Lucky 21: Leica 11135 vs 11145?

[d2mini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm looking at picking up a 21mm wide angle and wondering whether I should go for the discontinued 11135 f/2.8 version of this lens or the new 11145 f/3.4?

I like the price and extra speed of the older version but wondering what there is to be gained by going with the newer version.

 

Also, the older comes in non-6 bit as well... if shooting in raw, any real benefit to the 6 bit other than having the correct info in EXIF?

 

This would be used on my m240, alongside my 35 cron and 90 elmarit.

 

Thank you!

[pgk]

If you wade through old posts on this subject using the search you will find that the current 11145 is an exceptional lens. Technically it is better than any of its predecessors. And yes the 6-bit coding is required to get the best from this focal length.

[d2mini]

Thanks, I had done a search but didn't really find what I was looking for.

There are tons of threads comparing the super elmar to the biogon and such but i only found a couple that discuss these two and mainly it seemed to be the 3.4 is sharper edge to edge?

Maybe I'm just not good with the search on this forum or not using the right search terms.

 

And again, what is it about the 6 bit that will "get the best" from this focal length when shooting in raw? I'm still unclear about that in general.

I replaced the ring on my 90mm elmarit with a 6-bit ring and painted it myself, so I would automatically have the correct frame lines and exif info.

Figured I could do the same with the 21mm if I needed to.

[Herr Barnack]

I have the 21/3.4 Super Elmar - I cannot recommend it too highly.  I can't see how a person could go wrong with this lens.

[rramesh]

Not sure of your budget but don't rule out the Voigtlander without trying first.

[Paulus]

I will never sell my Super Elmar. It's great!

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There are tons of threads comparing the super elmar to the biogon and such but i only found a couple that discuss these two and mainly it seemed to be the 3.4 is sharper edge to edge?

 

And again, what is it about the 6 bit that will "get the best" from this focal length when shooting in raw? I'm still unclear about that in general.

 

 

Figured I could do the same with the 21mm if I needed to.

 

I haven't tried the Biogon but it seems to have its adherents. I have the Super-Elmar. Its is by far the 'best' 20/21mm lens that I have owned, and I have owned a lot from a variety of manufacturers over the years. Its sharp across the frame, very flare resistant and the only downside (if you see it as that - I don't) is its 'clinical', extremely precise rendering. I cannot rate it highly enough. A superb lens. I doubt from what I have read that the Biogon is as good - already there are posts saying what I would say - the Super-Elmar really is a superb, state-of-the-art design.

 

6-bit coding is more of a requirement with wide-angle lenses as it allows the camera to 'correct' for colour casts (red) which can occur in the corners and edges of wide-angle images due to the angle of incidence of light hitting the sensor on full frame cameras like the M series - again if you search you will find a lot of info - its far more advantageous to have 6-bit coded wide-angle lenses than standard or longer focal lengths. If you don't have 6-bit coding then software like 'corner fix' can sort out colour casts and vignetting but 6-bit is much easier.

[d2mini]

I haven't tried the Biogon but it seems to have its adherents. I have the Super-Elmar. Its is by far the 'best' 20/21mm lens that I have owned, and I have owned a lot from a variety of manufacturers over the years. Its sharp across the frame, very flare resistant and the only downside (if you see it as that - I don't) is its 'clinical', extremely precise rendering. I cannot rate it highly enough. A superb lens. I doubt from what I have read that the Biogon is as good - already there are posts saying what I would say - the Super-Elmar really is a superb, state-of-the-art design.

 

6-bit coding is more of a requirement with wide-angle lenses as it allows the camera to 'correct' for colour casts (red) which can occur in the corners and edges of wide-angle images due to the angle of incidence of light hitting the sensor on full frame cameras like the M series - again if you search you will find a lot of info - its far more advantageous to have 6-bit coded wide-angle lenses than standard or longer focal lengths. If you don't have 6-bit coding then software like 'corner fix' can sort out colour casts and vignetting but 6-bit is much easier.

 

Thanks, I'm not interested in the Biogon, i just kept coming across those comparisons. It's all the Leica 21's that I'm looking at. 

The clinical thing you bring up is one thing I don't really look for in a Leica lens. I have nikon dslr for that. I'm more drawn to the more artistic renderings of Leica lenses. So in a way, this could be a downside for me.

 

With the 6 bit coding, i guess i was under the impression that if you are shooting in raw, no adjustments are applied to the image. Is this not completely true?

But in that same vein, is there a big difference between the 21's when it comes to vignetting and color shifts along the edges? This is more of a concern for me than the edge to edge sharpness.

 

Thanks!

[pgk]

The clinical thing you bring up is one thing I don't really look for in a Leica lens. I have nikon dslr for that. I'm more drawn to the more artistic renderings of Leica lenses. So in a way, this could be a downside for me.

 

With the 6 bit coding, i guess i was under the impression that if you are shooting in raw, no adjustments are applied to the image. Is this not completely true?

 

But in that same vein, is there a big difference between the 21's when it comes to vignetting and color shifts along the edges? This is more of a concern for me than the edge to edge sharpness.

 

Clinical is more technically excellent/precise I suppose. I think that the Super-Elmar is a stunningly good lens and I use it a lot. I also have a f/3.4 Super-Angulon which I like, but its chalk and cheese and the results from the Super-Angulon need extensive adjustment via Cornerfix unless you are happy in B&W.

 

6-bit coding adjustments are applied to the RAW file before it is written to the card so the RAW file IS adjusted for the coded lens and this cannot be undone.

 

You will have to check via a search for coloured edges and other lenses but certainly the Super-Angulon produces considerable colour shifts - it is the extreme case due to its more symmetric design and the extreme angle at which light hits the sensor edges. I still like it though.

[d2mini]

ok, thanks for the clarifications!

[MT0227]

The 21MM SEM has a 9 bladed diaphragm vs. 8 on the Elmarit‑M 2.8 (fun if you like to play/shoot into the light); is considered sharper wide open, with the differences in quality between center, edge and corner being almost non existent.  I own one and for me, it certainly lives up to it's reputation as one of "best" lenses available today at this focal length.