Super Elmar-M 18 mm f/3.8 ASPH

[jimleicam3]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Right now I own a 50 Lux and a 35 Summicron to use with my M8.  I am waiting to see what the new M camera will be like in the Fall of 2016.  However, after a recent trip to Chile, I really want something wider than my 35 mm.

 

I would love to own a 21 mm Lux, but it is out of my range, and I want to save for the new M.  So any comments on the 18 mm would be welcomed.

 

Cheers!

[hiepphotog]

The SEM 18 is a fine lens. However, if you can spring for the WATE 16-18-21, that would be a lens to get. The SEM 18 has better sharpness across the frame at WO. However, as you stop down, say f/8, the WATE is clearly better at the edges/corners. The center, the SEM still has a little more advantage, but not as clear. Distortion-wise, the SEM 18 is better, but not by much. Ease of filter use (ND, CPL, grad-ND) is about the same between the two.

[wda]

Have you considered a mint condition 21mm Elmarit ASPH? There seems to be plenty around at competitive prices.

[jaapv]

Compact, high quality, relatively affordable. What is there not to like?

[derleicaman]

I tested the 18 SEM for the LHSA Viewfinder journal and found it to be a fantastic lens. The only quibble I had was that the plastic lens cap came off a little too easily and I almost lost it several times over the course of a weekend.

 

I also own the Zeiss 18 ZM lens, and performance wise, it is a virtual tie between the two. In doing comparison shots between the two locked down on a tripod, the only way to tell them apart is that there is a slight focal length difference and you have to refer to the EXIF data to make sure which lens is which. I am disappointed that Zeiss recently discontinued this fine lens and new they are currently around $ 1,200 to $ 1,400. Quite a bargain! The Leica is slightly more compact and the Zeiss hood does seem to be a little more prone to damage.

 

I also own the the 21/2.8 ASPH. Another fine lens. In comparison to the 18 ZM, the Zeiss seems to have the edge in peripheral sharpness. You can't go wrong with any of these three.

[Peter Branch]

When you need to go wide the 18mm is very often more appropriate than a 21mm.

 

I no longer have a 21mm and do not regret its absence in the slightest - the 18mm is more useful and the SEM is outstanding.

[IWC Doppel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On the M8 the 18 is a great lens. On the M9 it's more of the same. I love 21mm on the M9 and would choose 21 over 18 if I had to pick one. The 18 does show notable perspective changes and exaggerates depth more than the 21mm

 

A lovely lens with incredible flare resistance 

[derleicaman]

•  
• Members
• 2,751 posts

• City / Ort:B

   

  On the M8 the 18 is a great lens. On the M9 it's more of the same. I love 21mm on the M9 and would choose 21 over 18 if I had to pick one. The 18 does show notable perspective changes and exaggerates depth more than the 21mm

   

  A lovely lens with incredible flare resistance 

  I agree that the 18 is a bit harder to handle on FF M cameras. Converging verticals and other distortions are easy to provoke. The tools in LR 5 can help out here.

The 18 does show notable perspective changes and exaggerates depth more than the 21mm

[efreed2754]

Have SEM 18 for M9 and now M.  Agree with Jaap fully.

 

21 probably has more uses than 18 as wider you go the less utility, just like longer lenses--the longer you go, the lesser utility.

 

Using 18 requires different shooting style by having to get closer to subject than might be used to with a 35.  Once mastered will have objects in foreground, middle ground and background for example so can tell a real story with the lens or capture buildings and indoors much better.  It stretches your mind more than 35 as does not correspond to normal human vision.

 

BTW big leap from 35 to 18.  Some will suggest 21 as more useful lens.

[pgk]

Some will suggest 21 as more useful lens.

I would. I've always thought a lens with a focal length of less than 20mm is an 'ultra-wide' or in other words a specialist lens. 21mm is a very useful focal length - I use 21/35/75 (or 90) and find little that I want to do that I can't cope with. I've had wider lenses but all have finally become lightly used once their novelty wore off, so I've learnt my lesson and stick with the focal lengths that I actually find really usable.

 

On the M8 a 21mm equates to a 28mm and is a very useful focal length. Whilst its true that the 18mm will equate to 24mm on the M8 so will be very useful too, long term if you upgrade to full frame it might become a bit too much of a cliche and somewhat frustrating. All that said, a lens like an 18mm might well suit you but this depends very much on what you do and what you want to photograph.

[Herr Barnack]

Whether you ultimately choose an 18mm or a 21mm lens should be determined by the application and use of the lens.  The 21mm seems to be more of an all around super wide while the 18mm is more of a specialized lens.  Many people like the 16-18-21 WATE but IMHO it is too heavy and at f/4 too slow.  Others may disagree and that's fine; that is my take on the WATE, not some universal truth.

 

I have the 21mm f/3.4 ASPH and am very happy with it.  It is light, small, extremely sharp and at f/3.4 is not a fast lens but is not what I'd consider to be sluggish; it is still a usable lens indoors for handheld shooting, if you have a reasonable amount of light to begin with and shoot at ISO 800-1250 or perhaps 1600. 

 

Do your research before you invest in any M lens; low cost is not one of their virtues.  It would truly suck to buy a lens too quickly and end up regretting your choice.  If you can get to a Leica dealer to shoot with a couple of lenses before you buy, that is most certainly what you should do.

[mhanke]

For years I enthusiastically used the 24mm Elmar, but more recently added the 18mm Super-Elmar as second wide-angle (I do not really count the 35mm as wide-angle). The image quality is excellent, although I sometimes consider the 18mm shots to be a tad softer than those made with the 24mm - however, this is an impression based on a few comparative shots, and no in-depth evaluation.

 

While I use the 24mm without additional viewfinder on my M9-P, the 18mm necessitates more careful framing, so the extra vewfinder is somehow mandatory. Exception are quick street-shots at close range. The wide angle adds enough "flesh" to correct all framing errors in the software later.

 

For me, compact size and weight are important advantages of both lenses, the more so when considering the bulkiness of the CV 1.2/35mm Nokton II I normally use as a standard lens.

 

Marcus

[rirakuma]

The 21SEM and M8 is a dream combo. I think people are getting sick of hearing me saying that but its just so good. I have never used the 18SEM but did have the WATE and found the 18mm focal length to be redundant. If you're dead set on owning an 18mm the SEM is definitely a good lens but you can also get a very strong contender the distagon for a much lower price.