Super Elmar-R 15mm/1:3.5 on M (240)?

[whammers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

what is the experience with this lens on the M? How does the lens compare to the Super-Elmarit-R 15/1:2.8 ASPH in terms of performance, optical quality? Is the difference in the price tags justified? Does the most recent M firmware support any of the two lens profiles? Are these two lenses remarkably different from the Super-Elmar-M 18/3.8 ASPH lens?

 

I would appreciate any of your input ...

 

Thanks,

 

whammers

[Advertisement]

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

[bocaburger]

I had that lens, used it on R and Canon EOS. Tried the 2.8 version, didn't see any practical difference. Supposedly there's a little less distortion and a bit more corner sharpness but really not enough to bother with. They are HUGE heavy lenses also, weighing as much or more than the camera itself, and dwarfing it by size. The 15/3.5 was huge on my Canon 1D! On an M camera the C/V 15mm is far better balanced and not a brute to carry around. And a whole lot cheaper with great performance. Neither of those 15mm R lenses is actually a Leica lens (3.5 is Zeiss, 2.8 is Schneider), so the argument for wanting to stick with Leica glass fails. JMHO.

[JeffWright]

Hi,

 

what is the experience with this lens on the M? How does the lens compare to the Super-Elmarit-R 15/1:2.8 ASPH in terms of performance, optical quality? Is the difference in the price tags justified? Does the most recent M firmware support any of the two lens profiles? Are these two lenses remarkably different from the Super-Elmar-M 18/3.8 ASPH lens?

 

I would appreciate any of your input ...

 

Thanks,

 

whammers

 

 

I can't speak to using these on the M 240, but I previously owned both the 3.5 and the 2.8, using them on the Leica DMR and Canon full frame bodies. I actually found the 2.8 to be a considerably better performer on full frame than the 3.5. It was also better on the reduced frame size of the DMR. Both lenses are relatively older designs; I found the current mass-produced Canon 14/2.8 (version II) to be roughly equivalent to the Leica 2.8 ASPH on the Canon bodies I was using at the time (1ds3); however, I am not a "measurbator" type lens reviewer. The 3.5 was fairly soft in the corners on full frame, even stopped down, and on sensors that were top of the line 6 years ago. For my purposes, I found the softness unacceptable (architecture and landscape). I doubt that has improved as sensors have gotten better. Frankly, the 3.5 was just usable on the Digital Modul-R, even being a little soft wide open. I tried two copies of that lens. Owning a 15 and DMR was almost mandatory as it was roughly equivalent to the 21mm perspective, which I quite like.

 

Based on my 9 months with the M 240 and 5+ years with the 15mm R lenses, I think the 3.5 will give disappointing results. The 18 Super Elmar is going to be a much better performer on the M 240, it's stellar.

 

The CV 15/4.5 actually looks pretty sharp on the M, but it has some brutal corner and edge color distortions.

[whammers]

Thank you very much, braindeadmac and bocaburger! Your comments are clear and unison: this Super Elmar-R 15mm lens is a thing of the past and obviously not worth investing.

 

I might give the CV 15mm Heliar a try instead. The WATE is not for me because I own the Super-Elmar-M 18/3.8 ASPH lens already, which is spectacular.

 

Sooner or later Leica will come up with new real zoom lenses for the M replacing the two Tri-Elmars. For sure, the new lenses will be really stellar in performance - and price - but one might cover the domain of the ultra wide angle lenses ...

 

Best regards.

[thighslapper]

The Voigt 12mm 5.6 is better and has less issues with peripheral colour problems .....

 

look at a few threads about the 12 versus 15 before you buy.

 

The 12 is a very good value lens for the money.

 

I also had the 18/3.8 but decided to change it for the 21/3.4 which is even better .... and a WATE with the 12 filling in the bottom end.

 

I think Leica will be hard pushed to improve on the WATE and MATE ... it is very difficult to economically produce an equivalent zoom of that compactness .....

 

The next generation M will support autofocus and no doubt there will be several zooms that will cover these ranges ..... but if they are similar in quality to the WATE/MATE they will be big and very pricey .....

[jaapv]

Actually Leica stopped production on the MATE because the blanks of the front element became unobtainable. There would have to be a complete redesign. Otoh, they seem to be on a roll with the zooms on the X-Vario and T Who knows what may turn up...