Paul J Posted January 10, 2014 Share #1 Posted January 10, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have a first world dilemma: Which to buy. I need and want 1.4, but of corse, also need and want high IQ. I have read the many posts both here and elsewhere and I am close to a decision, for which I'm mostly sold on the Summilux. BUT I've seen a few amazing samples from the Super Elmar and they do leave me wondering how close the Summilux is... I will mostly use this lens at 1.4-2 or 8-11 and probably in equal amounts. I know there are some here who own both lenses so am hoping someone will be able to make comment on the IQ differences of these lenses at f8. Is the Summilux close to the Super Elmar? I found one page on the net which offers straight full rez samples and the difference between them doesn't seem to be so great. But there is more to a lenses performance than one or two samples. I'm as interested in colour and contrast as much as sharpness. That Super Elmar does have really amazing colour and tone…. I'm almost certain I will be disappointed with 3.4. At the same time I don't want to be left disappointed with the IQ at f8. It's really hard to find a range of samples on the net, flickr etc that aren't over sharpened, have crazy or shot at 1.4 only! I'm not that interested in the CV Ultron. I've not seen any samples which show as great colour and contrast from this one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Hi Paul J, Take a look here 21mm Super Elmar v Summilux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
menos I M6 Posted January 10, 2014 Share #2 Posted January 10, 2014 The most obvious difference when switching between them is that the Summilux introduces a freight train load of distortion, where the SE shows none. The Summilux is surprisingly amazing though right from wide open in regards of contrast, detail and sharpness. If you absolutely need and want the Summilux, go for it and see, if the distortion is a deal breaker for those odd shots, where it really is too intrusive. The lens profile and the Lightroom lens correction tools can deal with a large amount of the distortion - completely solving though it cannot. In my opinion both lenses serve two entirely different purposes - the SE being a relatively lightweight, compact, optically near perfect 21 for all purposes, the 21 Summilux simply an amazing wide angle Noctilux for real low light. It is very well like the pairing of 50/2 and Noctilux. You really want to consider one very important difference in daily use: the Summilux takes series VIII filters only - one at a time. There is no stacking possible and many filters, easily available in E46 (21SE) are not available at all in sVIII or discontinued. Even if they are available, they mostly are so only on special order. I was lucky, that when I got my sample, another customer recently ordered sVIII filters and cancelled his order. I could get exactly the sVIII filters, I wanted without waiting time. 9 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted January 10, 2014 Share #3 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) I also have both lenses and completely agree with Dirk's description, and that the lenses serve very different purposes. The only thing that I would add is that the rendering of the two lenses is also very different. The SEM has a more modern razor-sharp rendering whilst that of the Summilux is more gentle (and no I don't mean soft) and perhaps less clinical rendering. The Series VIII filters may take you a little time to track down - I have and wanted only two (B+W): UV and ND. Edited January 10, 2014 by MarkP 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillbeers15 Posted January 10, 2014 Share #4 Posted January 10, 2014 You should firstly ask yourself what you want from a 21mm wide angle lens? Just for all sharp outdoor landscape shots or are you looking forward to creative shots that demand shallow DOF and low light shots at 21mm which the SEM could not offer? Your choice becomes clear then. I started with the SEM which I absolutely adore but wanted more,...so I sold my SEM and bought a 21mm Lux and 50mm Noctilux for me to play arround with shallow DOF which are normally only found in tele lenses due to their extended focal length but the narrow angle of view is not always what I want in composing my shots. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 10, 2014 Share #5 Posted January 10, 2014 In my opinion both lenses serve two entirely different purposes ..... These are wise words and can be applied to other focal lengths. In an ideal world one should own both fast and slower lenses for when you need to utilise their different characteristics. In the real world where all too often financial constraints limit choices, the question is whether the fast aperture is essential, in which case the choice is easy, or whether its simply a desire;). If you are really going to use the faster lens wide open, then its stopped down foibles of distortion and its less precise and clinical rendering are probably forgivable, (that's how I look on fast lens ownership anyway), whereas the inability to shoot at fast apertures with a slower lens is an absolute constraint. If I can afford it I always buy fast, but in this case (21mm which I do use but not as frequently as 35mm and 50mm and rarely would do so in low light) I could not justify doing so and so own the SEM and SA (the pair are still substantially cheaper) and which I enjoy using within their constraints. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share #6 Posted January 10, 2014 Thanks very much for the replies. You've voiced what I've already come to understand and the problem still lays - It's a case of deciding which lens I will buy first. For all intents and purposes the summilux is what I'm leaning to and will most likely go for in hope that it is sort of close in nature to the Super Elmar at f8, albeit with more distortion. On the distortion side of things, I think I can mostly live with it though can you explain a little more of what to expect from the Summilux here? Most user reviews are blind love and according to Leica there is next to no distortion for portraits. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share #7 Posted January 10, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) You should firstly ask yourself what you want from a 21mm wide angle lens? This is the dilemma, as I actually want both. I like both renderings. Obviously can't have them in one lens but need to make the decision. I have a feeling that the Summilux is mostly close to the Super Elmar at f8 though which would mean I would get the best of both worlds. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 10, 2014 Share #8 Posted January 10, 2014 On the distortion side of things, I think I can mostly live with it though can you explain a little more of what to expect from the Summilux here? Distortion is shown to some extent on the downloadable technical spec pdfs from Leica. A quick look at my copies suggests that the Summilux distorts nearly 1% MORE than the SEM. FWIW, I can correct the SEM so that distortion has never been a concern in any image I've taken. Whether the 'extra' distortion is a problem is again up to you - my personal opinion is that unless you are shooting subjects which really demand flat straight lines (architecture - which I rarely shoot so accurately - or seacapes with the horizon near an edge - which I do shoot and with these I demand that the distortion isn't intrusive, so I do use correction in these shots) then on a 21mm it isn't too much of a problem. But again this is down to my shooting style/subject matter and may not apply to you. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 10, 2014 Share #9 Posted January 10, 2014 In terms of sheer sharpness, the marvellous Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph is superior to anything else ... but if you need a better speed than 1:3.4 then I'd suggest the Voigtländer Ultron 21 mm 1:1.8. At f/2, it outperforms the Summilux. 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marc G. Posted January 10, 2014 Share #10 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Get the Voigtlander 21mm f/1.8 Ultron. edit: to specify this recommendation: -less distortion (if you trust Ken Rockwell in his technical analysis there is close to zero distortion) -optical performance (it cannot go even with the SE but according to 01af it beats the Summilux, both at f/2 which is kinda surprising to me) -I used it during a workshop. mechanically and optically it is marvellous. I did large prints with these images and the sharpness is really awesome -it is f/1.8 after all. closer to the Summilux, than the SE. if you own the M240 it also focuses closer (0.5m) compared to the Summilux (and the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is negligible if you ask me) Edited January 10, 2014 by Marc G. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jto555 Posted January 10, 2014 Share #11 Posted January 10, 2014 I am afraid that I have no experense with the lenses you are looking at. But if you are in the market for a Leica 21mm 1.4 you could consider a the 21mm F3.4 PLUS the CV 21mm for less money the the Lux, and get the best of both worlds. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share #12 Posted January 10, 2014 The CV 21mm Ultron is marginally sharper but I've not seen any samples which have wowed me. It does not seem to have the same brilliance in colour and tone. Its not on my list at this point. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share #13 Posted January 10, 2014 Ugh. The more I look at this Super Elmar the more I fall for it. It would have to be one of the better Leica lenses. It's not just the sharpness but the purity and clarity of colour and tone. It's like it's not even a photo: 21mm Super Elmar The wide open performance is incredible and the Bokeh at f3.4 is surprisingly nice: 21mm Super Elmar | Bokeh Test This is a hard decision, especially given the Super Elmar is less than half the cost. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted January 10, 2014 Share #14 Posted January 10, 2014 What would you use the lens primarily for? If it's architecture or landscape, I assume you'd be using a tripod, so the SE's smaller aperture should not be too much of a problem - and you would benefit from its lower distortion. If it's street, distortion is probably less important (at least it is for me), but the light gathering capabilities of the Summilux could be very helpful in some circumstances - not to mention its amazing oof rendering if bokeh is what you are after. What kind of rendering do you like? The SE has higher contrast than the Summilux. Personally, I like high-contrast images, but prefer to start from a low-contrast file and tweak it in post-processing, as I feel I have more latitude. YMMV. Don't get me wrong: the SE is a fantastic lens, but don't let its high "native" contrast fool you. FWIW, after trying several combinations, I have settled on the Summilux for low light and/or effect and... the CV Skopar 21/4 for street work in good light. Both show some degree of distortion (and the CV, even when coded as the 21/2.8 11134, shows some residual red edges), but these are very easy to correct with Cornerfix or the FlatField plug-in in LR if needed. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted January 10, 2014 Share #15 Posted January 10, 2014 Horses for courses. I backed the SEM for my own course and it came in a winner. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonki-M Posted January 10, 2014 Share #16 Posted January 10, 2014 another point to consider is the filter! if you have invested in filters on normal thread size (39, 46, etc), the SEM is just great! My collections of 3stop 6 stop and big stoppers and Lee Seven 5 works perfectly on the SEM...perfect travelling companion. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted January 11, 2014 Share #17 Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) Paul, the first sample you linked is not necessary a showcase of character, unique to the SE - I think, this stopped down the Summilux would look very similar. Where the SE really excels is, as mentioned, right from wide open f3.4 very, very detailed, sharp and contrasty photographs, right into the corners without disrupting distortion. As you have found in the second sample another characteristic of the SE - it's background rendering is absolute bliss - very, very smooth and always neutral without disturbances. If you really urge to own two set of lenses anyway, the SE surely should be within this two lens choices, as it arguable is at the very top of 21mm lenses in performance. The Voigtlander 21/1.8 has had great comments and surely has to be considered as an option to the Summilux. As I remember, Sean Reid has reviewed these lenses - his subscription might be very well worth the fee, just to read up on his findings regarding them. This thread might interest you: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/202275-summilux-elmarit-21mm-m9.html Edited January 11, 2014 by menos | M6 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billo101 Posted January 11, 2014 Share #18 Posted January 11, 2014 Buy 21SE Inviato da mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 11, 2014 Share #19 Posted January 11, 2014 I have the SEM - and love it - but I often miss the extra DOF for subject separation. However, the SEM is so small and light that I need to check whether it is in the bag or not. The SX is instead big and heavy, and if you don't bring it with you, then the SEM is infinitely better 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Black Posted January 11, 2014 Share #20 Posted January 11, 2014 Owned both and was never impressed by the 21 'Lux. From an engineering standpoint, I marveled at it and thought it was a very cool lens to look at. But in use... meh... It wasn't the distortion, it was the lackluster F1.4 performance that bugged me. Maybe my expectations were set too high by the 35 FLE, 50 Lux ASPH and 50 Noc ASPH; but the 21 Lux had a smeared look with its F1.4 performance. F1.4 never looked "sharp" - always as if focus was off a little. Also, too much CA and the bokeh was busier than I expected. Eventually I traded the lens. The 21 SEM on the other hand is a gem. Sharp is an understatement. Distortion has been a non-issue. I use it for landscapes because the notion of bokeh @ 21mm is a stretch, and at F3.4, it's not going to happen easily. I think the lens is brilliant and has a wonderful, sometime medium format look / character - like a 35mm lens on 645. Here's an example of was looks 645'ish to me (I realize this is a very subjective statement) - Big thumbs up for the 21 SEM, at least for landscape shooting. 14 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.