Wideangles magenta shift

[satureyes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been a victim of autocorrect plenty of times.

 

I hope the humor come off as friendly rather than antagonizing.

 

Loved it!

 

Made me smile.. I never even noticed. I had to read back.. I actually thought you knew the guy in Solms!

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest tanks]

So, given all this, would you recommend the 21mm SEM or wait for a fix from Leica?

[jaapv]

Why not, a simple flat field correction in post is all it takes as long as it is not corrected in firmware.

[satureyes]

So, given all this, would you recommend the 21mm SEM or wait for a fix from Leica?

 

If you want a 21mm then yes. It's still a stunning lens - and can be corrected and at some point the firmware will hopefully sort it.

 

What other options do you have at this FL? For the price, it's a gem of a lens.

[StephenPatterson]

God damn IPad autocorrect. Clearly has no class.

 

Obviously that was meant to say Leica!!

 

Too funny. My Samsung phone has now started inserting "William Palank" anytime I type the word "will"...it has made for some funny responses from people.

[satureyes]

Too funny. My Samsung phone has now started inserting "William Palank" anytime I type the word "will"...it has made for some funny responses from people.

 

Oh lord.. is he still on the forums antagonising folks

[CheshireCat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So, given all this, would you recommend the 21mm SEM or wait for a fix from Leica?

 

The SEM 21 is a great lens for the size if f/3.4 is not a limitation for you.

Color cast can be fixed in postprocessing, regardless of Leica's embarrassing firmware.

 

However, if you are in the market for a 21, I suggest reading this before pulling the trigger:

 

http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?page_id=130

[helged]

The 21mm SEM simply marvelous. Cornerfix, C1 or Lr take care of edge effects, no problem, although improved in-camera correction would be preferable.

[jaapv]

The SEM 21 is a great lens for the size if f/3.4 is not a limitation for you.

Color cast can be fixed in postprocessing, regardless of Leica's embarrassing firmware.

 

However, if you are in the market for a 21, I suggest reading this before pulling the trigger:

 

http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?page_id=130

 

Hmm... A "test" on a body that is:

 

1. APS-C cropped (35 mm lens test?)

2. Known to be sub-optimal for wideangle. (Why not an NEX3 or NEX5 or Ricoh?)

 

If he had done it on an M9 it might mean something, now it is just a bit of hot air.

[wlaidlaw]

Has anyone visited Solms recently and asked why the firmware update is taking sooooooo long? Even an interim to fix things like the mis-communication between the 240 and 58D flash plus improved wide angle lens correction would be nice. Even the 28 Summicron suffers from Italian flag on the 240. I suspect de-bugging the firmware to cure the lock ups, LV/EVF problems and battery discharge issue will take longer, as they seem intermittent and not to affect all cameras.

 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

Hmm... A "test" on a body that is:

 

1. APS-C cropped (35 mm lens test?)

2. Known to be sub-optimal for wideangle. (Why not an NEX3 or NEX5 or Ricoh?)

 

If he had done it on an M9 it might mean something, now it is just a bit of hot air.

 

I often wonder if the Voigtlander lenses that Journalists get for testing are different from those on sale to the general public or at the very least, extremely carefully selected. The test lenses are usually fantastic performers and that is certainly not my experience with CV lenses. Of the 5 I have had at various times, only the 15mm Super Wide Heliar could be described as good. Other than the 15, I have had one shocker, two poor and one just about adequate after adjustment. The CV15 Mk.2 which I bought at a give away price from a photo shop in France that was closing down, came as a very pleasant surprise.

 

This is a not unknown tactic in the motor industry with Jaguar being a prime culprit. Even quite recently I know someone who was on the build team for the XJ TDi that Jeremy Clarkson drove from Basel to Blackpool on one tank of fuel. That was a VERY special car and quite unrepresentative of what joe public could buy off a showroom floor.

 

Wilson

[mmradman]

Hmm... A "test" on a body that is:

 

1. APS-C cropped (35 mm lens test?)

2. Known to be sub-optimal for wideangle. (Why not an NEX3 or NEX5 or Ricoh?)

 

If he had done it on an M9 it might mean something, now it is just a bit of hot air.

 

From Ron's web page

 

Fast M-series 21mm lens shootout review on Leica M9, NEX-7 and Ricoh GXR

[jaapv]

Not that the M9 reappears in the descriptions. He only mentions it once, if I count correctly.

In general I have no quarrel with his conclusions, though.

[Guest tanks]

Not that the M9 reappears in the descriptions. He only mentions it once, if I count correctly.

In general I have no quarrel with his conclusions, though.

 

Did we read the same article?

His conclusions on the 21 SEM.

Sharpness is really impressive from wide open, across the frame, at all distances, with high micro contrast but not too excessive global contrast. Colors are also excellent in richness. As per Leica’s marketing literature, stopping down only really serves to increase depth of field and reduces vignetting. Diffraction induced image degradation starts to become evident past f/5.6, though really not a serious issue (on the M9) until f/16. Of all the lenses here, it has the flattest plane of focus with the best sharpness across the plane. The challenges of placing a subject off center and getting good sharpness with the 21 Lux are not an issue with this lens.

 

References to M9 during the reviews of various 21mm lenses are spread all throughout the article. He also has hi res images available for the M9 and various lenses.

 

Definitely more than once.

[CaptZoom]

The meat of his review is based on the M9. The crop sensor cameras get a sub-section towards the end of the review. However if you read only the summaries at the beginning of the article, you can get the impression that the lenses were tested mainly on the NEX-7.

 

 

The SEM 21 is a great lens for the size if f/3.4 is not a limitation for you.

Color cast can be fixed in postprocessing, regardless of Leica's embarrassing firmware.

 

However, if you are in the market for a 21, I suggest reading this before pulling the trigger:

 

http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?page_id=130

 

Hmm... A "test" on a body that is:

 

1. APS-C cropped (35 mm lens test?)

2. Known to be sub-optimal for wideangle. (Why not an NEX3 or NEX5 or Ricoh?)

 

If he had done it on an M9 it might mean something, now it is just a bit of hot air.

 

Not that the M9 reappears in the descriptions. He only mentions it once, if I count correctly.

In general I have no quarrel with his conclusions, though.

[CaptZoom]

The SEM 21 is a great lens for the size if f/3.4 is not a limitation for you.

Color cast can be fixed in postprocessing, regardless of Leica's embarrassing firmware.

 

However, if you are in the market for a 21, I suggest reading this before pulling the trigger:

 

http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?page_id=130

 

Thank you for posting this, as I'm trying to decide between the 18mm SEM, 21 SEM, and Leica XV as a possible end of year purchase. Lens size is a huge concern for me, so the CV 21mm f/1.8 nor the 21mm Lux are contenders (though they maybe some time in the future). The XV interests me for many reasons, one amongst them is the mated lens and sensor. We'll see if it'll continue to capture my interest when it's time to make the purchase.

[CheshireCat]

I often wonder if the Voigtlander lenses that Journalists get for testing are different from those on sale to the general public or at the very least, extremely carefully selected. The test lenses are usually fantastic performers and that is certainly not my experience with CV lenses. Of the 5 I have had at various times, only the 15mm Super Wide Heliar could be described as good.

 

"Good" is a very subjective term. What do you value in a lens, and what do you usually shoot makes a big difference. Value for money is also another important parameter to take into account.

Most of us are used to top-notch Leica lenses, and an excellent Voigtlander 35/1.2 might be considered only very good if compared optically to Leica 35/1.4 ASPH FLE. Some of us also care about weight and size, and could rate the Voigt as mediocre overall. Some of us care about the price, and could rate the Voigt as "kicking Leica's butt"

 

Also, one should refrain to judge a lens bought used, unless one has extensive experience with the lens model and actual average performance on target field conditions.

Even new lenses may have QC issues, and the chance to find the bad ones in the second hand market is higher for obvious reasons.

[CheshireCat]

Thank you for posting this, as I'm trying to decide between the 18mm SEM, 21 SEM, and Leica XV as a possible end of year purchase. Lens size is a huge concern for me, so the CV 21mm f/1.8 nor the 21mm Lux are contenders (though they maybe some time in the future). The XV interests me for many reasons, one amongst them is the mated lens and sensor. We'll see if it'll continue to capture my interest when it's time to make the purchase.

 

Keep in mind that the XV has an equivalent minimum FL of 28mm, a possibly limiting factor if you like 18 or 21 ultra wide on full frame.

 

I own the SEM21 and never used any of the other three lenses. The SEM21 has excellent performance for the size and weight, but I often desire more subject separation.

That review made me want to try the Voigt, and made me aware of possible downsides I should be checking before purchasing the lens.

 

I find comparative reviews like this, on real subjects, quite useful because they define an absolute scale... in the reviewer's subjective perspective

I must thank the author for sharing his results and opinions.

 

I also find the NEX7 a very nice to have in the review, because it renders a "preview" of lens performance with future high-density sensors, at least in the mid and center of the full frame.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wlaidlaw]

"Good" is a very subjective term. What do you value in a lens, and what do you usually shoot makes a big difference. Value for money is also another important parameter to take into account.

Most of us are used to top-notch Leica lenses, and an excellent Voigtlander 35/1.2 might be considered only very good if compared optically to Leica 35/1.4 ASPH FLE. Some of us also care about weight and size, and could rate the Voigt as mediocre overall. Some of us care about the price, and could rate the Voigt as "kicking Leica's butt"

 

Also, one should refrain to judge a lens bought used, unless one has extensive experience with the lens model and actual average performance on target field conditions.

Even new lenses may have QC issues, and the chance to find the bad ones in the second hand market is higher for obvious reasons.

 

Only one of my CV lenses was bought second hand (the 35/2.5) and its mediocre performance is due to inaccurate machining/grinding of the RF cam not deterioration. The 21 Skopar I bought on a stop over in Hong Kong a few years ago had an optical cell hugely de-centred and was completely unusable. The seller agreed when I showed him the film I luckily had same-day processed before I left HK and I exchanged the Skopar with him for a 21 ZM Biogon, now in a friend's possession. The 40/1.4 I bought to have a lightweight and compact alternative to my excellent but rather heavy chrome 35 ASPH Summilux had very bad CA and was very flare prone. The 35/1.2 Mk1 I had before I bought the Summilux, needed adjustment of the movable optical cell within the helicoid before it would focus properly. It was very low contrast and not particularly sharp even after the adjustment. All this points to low manufacturing standards and poor QC. The strange thing is that the Zeiss ZM lenses I have had at various times, made in the same facility, have all been excellent (50/2, 35/2, 21/2.8 and 25/2.8).

 

Wilson

[01af]

The strange thing is that the Zeiss ZM lenses I have had at various times, made in the same facility, have all been excellent ...

Why would that be strange?