do you think you can interchange one hood for another? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 1, 2015 Share #75  Posted February 1, 2015 Yes they are totally interchangeable. They look like the same hood to me, but i may be wrong of course... 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/190798-elmar-24-mm-f38-lens/?do=findComment&comment=2757084'>More sharing options...
lct Posted February 1, 2015 Share #76  Posted February 1, 2015 [...] so the "problem" is in the design of the lens barrel itself? [...] The barrel of the 24/3.8 looks a bit taller. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/190798-elmar-24-mm-f38-lens/?do=findComment&comment=2757099'>More sharing options...
rosuna Posted February 1, 2015 Share #77 Â Posted February 1, 2015 Your are wonderful LCT... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 1, 2015 Share #78 Â Posted February 1, 2015 I know it but it's good to hear from time to time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted February 1, 2015 Share #79  Posted February 1, 2015 I would call it Super-Elmar-M 24mm f3.8 ASPH. I would adjust the maximum aperture to f3.4, so the name would be Super-Elmar-M 24mm f3.4 ASPH.  In fact, the have a Super-Elmar-S 24 mm f/3.5 ASPH.  But it is a 1/4 stop. I don't know if a general redesign is necessary (it wasn't for the new Summarits).  When I got my Superlative-Elmar 24mm, I wrote to Leica and asked why the lens could not be opened up to f/3.4 maximum opening, or more. If you look into the diaphragm, you can see that the blades reduce the aperture point substantially within the narrowest lens element (and this is true also for the already Super-Elmar-M 18mm). Leica wrote back to say it adopted the best design and avoided answering my question directly. Given that optimal center performance with the lens is f/3.8, it seems Leica could have included 1/2-stop more light with still excellent results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 1, 2015 Share #80 Â Posted February 1, 2015 [...] Given that optimal center performance with the lens is f/3.8, it seems Leica could have included 1/2-stop more light with still excellent results. Not so sure given the sofness of the lens (at least mine) in the corners at full aperture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.