Jump to content
🇩🇪 Neu: Leica SL3 Reporter ×
🇺🇸🇬🇧 New: Leica SL3 Reporter ×

superwide for an M9: which one?

Andi_77

By Andi_77
in Leica M Lenses

Recommended Posts

Andi_77

Andi_77

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello!

As I was writing in another thread, I'm about to buy an M9.

I currently have 3 lenses that I use on my Bessa: a Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 ZM, a Canon 50mm f/1.4 and a Tele-Elmarit 90mm f/2.8.

 

The lens that I used most of the time on my 5D was a Canon 17-40mm f/4, and 90% of the time it was in the 17-24 "area", I really like the dramatic effect of a superwide angle.

 

Now, I'd really like my future lens to be a Leica. I sincerely LOVE Zeiss lenses, I've used them a lot in the past on Contax bodies, but I mean... now that I'm entering the Leica world I want to do it seriously and to enjoy it as much as I can :)

 

So the question is: assuming that I like both the 18mm perspective and the 21mm one, and pretending they're the same (I obviously know they're not, but let's pretend they are), what would you buy if you were on a quite tight budget between a perfect Elmarit 21mm f/2.8 pre-Asph and a cosmetically so-and-so (but optically perfect) Super Elmar M 18mm f/3.8?

 

I'm really undecided...

 

Thanks a lot :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

There is a Zeiss 18 as well which is not half bad... ;) And what is wrong with the cosmetics of the Super-Elmar 18?:confused: Wonderful lens btw, it is on my dead-clammy-hands list.

I would take it over a 21 anyday, but that is just me. My set is basically 18-24-35-50-90-135 ( with some additions here and there;))

Link to post
Share on other sites
01af

01af

Posted
Posted
I'm really undecided ...

And I am afraid we cannot really help—ask ten persons, and you'll get twelve opinions ... minimum :D

 

Jaap advocates the Super-Elmar-M 18 mm Asph. I would favour a 21 mm lens over having both 18 mm and 24 mm. Especially when your shortest existing lens so far is 35 mm then 21 mm will be a perfect complement. When you go for 18 mm now then you probably will feel the need to fill the gap between 18 and 35 mm with another lens in the near future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Andi_77

Andi_77

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks everyone!

 

I probably didn't make myself clear... I actually spotted those two lenses for sale on two websites, and I was undecided.

So it's not really about "which is better, an 18mm or a 21mm?" but more about those two specific models, the Elmarit 21 "pre-asph" version and the Super Elmar M 18mm.

In other terms, are they both good in terms of optical quality, performance, sharpness, etc?

 

Thanks again :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
rramesh

rramesh

Posted
Posted

I would imagine that with a 35, you would want to consider a 21. There are many options here.

 

  • 21 f/3.4 Super Elmar - simply the best
  • 21 f/1.8 Voigtlander - exceptional value for a fast wide-angle lens. A little bulky.
  • 21 f/2.8 Zeiss - compact and excellent.

There are many reviews in the forum on each.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Andi_77

Andi_77

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Here is my "decision journey" so far...

 

I enjoy both the 18mm and the 21mm focal length. I'm not say they're "interchangeable", since they're not, but let's say that for the moment I like them both equally.

This means that if I decide to buy the 18mm, the gap between the 18mm and the 35mm will not be a problem.

 

Since I'm an "ex-Zeiss guy" and I'm new to Leica, if I "build" a 4-lens kit, I want at least 2 of them to be Leica, because I really want to "experience Leica" and get acquainted with it.

For this reason, and since so far I have 1 Leica, 1 Canon and 1 Zeiss, I want to buy a Leica lens.This may not be totally rational, but I'm decided. So Zeiss and Voigtlander are ruled out.

 

I can NOT (unfortunately!) afford an expensive lens right now, and I honestly don't want to wait too much, because I tend to use super-wide angles a lot.

 

Based on my budget, the ones I can afford are the "non-Asph" 21mm Elmarit and the Super Elmar M 18mm. The latter is normally a bit more expensive, but I found one that is cosmetically "decent" but in good shape in terms of optics.

 

This is my choice... And I'm undecided between those two.

I've read good reviews about the 18mm, and mixed reviews about the "non-asph" 21mm.

This is why I'd love to have your advice on these two specific models.

 

Thanks a lot :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

Well, it is not just about image quality. Although the Super Elmar may be higher specified, being the more recent lens and a darn good one at that, there is nothing wrong with the Elmarit 21.

So it really is about the photography. Do you want a more universal super wideangle? 21. Or more extreme perspectives? 18. Is this your final wideangle? 21. Do you plan to get something like a 24 in the future? 18. And so it goes on....:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
01af

01af

Posted
Posted
... more about those two specific models, the Elmarit-M 21 mm "pre-asph" version and the Super-Elmar-M 18 mm Asph. In other terms, are they both good in terms of optical quality, performance, sharpness, etc?

Yes, definitely. That's why no-one goes into this question. Both are very good lenses; there's no reason to prefer one over the other purely for optical performance.

 

If optical excellence is high on your agenda then maybe you want to consider the new Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph. While the two lenses in question both are very good, the 21 mm Super-Elmar is even better than both—it really sets a new benchmark for super-wide-angle performance. But then ... while it is by far not as expensive as a Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm Asph (very recommendable by the way) or a Summilux-M 21 mm Asph, it probably still is beyond your current budget ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Andi_77

Andi_77

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thank you very much! :)

 

That's an important point, and knowing that both are good makes me choose in a more "relaxed" way. ;)

 

I've been googling a bit, and I've found a nice 21mm Elmarit, in good conditions, with hood, caps and - more important - original viewfinder for 1.300€.

 

I'll keep looking but so far this one looks really interesting!

Link to post
Share on other sites
IWC Doppel

IWC Doppel

Posted
Posted
Here is my "decision journey" so far...

 

I enjoy both the 18mm and the 21mm focal length. I'm not say they're "interchangeable", since they're not, but let's say that for the moment I like them both equally.

This means that if I decide to buy the 18mm, the gap between the 18mm and the 35mm will not be a problem.

 

Since I'm an "ex-Zeiss guy" and I'm new to Leica, if I "build" a 4-lens kit, I want at least 2 of them to be Leica, because I really want to "experience Leica" and get acquainted with it.

For this reason, and since so far I have 1 Leica, 1 Canon and 1 Zeiss, I want to buy a Leica lens.This may not be totally rational, but I'm decided. So Zeiss and Voigtlander are ruled out.

 

I can NOT (unfortunately!) afford an expensive lens right now, and I honestly don't want to wait too much, because I tend to use super-wide angles a lot.

 

Based on my budget, the ones I can afford are the "non-Asph" 21mm Elmarit and the Super Elmar M 18mm. The latter is normally a bit more expensive, but I found one that is cosmetically "decent" but in good shape in terms of optics.

 

This is my choice... And I'm undecided between those two.

I've read good reviews about the 18mm, and mixed reviews about the "non-asph" 21mm.

This is why I'd love to have your advice on these two specific models.

 

Thanks a lot :)

 

I would try to answer your question more spscifically if I had experience of the pre asph, but I don't. You seem comfortable with the option of 18 or 21, for me they are quite different and I would not choose a 35 and 18 over 35 and 21, or for me a 35 and 24, but accept your decision here.

 

For what it's worth (probably not very much) I am finding I slightly prefer the rendering of the 21mm Elmarit ASPH over the 18mm SEM, they are both extremely resolving. At f4 the 18mm seems a tiny bit sharper, but I don't prefer the image because of this. Lots with more experience than me speak very highly of the Elmarit pre asph and I suspect (but don't know) by description I would prefer the 'look' of the 21mm Elmarit over the 18mm SEM. But this is a matter of taste. I have no doubt that if you pixel peek using both you woudln't be dissapointed with either.

 

One final but financially valid point is the cost of viewfinders..... pleanty of affordable secondhand 21's and the Voigtlander 21/25 is a stunner at £210 new. Your stuck with a Zeiss 18mm at £330 (I have not seen one second hand) or the new Leica at £620 (£400 ish secondhand) You probably need to factor in another £200ish for the 18mm and a longer wait to fidn a used Viewfinder

Link to post
Share on other sites
IWC Doppel

IWC Doppel

Posted
Posted
Thank you very much! :)

 

That's an important point, and knowing that both are good makes me choose in a more "relaxed" way. ;)

 

I've been googling a bit, and I've found a nice 21mm Elmarit, in good conditions, with hood, caps and - more important - original viewfinder for 1.300€.

 

I'll keep looking but so far this one looks really interesting!

 

Done deal if it was me, I assume the 18 did not come with viewfinder ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Andi_77

Andi_77

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks a lot for the advice!

Yup, exactly, the 18mm is without viewfinder.

It is also true that a 18mm Voigtlaender viewfinder is quite cheap, also in the metal version... It may not be on a par with a Leica one, but as long as it gives you a decent idea of the frame, I'm OK with it.

 

Tough choice, I'll take my time :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
tobey bilek

tobey bilek

Posted
Posted

The wider the lens, the harder it is to use successfully. They make distant objects very small and close objects large in relation to them.

 

Look at your photos and see what would benefit from such a wide view. 18 mm is almost 90 degrees horizontally.

 

21mm pre asph is what I have. Bought new and been on a camera very few times since 1985. Pictures are fine. If cheap enough, get that. Also have 28 2.8 brought new in approximately the same time frame. It gets somewhat more use. Both work fine on M9, coded of course.

 

May I suggest you get a 24 or 25 as the first super wide. That is what I bought when the camera system made them available, Pentax in the 1960`s and Nikon dslr currently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Andi_77

Andi_77

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Tobey, the lens I used the most on the 5D was the 17-40, and 80% of the time it was around 17-21mm...

 

These are a couple of examples of pictures I took with that lens, and in both cases it's 17mm. I simply love this type of perspective. I'm not saying those are good photos, I'm saying that these are pictures are enjoy taking.

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
IWC Doppel

IWC Doppel

Posted
Posted
Thanks a lot for the advice!

Yup, exactly, the 18mm is without viewfinder.

It is also true that a 18mm Voigtlaender viewfinder is quite cheap, also in the metal version... It may not be on a par with a Leica one, but as long as it gives you a decent idea of the frame, I'm OK with it.

 

Tough choice, I'll take my time :)

 

They don't make an 18mm metal one or a plastic one if they did I would buy it :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...