21mm Super Elmar v Summilux

[Guest jvansmit]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

if anyone is interested then there's a long & well written comparison of the 21mm SEM, Lux and Ultron here: http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?page_id=130

[Advertisement]

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

[batmobile]

I own the 24 lux and elmar and would suggest starting with the 21 Lux and seeing if you are happy with it stopped down, seeing as you seem sure you will want this lens for wide open shooting.

 

With the 24 lux I have, now calibrated to my MM, wide open performance on centre is really superb and the 21mm is supposed to be even better at f1.4 (but a touch slower to improve when stopped down). In the corners, its as good as you are likely to ever need at f1.4!

 

Stopped down the 24 lux is beautiful. Old school. Sharp and smooth. Although the 24 Elmar is stunningly sharp and 'perfect' I prefer the overall rendering of the lux.... The Elmar is technically better, but....

 

Personally, I would not bother with both unless you are concerned about weight. I take my Elmar walking around during the day not because the lux is not good enough, but because its that much smaller and lighter. At f5.6 and f8, the lux is very, very sharp.

[MarkP]

 

Stopped down the 24 lux is beautiful. Old school. Sharp and smooth. Although the 24 Elmar is stunningly sharp and 'perfect' I prefer the overall rendering of the lux.... The Elmar is technically better, but....

 

This is a very important point. I completely agree that this also applies to the 21 Summilux and 21 SEM.

[Paul J]

I'm not so convinced that the 21mm Summilux is up to scratch (for my needs) stopped down though, that is the problem. If it were it would be a no brainer.

[MarkP]

I'm not so convinced that the 21mm Summilux is up to scratch (for my needs) stopped down though, that is the problem. If it were it would be a no brainer.

.

 

Paul,

I think it's clear from what you've written earlier that the 21 SEM is the first/best choice for you.

Enjoy it!

[Paul J]

The problem is, it's not so clear to me! I'm still contemplating trying the Summilux first, in hope it's right, I do really wish/hope it was.

[Erik Gunst Lund]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

..........Regarding the stretch, some lenses are far better than others. I suppose it has a lot to do

with the way the glass is ground to accommodate the wide perspective. The Summilux

certainly seems more prominent. Given I shoot people and like to frame off side it's

certainly a consideration but I have done it for years with Canon and Blad so it's never

really been a n issue. As I understand anything with in a 28mm frame is unstretched

with the Summilux which is perfect for me, but that SE, at times, doesn't even look like

a super wide.

 

Just a quick comment on streatch

 

For normal fully corrected lenses, straight lines remain straight. And yes this gives a chalange for wider lenses in the corners, this is mostly visible for wider lenses than 28mm but it is there even on longer lenses 35mm 50mm etc.

 

The only lenses without streatch in the corners are full frame fish eye lenses, like the 16mm, due to the mapping of the image the circular objects remain more or less without distortion circular, this is also why they are good for close up groups of people.

 

All 21mm lenses will only vary slightly with barrel, pincushion or some sort of mustache distortion... But all far from the 16mm full fram fish eye lenses.

 

Aperture is not involved in this 1.4 or 3.4 it doesn't matter...

[Paul J]

Aperture is not involved in this 1.4 or 3.4 it doesn't matter...

 

Obviously the aperture doesn't affect it, but different lens designs vary. The 1.4 is a very different design to the 3.4

[Erik Gunst Lund]

OK to be more precise:

 

...with the way the glass is ground to accommodate the wide perspective...

 

Please explain then what you mean if it's not the mapping of the lens your talking about, I would like to know

 

Thanks!

[Paul J]

Maybe I have misunderstood you - I'm not familiar with the phrase "mapping of the lens" but I think we are talking about the same thing. I just don't think anyone is under the impression it's the 1.4 or 3.4 aperture that causes it, just the design of the elements and they way they are formed. Some lenses are better than others in this regard.

[Jenningsmca]

I posted a continuation of this topic in Leica SL forum.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Jenningsmca

[rramesh]

What I love about the 21 SEM is its high quality, minimal distortion and most importantly compactness. The 21 is rarely a main lens on a trip and usually a second or third and weight is always a consideration.

[S Maclean]

This is  a questions I Shared.  IMO nothing beats the SE in terms of a walk around lens capable of taking images with outstanding IQ without a thought.

 

I was recently on a trip through europe and had several lenses with me. The shots I took with the SE using Hipoer focallength and not even lookng through the VF are simply outstanding.  I have to highlight this. I just shot from the hip so to speak. Specially as some of the shots are taken from the middle of a street and one has to move fast to avoid stopping traffic.  The NUN shot is OF because I had just shot some close ups on a flower shot and I forgot to reset for street.

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!

 

On the other hand I bought the Summilux 21mm 1.4 at Leice Madrid on my last day, actually almost on my way to the airport.  I did not get to get acquainted with it or go on an actual photo walkabout so I cannot fully evaluate it's performance against the SE.  I can say though that the size and weight alone mark a strong difference on the practical use of it.  It feels more like a lense meant for thoguht out photography rather than the more spontaneus SE.  Specially fully open.  There is a clear distorion differene and the microcontrast is not quite close to the SE.  It gives photos with slightly more character and soul. Not better, nor worse, but different.

I did compare some shots at home but did not save them. On those, again, the SE had less distorion and was more true to life.  Test shots of, say, a glass on a table where unremarkable on the SE (or just accurate to the unremarkable subject) While they had a certain character on thte 1.4 fully open.

So, the SE is perfection for fast, accurate, perfect IQ and portability and will give you amazing shots....if you have the eye for ultrawide composition and to capture great moments.

The Summi 1.4 will share some of the above but, in addition, it will add an optical character to the images, specailly fully open, that may infuse an otherwise plain image with some magic.

As stated, I have not shot extensively with the Summi but here are two shots, one right out of the Leica madrid store and the other at the airport.  Even the distortion on the street scene becomes somewhat cinematic. Obviously the focus is off on that one, or rather on the wrong subject.  The second shot is at the Airport and I was just testing the DOF at 1.4.

As other stated I would think about your style of photography.  If you're a landscape or street shooter that likes to capture the moment SE is best in class.  If you like to infuse your images with character to exrpess your own taste the Summi takes the crown.

I shoot on both styles depending on how I feel for the day so I keep both.

I have the same exact combo of clinical and fast in 35, 50 and 75/90 although I may sell my APO 50 and APO 90 becasue at 50 and 90 the differences between lenses are lesser than on something as unique as a 21 1.4 versus a traditional 21mm