Jump to content

21mm Super Elmar v Summilux


Paul J

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

Dirk, thanks very much, again, for your considered thoughts.

 

I find myself in the position of needing both lenses. I need the speed of the SX but also need the IQ of the SE. I'm truly in awe of the SE, it's a remarkable lens but I would find the 3.4 quite limiting for what I do.

 

I don't shoot architecture, people in fact, but high IQ is paramount. I love the SX but I see those corners and in comparison to the SE, and well, they bug me. Also the Astigmatism in the SX significantly reduces it's clarity and purity and that is another factor which holds me back. I also can't quite look past the distortion at times too. It's also the fine detail of the SE that really grabs me that the SX doesn't have.

 

However there is no smoking gun here and as I understand the SX by 5.6 is very close to the SE. I would either use this lens at 1.4-2 or 8 I think so in effect getting the best of both worlds. I'm going to try and track down some more samples of the Summilux stopped down but at this point I think I'm going to have to go for the SX first.

 

It's very unfortunately that Erwin Puts has taken down his reviews! Does anybody know of a link that has his Summilux reviews to read? I will also try the Sean Reid Reviews.

 

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts and input, much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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) -

 

L3002927.jpg

 

Big thumbs up for the 21 SEM, at least for landscape shooting.

 

Hi John,

 

Yes you've verbalised my findings, albeit only with samples I've found on the net. Good edge sharpness but it lacks the finer detail of the SE and while sharp enough that Astigmatism is hampering it's clarity. I am spoilt with my 35 FLE and NX .95 and that is where the disappointment is stemming from I suppose but of corse I understand the demands of such a wide and fast lens. I'm just not sure what my priorities are at this point, but I'm fairly positive 3.4 is going to limit and even change what I do which I'm not quite happy about. I'm not fully convinced yet that the 21SX has the IQ I'm looking for when stopped down. My search will continue and I hope to find it is as it will make this decision far easier.

 

I agree that some samples of the SE I've found seem very close to Medium Format in look, it's a tonal and colour purity that I find really seductive.

Edited by Paul J
Link to post
Share on other sites

John, there is the chance, that your 21 Summilux was indeed not perfectly calibrated.

It took me several approaches to find a sample, that is adjusted perfectly.

 

With the Leica RF design principle all fast lenses that deviate in focal length much from the 50mm standard lens, which couples linear to the rangefinder expose even the slightest misalignment in the lens calibration and RF setting.

 

Superfast RF lenses as the 21 Summilux and fast telephoto lenses are the hardest to build and most critical in this respect. I urge anyone, who is looking to buy a 21 Summilux to double check, if it perfectly aligns with the other fast lenses, intended to use in the same kit and of course the camera bodies.

 

Of course, focussing the 21 very precisely is paramount as well, when shooting with large apertures.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dirk, thanks very much, again, for your considered thoughts.

 

I find myself in the position of needing both lenses. I need the speed of the SX but also need the IQ of the SE. I'm truly in awe of the SE, it's a remarkable lens but I would find the 3.4 quite limiting for what I do.

 

I don't shoot architecture, people in fact, but high IQ is paramount. I love the SX but I see those corners and in comparison to the SE, and well, they bug me. Also the Astigmatism in the SX significantly reduces it's clarity and purity and that is another factor which holds me back. I also can't quite look past the distortion at times too. It's also the fine detail of the SE that really grabs me that the SX doesn't have.

 

However there is no smoking gun here and as I understand the SX by 5.6 is very close to the SE. I would either use this lens at 1.4-2 or 8 I think so in effect getting the best of both worlds. I'm going to try and track down some more samples of the Summilux stopped down but at this point I think I'm going to have to go for the SX first.

 

It's very unfortunately that Erwin Puts has taken down his reviews! Does anybody know of a link that has his Summilux reviews to read? I will also try the Sean Reid Reviews.

 

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts and input, much appreciated.

 

Poke around here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110806023539/http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/page57.html

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

John, there is the chance, that your 21 Summilux was indeed not perfectly calibrated.

It took me several approaches to find a sample, that is adjusted perfectly.

 

With the Leica RF design principle all fast lenses that deviate in focal length much from the 50mm standard lens, which couples linear to the rangefinder expose even the slightest misalignment in the lens calibration and RF setting.

 

Superfast RF lenses as the 21 Summilux and fast telephoto lenses are the hardest to build and most critical in this respect. I urge anyone, who is looking to buy a 21 Summilux to double check, if it perfectly aligns with the other fast lenses, intended to use in the same kit and of course the camera bodies.

 

Of course, focussing the 21 very precisely is paramount as well, when shooting with large apertures.

 

Dirk, always a possibility, but with no local Leica dealer to compare samples, there was no way of knowing for sure. For what it's worth - it was a high serial number (417xxxx or 419xxx, can't remember anymore), so it was not one of the initial 21 Lux's. And, the lens was traded at a Leica Store, the dealer inspected the lens and was satisfied. This was done via the mail, so I do not what they did, but they did call and say the lens checked out and we were good to go ahead with the agreed upon trade.

 

I've done the Leica tango more times than I can count (send for service, repeat as necessary). In this case I wasn't motivated. Even if the lens was epically sharp at F1.4, there were other aspects I didn't like (bokeh and distortion come to mind). Meanwhile, the 21/3.4 ASPH had arrived I was so impressed with its sharpness/character that 21 Lux lost its allure. Someday I might give the 21 Lux another go, and if I do, it would have to be on a demo basis.

Edited by John Black
Added additional comment
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

John, there is the chance, that your 21 Summilux was indeed not perfectly calibrated.

It took me several approaches to find a sample, that is adjusted perfectly.

 

With the Leica RF design principle all fast lenses that deviate in focal length much from the 50mm standard lens, which couples linear to the rangefinder expose even the slightest misalignment in the lens calibration and RF setting.

 

Superfast RF lenses as the 21 Summilux and fast telephoto lenses are the hardest to build and most critical in this respect. I urge anyone, who is looking to buy a 21 Summilux to double check, if it perfectly aligns with the other fast lenses, intended to use in the same kit and of course the camera bodies.

 

Of course, focussing the 21 very precisely is paramount as well, when shooting with large apertures.

 

Yes, mine was sent back early after purchase for adjustment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John, the samples of the 21 Summilux, I previously rejected in the shops were indeed brand-new stock in official European Leica shops.

On one occasion, the shop manager gave me a hint of understanding that the lens will go back onto the shelf for sale, after we found the new Summilux clearly front focussing, even comparing it to a brand-new 21 Super Elmar, which was spot on.

This lens back then was in such demand and so few were available, that shipping it back to the factory first seemed not an option for him.

 

That day, I ended up buying the good Super Elmar, which is as spectacular, as often mentioned (unfortunately just much too slow often enough, which is why I kept looking for the 21/1.4).

 

This experience lead me to exclusively buy such expensive, critical lenses only after personal inspection or (if buying second hand overseas) with the clear plan of having to send them in to Solms for a perfect calibration, costs calculated for.

 

My experience with Leica Solms is absolutely fantastic with high quality work and very fast turnaround + good communication. Buying such lenses really means either being patient and willing to travel or understanding a potential trip back to the factory is necessary.

 

For general use this really is not necessary and the bespoke items may be very well within factory tolerances, but for critical eyes, nothing but perfection may be acceptable.

 

Leica is one of the very few manufacturers, who wholeheartedly will go out and take care of such after sales service, to bring a product to the full satisfaction of a customer - I love that. We are often complaining on a very high level though, especially here on this forum I suppose.

 

 

Thanks for the pointer - interesting read.

 

I just renewed for one year with Sean Reid - his older review of the 21 Summilux is mainly based on his findings coupled with the Leica M8, hence a few aspects regarding the full frame (especially the complex distortion) are not as strongly covered.

Nevertheless, it is a very interesting review and well worth his fee, coupled with so many other interesting content.

 

I was surprised, how good the 21/1.4 compares at same aperture with the 21/2.8 ASPH. Technically a masterpiece it surely is.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I've used the 21mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH for many years, Ken Rockwell and Erwin Puts gave it a good review, if you rely on reviews.

 

The 21mm f/1.4 is big and heavy. It does offer better DOF isolation, but corner sharpness suffers at f/1.4.

 

The 21mm f/3.4 Super Elmar offers to-the-corners sharpness wide-open, is half the weight, price and bulk of the 21mm Summilux, and distorts much less. By all accounts it has the best ergonomics and optical quality of all Leica / Leitz 21mm lenses.

 

The 21mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH is not much bigger than the 21mm f/3.4, has almost the same performance, and can be had used for a bit less.

 

I've used the 21mm f/2.8 for landscapes and travel - http://tinyurl.com/p76kxf3

 

For many, the main reasons for using Leica lenses are image quality and light weight. The 21mm Summilux seems to fly in the face of both points.

 

If you need limited DOF in a wide view, you can go close (or do it with a layer mask in Photoshop). Many wide-angle images take in too much from too far away to begin with. The Grand Canyon South Rim image above gets close to strong foreground elements, giving the option to blur the background with f/3.4 if desired.

 

 

Mark Bohrer, MSEE

documentary narration & scoring

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the rendering of my Elamrit-M 21 but do hanker after something faster for interiors in particular. I keep looking and thinking about the 21mm Summilux, and more recently the VC 21/1.8 which does seem a bargain.

 

I think you will ultimately have both due to the weight and size of the Summilux. I'd probably start with the SEM or Elmarit and then you will be be better able to compares assess the Lux or even VC in comparison.

Edited by IWC Doppel
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Marc G.
I really like the rendering of my Elamrit-M 21 but do hanker after something faster for interiors in particular. I keep looking and thinking about the 21mm Summilux, and more recently the VC 21/1.8 which does seem a bargain.

 

I think you will ultimately have both due to the weight and size of the Summilux. I'd probably start with the SEM or Elmarit and then you will be be better able to compares assess the Lux or even VC in comparison.

 

I got the 21 Ultron and am pretty happy with it. All in all it is just a great package. I cant see any distortion, it's sharp, easy to use and is very well made. It's just a stunning achievement in my eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefits of the 21 SEM regarding high image quality, low distortion, and compact size are obvious. It's my 21 of choice in good light, landscape and architecture, and tripod work even in low light.

 

However, the 21 Summilux really comes into it's own maintaining reasonably low ISO in hand-held, low light and street work. In low light the IQ of low-ISO 21 Summilux vs high-ISO 21SEM wins out. After all we're talking about almost 3 stops difference here.

 

Most of the examples below (some of them you may have seen before) are situations which are the domain of the 21 Summilux, not the SEM. All hand-held, most shot in very poor light with ISO of only 400-640. The architectural photographs should put the distortion issues 'into perspective'. I do not believe the lens' distortion detracts in any way from these photos which would not even have been possible with a 21 SEM in many of these situations (note the lines on the La Defense photo) - everything is relative.

 

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!

 

 

La Defense

Paris 2010

 

Hotel de Ville

Paris 2010

 

 

Trying to see over the crowds.

Chinese New Year, Sydney 2014

 

 

Trying to see over the crowds.

Chinese New Year, Sydney 2014

 

 

A noisy and friendly minority.

Chinese New Year, Sydney 2014

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still a tricky decision but I think I will go for the Super Elmar and then maybe the

Summilux at a later date. 3.4 is going to be too slow for what I need, it's certainly going to

limit me, but ultimately, the overriding factor is that I'm just utterly blow away by the near

perfection of the SE and that is what I need most.

 

The summilux is far more versatile and usable though at the expense of distortion and IQ.

I understand it's a remarkable achievement for the design, but I can't be certain it's up

to scratch for what I need and it doesn't seem to shift so well on the used market either.

 

The CV Ultron is out for me. I'm not taken by the rendering, the colour and contrast does

nothing for me at all, particularly next to the SE.

 

The samples of the Super Elmar on it's Flickr group are just nothing short of mind blowing.

I would hazard a guess at it being one of the very best Leica lenses available. The colour

and contrast and sharpness are next level stuff. When this lens is so good, I can't really

look past it and justify lower IQ and distortion of the Summilux. All along I can buy a

90mm APO-Summicron with the change too.

 

I will give it some more thought, I'm not in a massive rush for it and perhaps my needs will

actually dictate what I buy, but at this stage that Super Elmar has pretty much won me

over.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefits of the 21 SEM regarding high image quality, low distortion, and compact size are obvious. It's my 21 of choice in good light, landscape and architecture, and tripod work even in low light.

 

However, the 21 Summilux really comes into it's own maintaining reasonably low ISO in hand-held, low light and street work. In low light the IQ of low-ISO 21 Summilux vs high-ISO 21SEM wins out. After all we're talking about almost 3 stops difference here.

 

Most of the examples below (some of them you may have seen before) are situations which are the domain of the 21 Summilux, not the SEM. All hand-held, most shot in very poor light with ISO of only 400-640. The architectural photographs should put the distortion issues 'into perspective'. I do not believe the lens' distortion detracts in any way from these photos which would not even have been possible with a 21 SEM in many of these situations (note the lines on the La Defense photo) - everything is relative.

 

Thanks Mark, these look really good. Can you comment and compare on the distortion

between the two in the sense of the "stretchy" part on the outside edges? It seems the

summilux has a more apparent stretch. The Super Elmar seems relatively neutral in this

regard and at times doesn't even appear like a super wide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still a tricky decision but I think I will go for the Super Elmar and then maybe the

Summilux at a later date. 3.4 is going to be too slow for what I need, it's certainly going to

limit me, but ultimately, the overriding factor is that I'm just utterly blow away by the near

perfection of the SE and that is what I need most.

 

The summilux is far more versatile and usable though at the expense of distortion and IQ.

I understand it's a remarkable achievement for the design, but I can't be certain it's up

to scratch for what I need and it doesn't seem to shift so well on the used market either.

 

The CV Ultron is out for me. I'm not taken by the rendering, the colour and contrast does

nothing for me at all, particularly next to the SE.

 

The samples of the Super Elmar on it's Flickr group are just nothing short of mind blowing.

I would hazard a guess at it being one of the very best Leica lenses available. The colour

and contrast and sharpness are next level stuff. When this lens is so good, I can't really

look past it and justify lower IQ and distortion of the Summilux. All along I can buy a

90mm APO-Summicron with the change too.

 

I will give it some more thought, I'm not in a massive rush for it and perhaps my needs will

actually dictate what I buy, but at this stage that Super Elmar has pretty much won me

over.

 

I fully understand your point. I do use the 21 SEM far more than the Summilux but that may be because I have the luxury of having both (:)) (and the SEM is spectacular in good to fair lighting conditions and tripod work), so I can use each one to it's best advantage. However, as I mentioned above there are things that only the 21 Summilux can do. So other than it's bulk and price I consider the Summilux to be the more versatile of the two lenses.

Edited by MarkP
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mark, these look really good. Can you comment and compare on the distortion

between the two in the sense of the "stretchy" part on the outside edges? It seems the

summilux has a more apparent stretch. The Super Elmar seems relatively neutral in this

regard and at times doesn't even appear like a super wide.

 

Yes the SEM is better.

 

It depends what you have in the periphery. Straight lines are better controlled but for example people or body parts look quite stretched out towards the edges with both lenses, probably a bit more prominent with the Summilux. I have some shockers from the 21 SEM of fat, squat and stretched out people (who are actually rather slim) or other objects in the periphery which are clearly distorted. It's very important to keep the camera horizontal (and parallel with the subject) where possible and appropriate as breaking with horizontal perspective also significantly exaggerates the distortion in these 21m lenses.

 

One just has to be that much more careful framing with the 21s.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully understand your point. I do use the 21 SEM far more than the Summilux but that may be because I have the luxury of having both (:)) (and the SEM is spectacular in good to fair lighting conditions and tripod work), so I can use each one to it's best advantage. However, as I mentioned above there are things that only the 21 Summilux can do. So other than it's bulk and price I consider the Summilux to be the more versatile of the two lenses.

 

Thanks, yes this is how I see using the lens too, although I never use a tripod and don't

plan to either. I do have the luxury with my work of lighting everything so f3.4 will be

certainly usable. My predominantly used lenses are Noctilux, 35 and 75 Summilux and I

shoot them wide open a lot of the time so the continuity in aesthetic and my signature

look will be affected which is what I'm mostly worried about.

 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest jvansmit
So other than it's bulk and price I consider the Summilux to be the more versatile of the two lenses.

 

My view too, at least from a B&W street photography perspective. The 21mm SE is an astounding lens and conveniently small too but in practice I found f3.4 to be a little limiting after dark so now use the Summilux. I'll probably sell the SE.

 

My very subjective impression is that the Summilux is slightly softer than the SE...it doesn't seem to have that razor-sharp bite. Architectural photographers will probably prefer the SE but the Summilux is very slightly kinder to people's faces.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 21 SEM and love this lens. Its sharp, light and wonderful to use. If I really felt the need for a fast 21, I'd pick up an Ultron in addition to the SEM to take to shoots where I knew I'd need the speed. So far that has not happened. 3.4 and a steady hand or tripod works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...