Jennifer Posted May 30, 2014 Share #1 Â Posted May 30, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Despite my recent spur of the moment indulgence in a nearly new 50 Lux, I've decided to go for the 21mm I want and which will complete my collection of lenses for the foreseeable future if not forever. I'd always had in mind getting the 21mm SE, however, I'm now thinking maybe it'd be best to go for the 18mm SE instead. I intend to use this lens principally for architecture and landscapes though, no doubt, I'll find other uses for it too. I realise it's a very personal and subjective decision, but any views on which length I might find more versatile/dramatic? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 Hi Jennifer, Take a look here 18mm or 21mm Super-Elmar ASPH. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
DigitalHeMan Posted May 30, 2014 Share #2  Posted May 30, 2014 Only you know which focal length you are most likely to use based upon your own style, but here are a couple of things to bear in mind with the 18mm:  - external viewfinder options are limited, your only Leica option is the new metal finder: expensive. - takes a non standard filter size and requires an adapter to use 'normal' (77mm) filters - slightly slower than the 21mm, although doesn't make a difference in reality  18mm is also very wide, and takes a lot more thought to get good composition. I looked in Lightroom at my previous usage of the Nikon 17-35 and found the majority of the shots were at 21mm and above.  Personally I went through the same decision process and figured the 21mm would get more use for my shooting style. If I decide I want to go wider in the future then I would probably pick up something cheaper like a Voigtlander 15mm for occasional use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted May 30, 2014 Share #3 Â Posted May 30, 2014 How about the WATE? As versatile as it gets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer Posted May 30, 2014 Author Share #4 Â Posted May 30, 2014 How about the WATE? As versatile as it gets. Â Quite apart from probably having little use of the 16mm I can't really justify paying the premium of the WATE over the either the 18 or 21 SE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted May 31, 2014 Share #5 Â Posted May 31, 2014 I have found hardly any situations where 21mm isn't wide enough. And on the very few ocassions when I have thought that, 18 wouldn't have been wide enough either. Â I think 21mm, handled thoughtfully, can give a very natural rendition of the scene in front of you without becoming a generically "wide-angle" shot. I feel it is the limit of how wide i can go before the characteristics of the lens become more of a focal point than the subject of the photograph, most of the time anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeicaPassion Posted May 31, 2014 Share #6 Â Posted May 31, 2014 You should really try both lenses to determine which one is right for you. They are very different. For years, I had a 19mm R lens, which was too wide for me. Now, I always carry the 21 SEM. It's wide but not too wide. As others have written, its rendering is spectacular. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted June 1, 2014 Share #7 Â Posted June 1, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) As a landscape shooter I prioritize the lenses sharpness, with architecture distortion is important, with portraiture a classic signature is nice. Either of the Super Elmar M lenses is great, the 21mm will be sharper. There is also a 24mm Elmar M that gets very little attention and yet is sharper than either SEM, with less distortion...it just doesn't get much love in the Leica M world. Ranking these lenses for landscape and architecture: 24>21>18. Although the 18mm is last, with least sharpness and greatest distortion the images are superb for landscape and when you need that extra bit of wide to get those huge skies the 18 fits the bill nicely. If you're like me you will have the right lens sometimes, wish you had a wider or less wide other times but the great challenge is to make the focal length you have work with what's in front of you. Any of the lenses discussed will render images only dreamed about a few years ago with small format. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer Posted June 5, 2014 Author Share #8 Â Posted June 5, 2014 As I've mentioned elsewhere on another thread, I found a nearly new 21 SEM in mint condition and bought it a couple of days ago. Not had a huge opportunity to use it yet but, having tried it briefly, I think it's a love affair in the making. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carduelis Posted June 5, 2014 Share #9 Â Posted June 5, 2014 As I've mentioned elsewhere on another thread, I found a nearly new 21 SEM in mint condition and bought it a couple of days ago. Not had a huge opportunity to use it yet but, having tried it briefly, I think it's a love affair in the making. Â I think you have done well to acquire a used 21 SEM as they are not easy to obtain. It now sounds as though you have got all your required lenses and are ready to go. Have a good time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W Posted June 6, 2014 Share #10 Â Posted June 6, 2014 Excellent choice for the 21. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterP Posted June 8, 2014 Share #11 Â Posted June 8, 2014 The 21 Super Elmar is an outstanding lens, you would not be disappointed with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted June 8, 2014 Share #12 Â Posted June 8, 2014 In my humble view, the 21mm is a more all-around super wide; the 18mm is more specialized. Â The 18 would be a better choice for really tight quarters shooting, but is fairly slow at f/3.8 maximum. Egghead distortion of human subjects will be an issue up close with the people off the frame's center by much, with the most pronounced distortion near the edges. Â The 21 would be a good choice for tight quarters shooting and will be a little more forgiving of egghead distortion near the edges of the frame. The maximum aperture of f/3.4 makes it more forgiving in low light, which is a positive. Â In the end, you have to think about the subject matter you normally shoot the majority of the time and how you shoot it. Do you shoot a lot in low light? Do you shoot people up close? Do you shoot architecture? Landscape? Â What you shoot, how you shoot it and the light you encounter when shooting will be the determining factors regarding whether the 18/3.8 or the 21/3.4 is the better choice for your needs. Â If you can't decide, buy both - just to be safe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted June 8, 2014 Share #13 Â Posted June 8, 2014 Jennifer, you seem to be having a lens buying GAS attack. Why don't you use the lenses you have and then determine how wide you really want or need to go first? Then decide on the 18 or 21. Note that 18 is very wide and is a specialty lens. The 21 may be more versatile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
faranstudio Posted June 10, 2014 Share #14  Posted June 10, 2014 Leica 18mm f/3.8 Super-Elmar is a pretty sharp lens and suitable for wide architecture shots (attachments).  Voigtlander 15mm is sharp as well but the contrast and lens quality/resolution is not as close as Leica 18mm. IMHO it is only good for black and white wide shots. I tried Voigtlander 12mm, it felt too wide for architecture! 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/228031-18mm-or-21mm-super-elmar-asph/?do=findComment&comment=2607668'>More sharing options...
MarkP Posted June 10, 2014 Share #15 Â Posted June 10, 2014 Impressive photographs. Can you tell me about the building in the first two? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
faranstudio Posted June 10, 2014 Share #16 Â Posted June 10, 2014 Impressive photographs. Can you tell me about the building in the first two? Â Thanks Mark! Â They are both shot in Boston. I'll find the names for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.