21mm Super Elmar M & 18mm Super Elmar M

[CaptZoom]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18yo Highland park for any occasion. This could be your everyday standard normal one-camera-one-malt setup.

21yo Glengoyne in the summer or with the ladies. Flattering with smooth transition. Not high contrast. Very easy-going.

Any Islay single malt (e.g. Lagavulin) for those cold dark winter evenings sat in front of the fire when you need to gather as much warrmth and light as possible. Chracterful bokeh - fantastic for those that love it, but not to everyone's taste. Prices have gone up recently due to an explosion of interest in China.

21yo Suntory. Don't let the Japanese brand put you off. This is just as good as the expensive European originals. Some would consider that statement to be sacrilige, but as a pure user I maintain my position.

 

(I prefer 21mm as a focal length)

 

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. Thank you for making the day a bit brighter.

[jrp]

I hesitated over the 18mm (Tim Ashley's review was discouraging) but I came across a used one at a reasonable price and have not regretted getting it.

 

Complements that 21mm Summilux nicely. The latter is better hand held (obviously: f1.4 v f2.8), but if you have a tripod the 18mm produces cleaner images (much less chromatic aberration, as Tim shows, and less mushy at the edges).

 

As has been pointed out, such wide angles require careful framing, which is now possible with the M240 (liveview, evf). Lightroom 5's profile / level corrections help.

 

Although the liveview is not much use for focusing (everything is in focus!) using the rangefinder to focus on foreground objects leads to v subtle defocusing in the background. The astigmatism towards the edges is detectable at 100%, but it's better than all but one or two other lenses in the Leica stable.

[Advertisement]

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

[woorob]

I'm really fond of my WATE. The super-wide FOV at 16mm is incredible. And you always have 18 and 21 as well. I've not had a Leica 18 but owned the Zeiss version before I got the WATE, and was very happy with that too. A real bargain for less than $1,000.

 

I have a few test shots with my WATE here -- Robert E. Woods | Camera Test Pix -- outstanding flare control is evident.

 

Continuing the whimsical part of this thread, when I drink whiskey (not often) I prefer Bushmills 16.

Edited September 22, 2013 by woorob
Typos from iPad.

[CaptZoom]

jrp and woorob

Thank you for your thoughts and insights.

I'm not particularly concerned with corner to corner sharpness. I rarely, if indeed ever, do photography that demand a completely flat field and edge to edge sharpness; I don't enjoy architectural photography (as a photographer, but I do enjoy it as part of the audience or the observer), and I don't foresee anyone paying me for it. But I do care for color consistency across the frame, and if one of the two is better in this regard than I'll be more likely to purchase it.

As for the WATE, I have little doubt that it's a fantastic lens; it's versatility is unparalleled in Leica M land (excepting the MATE). Yet the lens does not capture my interest. Additionally the cost is too high (or rather the value is absent/lost on me). At $6300 it's far too close to the APO 50mm Summicron which I would use more often and more of the time. I really enjoy 50mm on RFs (in contrast to 135mm-200mm on dSLRs).

Edited September 23, 2013 by CaptZoom

[Ecar]

FWIW, here's my current experience with wides.

 

IMO nothing beats the WATE when you need to go wide, but don't know exactly how wide beforehand. The lens really shines on the M240 with EVF (I never was a big fan of the Frankenfinder) and better high-ISO capabilities. I really hope the next firmware makes the horizon level function of the M240 more practical.

 

The CV 15 and CV 21 are very good if you want a small package (bonus is that they are also inexpensive), but both require a healthy dose of Cornerfix or Flat Field applied in post due to red edges. For this reason, as well as the increased useability of the WATE on the M240, these lenses have been sitting on the shelf lately.

 

The Summilux 21 may involve some design compromises, but is the only game in town when I need to go wide in very little available light or want some background blur. I use it less than I should, which I suspect is due to its size.

 

Whilst many don't, I happen to like the 24mm focal length and have both the SEM and the Elmarit ASPH. I use the former when I want a sharp, clinical rendering (eg, architecture) or a compact package and the latter for street work.

 

Any of them is perfectly complemented by a sip of Oban or Laphroaig.

 

I also tested the SEM 21 for a while and, whilst I could not see any compelling reason for me to buy it given the lenses I already have, this would probably be the one to get if I was looking for a single, (relatively) affordable wide.

[StephenPatterson]

The CV 15 and CV 21 are very good if you want a small package (bonus is that they are also inexpensive), but both require a healthy dose of Cornerfix or Flat Field applied in post due to red edges. For this reason, as well as the increased useability of the WATE on the M240, these lenses have been sitting on the shelf lately.

 

 

FYI, the CV 12mm can be used with the manual code for the 21 Pre-ASPH and requires no Cornerfix or Flat Field correction, the M240 in camera corrections are perfect. The CV 15mm does still need the post correction.

[Ecar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

FYI, the CV 12mm can be used with the manual code for the 21 Pre-ASPH and requires no Cornerfix or Flat Field correction, the M240 in camera corrections are perfect. The CV 15mm does still need the post correction.

Stephen,

Just to be sure, you are talking about the CV 12, not the CV 21, right?

Because, whilst I don't own the CV 12 (too wide for me), I can't get rid of the CV 21 red edges unless I do it in post.

Thanks.

[CaptZoom]

Stephen,

Just to be sure, you are talking about the CV 12, not the CV 21, right?

Because, whilst I don't own the CV 12 (too wide for me), I can't get rid of the CV 21 red edges unless I do it in post.

Thanks.

 

He's talking about the CV 12mm. Lots of other people report the same. It's bizarre but apparently the profile for the 21mm works for the CV.

[jrp]

But I do care for color consistency across the frame, and if one of the two is better in this regard than I'll be more likely to purchase it.

 

I find the 18mm on the M240 fine for colour most of the time, but you can occasionally provoke magenta shading in the corners with heavy post processing. I have not yet figures how to provoke it consistently and I haven't tried the WATE to compare.

[01af]

... I realized its time I seriously started working on my wide angle photography. End of year, I should be able to make one major purchase. I'm interested in hearing about your collective thoughts and experiences with the 18 & 21 mm Super-Elmar-M lenses.

Unless you really need the 18 mm's wider angle-of-view, I strongly recommend the Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph. While the 18 mm sure is a good lens, the 21 mm is just marvellous. Never saw such a performance across the whole frame from a super-wide before.

[CaptZoom]

Unless you really need the 18 mm's wider angle-of-view, I strongly recommend the Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph. While the 18 mm sure is a good lens, the 21 mm is just marvellous. Never saw such a performance across the whole frame from a super-wide before.

 

I don't need either one; I won't be using either in a professional setting. At least not till I get a handle in wide angle usage. That being said, thank you for throwing your weight behind one over the other.

[CaptZoom]

Unless you really need the 18 mm's wider angle-of-view, I strongly recommend the Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph. While the 18 mm sure is a good lens, the 21 mm is just marvellous. Never saw such a performance across the whole frame from a super-wide before.

 

 

I don't need either one; I won't be using either in a professional setting. At least not till I get a handle in wide angle usage. That being said, thank you for throwing your weight behind one over the other.

 

Instead of saying:

I don't need either one

 

I should've said:

I don't need either one AND I don't know what I need.

 

I want to work on learning wide angle (wider than 28mm) photography, and on immediate inspection the Leica 18 & 21 SEM SEM like good options. The Summulux variants seem like too much of an investment for fov's that I don't know how much I will use. The third party alternatives require too much PP work. That being said, I'm open to other suggestions as well.

[helged]

Unless you really need the 18 mm's wider angle-of-view, I strongly recommend the Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph. While the 18 mm sure is a good lens, the 21 mm is just marvellous. Never saw such a performance across the whole frame from a super-wide before.

 

Compared to WATE, CV15/f4.5 and Zeiss 21/f2.8 (as well as Zeiss 25/f2.8) - the Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph is a marvelous, relatively small wide-angle lens. It requires a bit of post-fix due to red edge on M9 and M240 (particularly when clouds, snow or white/-ish buildings are in the periphery of the photo), but the sharpness, micro-contrast and colours are all superb. A true keeper.

Edited November 18, 2013 by helged

[algrove]

The common E46 filter size comes in very handy with the SEM21 since it shares a common size with many other M lenses. The 18 needs a filter holder and 77mm filters=a pain.

[stickan1]

Compared to WATE, CV15/f4.5 and Zeiss 21/f2.8 (as well as Zeiss 25/f2.8) - the Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph is a marvelous, relatively small wide-angle lens. It requires a bit of post-fix due to red edge on M9 and M240 (particularly when clouds, snow or white/-ish buildings are in the periphery of the photo), but the sharpness, micro-contrast and colours are all superb. A true keeper.

 

I own the CV15/f4.5, Zeiss 21/f2.8 and Zeiss 25/f2.8 so I don't need the SEM 21, but with all the fine reviews I am tempted. Do you still have red corners even with the new firmware?

 

I find that the Zeiss lenses got much better after I installed the new FMW and even the CV got better, but it stills needs post in most cases, but the Zeiss lenses are ok if you don't have an almost uniform white surface.

[helged]

Do you still have red corners even with the new firmware?

 

Unfortunately yes (but easily fixed in post-processing).

[01af]

Do you still have red corners even with the new firmware?

No red corners with the Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph on the Leica M (Typ 240) and firmware v2.0.0.11 for me. Strange that helged's experience is so much different from mine ...

[helged]

No red corners with the Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph on the Leica M (Typ 240) and firmware v2.0.0.11 for me. Strange that helged's experience is so much different from mine ...

 

Yes, I know that others have better experience than I have with wide angle lenses on M240. As far as I recall, reports showed quite some difference between various M9-wide angle lens combinations regarding the red-edge phenomena. Possibly similar - albeit possibly smaller - camera-lens variations may exist with M240(?). Hard to tell without shooting the same image with several M240 bodies (and with several copies of the same lens), I guess...

[algrove]

helged

 

It's just the Northern Lights that you are seeing so far North.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[CaptZoom]

So...unfortunately I'll not be getting either one of these lenses.

 

It seems to me that telecentric or near telecentric lens design is the best bet for lenses to be used on digital sensors. Unless I can get confirmation that these lenses (18 & 21mm SEM are at least near telecentric designs), I think I'm better off waiting a bit to save up for the Tri Elmar lens instead.

 

Thanks to everyone for sharing your insights and experiences.