Vario-Elmarit R 21-35mm on SL

[jacelech]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has anyone had experience with the Vario-Elmarit R 21-35 f 3.5-4.0 on the SL, or come across any reviews that would comment on image quality?

[Advertisement]

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

[Ario Arioldi]

I own it since a few weeks and I did not have yet the opportunity to use it extensively, but as fas as I can see it is an excellent performer. The only review I am aware of is of Erwin Puts and is not specific for the SL or for any digital but it is worth to mention the concluding remarks: 

The Ve-R 21-35 asph has an optical performance that equals and in many cases surpasses the comparable fixed focal lengths and delivers very punchy images.

[steppenw0lf]

I do not have access to this lens. But I have used many others in a similar focus range  (Nikon 2.8/17-35, WATE, R 15 old, R 19 new, Nikon 20 and 24, some more 24s, M 28, etc.) They all work perfectly on the SL.

The 21-35 is a R-lens, meaning it is a retrofocus design. These work very well on the SL. (They actually never were a problem, because of their relatively large distance to the sensor.)

 

I remember I have seen some images on this forum - try a search on the image thread.

 

The image quality is the same as it always was      (look at the MTFs)        

 

P.S. The only "problem" is that the SL does not know which focal length is selected as with all R zooms. So the "auto-correction" is not automatically perfect.

[Leicaiste]

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/253192-leica-sl-image-thread-post-your-examples-here/page-57

[JeffWright]

I owned this lens from the R9-DMR days, and kept it for use on Canon pro bodies for several years after bailing on the R9--unlike the 28-90 this lens is easily adapted to Canon bodies.  It was a GREAT lens in it's day, but the Canon and Nikon designers haven't stood still since that time. Nice features are the compact size and fantastic build quality. On full frame Canons, performance is solid--probably better than the 21-R and 24-R (which are actually quite old designs), but certainly nowhere the performance of the 19-R v2 (which can also be modified, but permanently defaced, for Canon mount) or last version of the 28 Summicron-R. At 21 mm there was a fair bit of distortion, kind of a mix of pincushion and mustache as I recall, which largely went away by 24 mm or so. Contrast is good, but there is quite a bit of loss of sharpness in the corners in comparison to modern primes. Color rendition is fantastic, for practical purposes identical to that of the 28-90. The WATE is better at 21mm than the 21-35. I have used the current Leica M lenses on the SL in this range and they are notably superior to what I was able to get with the 21-35 on the Canons, particularly in terms of corner sharpness, but also overall micro-contrast and distortion. On the other hand, the current Canon and Nikon professional zooms in this range also perform spectacularly well, and represent designs which are now nearly 20 years newer. Even the most recent Canon 16-35/2.8 performs as well, or perhaps better, in the 21-35 range, and it's considered a bit of a dog in comparison to the competing Nikon and other Canon L lenses.

 

The 21-35 performed brilliantly on the DMR, but that was primarily because of the DMR's smaller sensor.

 

I ultimately sold the 21-35 in favor of carrying the Zeiss 21 Distagon and 24-70mk II Canon zoom combination. The Zeiss 21 is probably 50% bigger and heavier than the 21-35, but the IQ from the Distagon is vastly superior.

[Leicaiste]

...but certainly nowhere the performance of the 19-R v2 (which can also be modified, but permanently defaced, for Canon mount) ....

 

 

The only drawback of the 19/2,8 V2 is the lack of filter thread.

 

The internal filter turret is of little use on digital cameras (other than the M Monochrom).

 

It would be nice if Leica could replace the 3 built-in color filters with 3 different ND filters.

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has anyone had experience with the Vario-Elmarit R 21-35 f 3.5-4.0 on the SL, or come across any reviews that would comment on image quality?

 

If it's of interest I don't have the 21-35/3.5-4 Vario-Elmarit-R but I do have the Konica 21-35/3.4-4 Dual M-Hexanon, which in my opinion is excellent on the SL with superb build quality.

 

Pete.

[3ed]

The only drawback of the 19/2,8 V2 is the lack of filter thread.

 

The internal filter turret is of little use on digital cameras (other than the M Monochrom).

 

It would be nice if Leica could replace the 3 built-in color filters with 3 different ND filters.

 

It has an 82mm threaded front.

[Leicaiste]

It has an 82mm threaded front.

Not the V2.

[Leicaiste]

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/e/e0/Elmarit-R_19_mm_Technical_Data_en.pdf

[farnz]

Not the V2.

 

I agree.  My 19/2.8 Elmarit-R v2 doesn't have a filter thread either.

 

Pete.

[ferdinand]

There was a special filter adapter for the 2,8/19 V2 created by Leica in order to the wishes of some R users. I don't think, that this adapter will be still available 

[Leicaiste]

There was a special filter adapter for the 2,8/19 V2 created by Leica in order to the wishes of some R users. I don't think, that this adapter will be still available 

 

 

I would love that. Any part number ?

[toyfel]

If it's of interest I don't have the 21-35/3.5-4 Vario-Elmarit-R but I do have the Konica 21-35/3.4-4 Dual M-Hexanon, which in my opinion is excellent on the SL with superb build quality.

 

Pete.

 

Thank your for this valuable information, Pete. I've been tempted to find a copy of that lens for quite some time, especially after release of the SL, but wasn't sure whether the lens would suffer from similar performance issues as some other wide angle lenses designed for film cameras. Given your positive impression about its performance on the SL, it becomes an instant dream lens for me. For my use, the 35/21mm focal length combo is ideal. And not having to switch lenses is a very welcome extra benefit. In addition, when needed it can be used on M cameras, both digital and film. That makes it more useful and versatile for my use than the R 21-35.   

[farnz]

The 21-35 Dual M-Hexanon is a true zoom lens too, which the SL's TTL design allows you use.

 

Pete.

[steppenw0lf]

it becomes an instant dream lens for me. For my use, the 35/21mm focal length combo is ideal.

Regarding dream lenses, have a look at the Nikon 2.8/17-35 . I have never used the Konica, but this Nikkor is better than any other I used in this range, on D800 but also on the SL. And second-hand it is now quite inexpensive.

Stephan

But it seems you are actually looking for a M-lens, and a limited edition ? The Nikkor is only a normal lens and of course bigger, but still quite compact compared to the latest UWA zooms.

[toyfel]

Regarding dream lenses, have a look at the Nikon 2.8/17-35 . I have never used the Konica, but this Nikkor is better than any other I used in this range, on D800 but also on the SL. And second-haind it is now quite inexpensive.

Stephan

But it seems you are actually looking for a M-lens, and a limited edition ? The Nikkor is only a normal lens and of course bigger, but still quite compact compared to the latest UWA zooms.

 

Thanks for suggesting the Nikkor, it's a very good idea for people looking for a less expensive alternative. For someone like me who enjoys using both M and SL, the Konica has the advantage of straightforward compatibility with all of these bodies (digital and analog). I'd use the Hexanon mainly on the SL but there will be occasions where it would be handy to mount it on a film M (I like to use film once in a while and in that case the Hexanon offers a unique focal length range that no other single M lens can match). The fact that the Hexanon is quite rare and to some extent sought after by collectors is not important to me. Unfortunately it's fairly expensive for that reason, but combined with a CV15 (and a suitable finder for the film M) it's still cheaper than a second-hand WATE and 15/21/35 is much more useful to me than the WATE's 16/18/21 focal length. So it seems the Hexanon would be a thrilling lens for my particular case.

[farnz]

Another advantage of using the Konica 21/35 on the SL is that the SL allows the user to select 35mm (full frame) or APS-C (cropped frame) giving access to 21, 35, and 50 mm focal lengths with the same lens.  The 50 mm focal length with APS-C will of course provide a lower resolution picture but it can be useful to have that focal length available for the odd occasion where the lower resolution is not a factor and not need to carry an extra lens.

 

Pete.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[steppenw0lf]

it's still cheaper than a second-hand WATE and 15/21/35 is much more useful to me than the WATE's 16/18/21 focal length. So it seems the Hexanon would be a thrilling lens for my particular case.

 

 

Well, anything is cheaper than a WATE.  But they have not much in common, so are not really contenders. In a way you could even say they complement each other - as zooms.

Typically the Konica comes complete with finder etc. , because it is a collectors item.

But I have never ever seen a test of it, it was never popular with a max. of 800 pieces - so I am not really sure how close it comes to the top M lenses.

Konica did of course boast about it, but not many followed them. 

Enjoy!     Stephan

By the way, do you know what the price was when new ? (in 2002 ? Do not know the exact year, but at the beginning of the century)

And to Farnz: I think it is a zoom, isn't it ? So you do not need to use tricks to get all the focal lengths between 21 and 35. They are all usable on the SL, as far as I see. A 50 is so small and cheap that I would always use a dedicated lens, but I probably wouldn't need a 50 when a good 35 is there. (cropping in LR gives always more possibilities than fiddling with the camera on a shoot.)

[toyfel]

Well, anything is cheaper than a WATE.  But they have not much in common, so are not really contenders. In a way you could even say they complement each other - as zooms.

Typically the Konica comes complete with finder etc. , because it is a collectors item.

But I have never ever seen a test of it, it was never popular with a max. of 800 pieces - so I am not really sure how close it comes to the top M lenses.

Konica did of course boast about it, but not many followed them. 

Enjoy!     Stephan

By the way, do you know what the price was when new ? (in 2002 ? Do not know the exact year, but at the beginning of the century)

And to Farnz: I think it is a zoom, isn't it ? So you do not need to use tricks to get all the focal lengths between 21 and 35. They are all usable on the SL, as far as I see. A 50 is so small and cheap that I would always use a dedicated lens, but I probably wouldn't need a 50 when a good 35 is there. (cropping in LR gives always more possibilities than fiddling with the camera on a shoot.)

 

for a new 21-35 Dual M-Hexanon the dealer price in Japan in 2003 was 132000 Yen (I think they were only sold in Japan)

 

Not sure if you'd call it a test but this is an interesting read   http://www.dantestella.com/technical/2135.html