Jump to content

Leica Vario-Elmarit R 21-35mm f/3.5 Lens VS two other brand zooms


thebarnman

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At the cost of the R 21-35 lens, I found this review interesting...  http://www.16-9.net/...oom24mm_f4.html there's six pages of mostly images between the competing lenses. The Leica Vario-Elmarit R 21-35mm does not seem to do as well as I've been reading elsewhere. 

 

Erwin ranked the Vario-Elmarit R 21-35 above all the fixed focal lengths at the longer end.  And in some cases; it even out shines the Leica R primes on the shorter end (in some cases, also from what Erwin wrote.)  That's why when I read (and saw the images) of the review between the Leica R 21-35, the Nikon 17-35mm, and the Sigma 12-24mm...with the Nikon more on top; I was pretty shocked.

 

This makes me wonder if the review between the three lenses is accurate. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 1990s a Japanese toolmaker produced and sold a number of Leice R -> Nikon F adapters. They were glassless and sold for around $60-90 on Ebay. The trick, of course, was that to get infinity focus you needed to set the diaphragm at f8, and you got it by the DOF. I had one for a couple of years, but really didn't use it very much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what Erwin's blog says:

 

"The Elmarit-R 28mm has a slightly higher overall contrast and of course one stop wider aperture... 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."

http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/page88.html

 

Note, of course, that surpassing the comparable fixed focal lengths means competing mostly against lenses released before 1980. The R system never really prioritized moderate wide lenses the way the M system has. The 21-35 compares well against these 1960s and 1970s prime lenses, but falls short in terms of resolution and astigmatism when compared to most aspherical-era prime lenses, including the (non-aspherical) R 28 E55. Still, it is not just that it compares well, but that it also renders like those older primes; and where the 21-35 falls short, it usually just rolls off resolution and contrast like a classical prime lens, avoiding the often-jarring manner of many aspherical lenses. What the 21-35 brings to the table is a prime-like rendering, comparable-or-better-than-classical-prime technical performance, and slightly-larger-than-prime size and handling, while zooming through my favorite range of focal lengths.

 

Personally, I like my 21-35 and 35-70/4 R lenses so much that I'm keeping them for use even as I move to the M9 platform. Their key strength is in providing a smooth rendering while handling harsh edges across majority of the frame very well, drawing crisply but still gently. The 21-35 also has a very nice distortion profile with no mustache to be found. The 21-35 is not parfocal, however, so I'm going to have to tape over the focus scale ring and make my own markings to allow me to scale focus. But their rendering complements my sometimes piqant modern M lenses, and I'd rather keep these lenses than go through a buy-test-sell cycle to find rangefinder lenses that offer similar rendering.

 

I'd recommend investigating the 21-35 to anyone who wants a compact SLR wide zoom for photos with both depth and out-of-focus elements, such as reportage and street. There just aren't many options in that category, so it honestly doesn't take much for the 21-35 to be the best. For those interested in corner-to-corner performance, such as landscape or architecture, I'd suggest considering it only if size was a priority and stopped-down shooting was acceptable.

 

Cheers,

Jon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the way you described the 21-35.  It's not a very fast lens for shooting inside with low light; though with the aperture closed down a little, and "scale" focusing...it would be fine in capturing an area which I'm sure will be in fine focus.  

 

I can accept a bit of "mustache" at the widest settings, though the most disappointing for me is the chromatic aberration.  Worst...It's the Leica that has the most noticeable.   http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/zooms/zoom24mm_distortion.html   I  don't know how that looks in real world situations, however I do shoot mostly transparencies and project those onto a large screen.  So I would be seeing the images blown up quite a bit.  So I guess it's a give and take.   

 

Just to compare, I took a look at the latest "new" 35mm Summicron ASPH (primes) with blown up images compared with other Leica M lenses and other brand lenses only to find it too falls behind in certain areas depending on f/stop, center sharpness, and corner sharpness.  So I guess in that case, the R 21-35 can't be all that bad.       

Edited by thebarnman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget test reports and 'points' and alleged distortion; the 21-35 R is a fine lens; all the following were taken with the 21-35 R using an R9/DMR - thus with 1.37 crop factor, the equivalent zoom range is approximately 28-50mm; if the colours are a bit 'off' that's because I'm colour blind; I regret selling mine (to fund dental surgery) and I'm seeking another. In two of the images I've PP'd the image to introduce distortion for dynamic effect. 

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/260701-leica-dmr-image-thread/?p=3079626

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… but please don't ask me which apertures were used; suffice to say selected apertures suited the subjects and ambient light.
 
 
Best wishes
 
dunk 
Edited by dkCambridgeshire
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Forget test reports and 'points' and alleged distortion; the 21-35 R is a fine lens; all the following were taken with the 21-35 R using an R9/DMR - thus with 1.37 crop factor, the equivalent zoom range is approximately 28-50mm; if the colours are a bit 'off' that's because I'm colour blind; I regret selling mine (to fund dental surgery) and I'm seeking another. In two of the images I've PP'd the image to introduce distortion for dynamic effect. 

Best wishes

 

Hi Dunk,

 

Thanks for sharing your images.  I looked through them all and found what looks like many were shot with more of a wide rather than a closed down aperture; it's the narrow view of focus I noticed on many of the those.  Of course in those cases, it's easy to see the edges are soft in which can be a combination of either less resolution in the corners, or areas out of focus, or a combination of both.  There's a couple distance shots http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/260701-leica-dmr-image-thread/?p=3056693 that look best as far as overall clarity, detail and sharpness.  It could be the distance and/or the aperture being closed a little, or a little of both; not sure.  In both cases; I feel there's a tiny bit of detail missing, but I think that might be due more from the reduction of the original image file...so it can be easily viewed within this forum; more than anything else. 

 

Many of the car images look to be taken at the most wide angle (21mm;) as I can see the stretching that would also happen with many competing lens at that same focal length...though I don't see the mustache effect, and that's a good thing.  In those cases, I would have to look at straight lines going across the image for it to be noticeable.  

 

Overall, nice shots, and at the same time; very revealing of what the 21-35 R is capable of doing.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Dunk,

 

Thanks for sharing your images.  I looked through them all and found what looks like many were shot with more of a wide rather than a closed down aperture; it's the narrow view of focus I noticed on many of the those.  Of course in those cases, it's easy to see the edges are soft in which can be a combination of either less resolution in the corners, or areas out of focus, or a combination of both.  There's a couple distance shots http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/260701-leica-dmr-image-thread/?p=3056693 that look best as far as overall clarity, detail and sharpness.  It could be the distance and/or the aperture being closed a little, or a little of both; not sure.  In both cases; I feel there's a tiny bit of detail missing, but I think that might be due more from the reduction of the original image file...so it can be easily viewed within this forum; more than anything else. 

 

Many of the car images look to be taken at the most wide angle (21mm;) as I can see the stretching that would also happen with many competing lens at that same focal length...though I don't see the mustache effect, and that's a good thing.  In those cases, I would have to look at straight lines going across the image for it to be noticeable.  

 

Overall, nice shots, and at the same time; very revealing of what the 21-35 R is capable of doing.   

 

 

 

They were 28-90mm shots - not 21-35mm - and both were cropped.

 

dunk 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been using the 21-35 on my SL.  I realize this is an R/DMR thread and I can see from the rich images why this DMR tribe is still going strong.  The SL is an even better fit with the 21-35.  You get its unmagnified focal length, and the Leica R to L adapter not only records the focal length in use in the EXIF of each shot, it brings up a lens profile for that focal length, correcting for distortion and lateral chromatic aberration.  The SL's much greater high ISO tolerance means that operating at f/4 or f/5.6 is less of a problem when working indoors.  With the new adapter, one can set the minimum shutter speed to 1/2f or whatever, and have plenty of operating room with this lens.  (Previously it seemed to default to 1/30 sec.)

 

I don't have any Spitfires, or vintage RollsRoyces to show here.  (Dunk, I'd love to see a full side-on shot of your 8-passenger biplane with affordable rides.)  I did  side-by-side comparisons about a month ago between an Elmarit-asph M 28 lens and my 21-35 at 28mm.  Differences were visible but small.  I found the 21-35 rendering crisply across the field.  See https://flic.kr/p/MKRe4S and the 100% crop at https://flic.kr/p/LYov4T .  And here's a once-a-year whole family shot, slightly cropped but shot at 21 mm and f/5.6:

 

29457147704_7e8e060c90_o.jpgS1020881 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

scott

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been using the 21-35 on my SL.  I realize this is an R/DMR thread and I can see from the rich images why this DMR tribe is still going strong.  The SL is an even better fit with the 21-35.  You get its unmagnified focal length, and the Leica R to L adapter not only records the focal length in use in the EXIF of each shot, it brings up a lens profile for that focal length, correcting for distortion and lateral chromatic aberration.  The SL's much greater high ISO tolerance means that operating at f/4 or f/5.6 is less of a problem when working indoors.  With the new adapter, one can set the minimum shutter speed to 1/2f or whatever, and have plenty of operating room with this lens.  (Previously it seemed to default to 1/30 sec.)

 

I don't have any Spitfires, or vintage RollsRoyces to show here.  (Dunk, I'd love to see a full side-on shot of your 8-passenger biplane with affordable rides.)  I did  side-by-side comparisons about a month ago between an Elmarit-asph M 28 lens and my 21-35 at 28mm.  Differences were visible but small.  I found the 21-35 rendering crisply across the field.  See https://flic.kr/p/MKRe4S and the 100% crop at https://flic.kr/p/LYov4T .  And here's a once-a-year whole family shot, slightly cropped but shot at 21 mm and f/5.6:

 

S1020881 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

scott

 

Scott, Regret I do not have a full side view of the Dragon Rapide but there are photos on the Classic Wings website http://www.classic-wings.co.uk  My flight was for just 15 to 20 minutes and cost £39.

 

dunk 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunk, thanks for the link.  I knew something sounded familiar.  My T-6 owner friend, Pablo Cohn, actually took the full Spitfire course and got checked out for solo back in 2012.  At Duxford.  He wrote it up in a series of blog posts starting down near the beginning of his blog at https://davidpablocohn.com/category/roadtrip/flight/page/6/ .  It must have been awesome.  He handles the 100 ppm problem (GBP per minute) by the fact that he joined Google well before the IPO.

 

scott

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's probably why I noticed a difference.  I saw the same difference with other image from those who used the 28-90. 

 

Thanks again

 

 

The 28-90 R is one of the Peter Karbe team's finest zoom lenses and its DNA went into the X Vario 18-46mm (28-70mm FF equiv) zoom 

 

dunk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

To update to my post from last month about scale focusing the 21-35 on an M9:

 

35mm appears to be as marked.

 

21mm appears to be one mark closer than indicated. To explain, the 21-35 has marks in meters at infinity, 7, 3, 2, 1.2, etc. If you want to focus on a subject 7 meters away, set the lens to 3 meters; if you want to focus on a subject 3 meters away, set the lens to 2 meters.

 

Focal lengths in between are roughly proportionate to their distance between 21mm and 35mm, so 28mm is about one-half mark closer than indicated.

 

I didn't conduct exhaustive testing on this. (I took test images at each marked position on an M9-based Monochrom, at both feet and meter markers, as well as at each focal length, in a static frame with subjects at about 50 meters, 10 meters, and 5 meters away based on a satellite map. At that level of granularity, there were only slight differences between adjacent test images when viewed at 200% magnification on screen. I also took images of closer subjects using that same approach, although with only casual distance estimation, and the result was acceptably in focus.) But, it is good enough for my purposes, especially given the large error with my (in)ability to visually estimate distance. Actual photos taken while walking about (Monochrom, 21-35, Frankenfinder) show about an even number of front-focused and back-focused images, but likely close enough that if I had stopped the lens down to even f/5.6 it would be considered "in focus."

 

Also, as I've just started making my own prints, I don't think any of the focusing errors I made with this approach would be meaningfully visible in an 6.6x10" (~17x26cm) print, the only size at which I can claim any sort of familiarity. 

 

Perhaps at some point I'll get my R7 back (currently on loan to a family member) and will be able to see how this approach measures up to its intended application. :-)

 

Cheers,

Jon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

An old thread I know but I am considering a 21-35 to use on my R9 with film. The respect these lenses are held in is reflected by the prices that 17 to 10 year old lenses are fetching or being asked. I expected to be able to find one at less than £1,000 but on research, I was in for a rude awakening. The cheapest, well used ones are over £1500 and for a newer good condition one closer to £2,000. I am not sure I can justify this sort of expense for occasional film use. For digital I have the 11-23mm and 18mm pancake TL lenses and 18mm SEM , 25mm Biogon ZM plus various 28 and 35 lenses for film and digital on my M cameras. 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

UK dealers have sold decent s/h Leica 21-35R lenses for c..£1500 / £1700 for several years; it's an excellent lens which holds its price. If the need is for a FF wide angle for just the 21mm focal length. you might consider a Leica R Super-Angulon R 21/4 which is excellent at f8 and superb at f11 … all Super Angolans require stopping down to give their best. I sold my 21-35R knowing that the Super Angulon R 21/4 is a very worthy performer. The Leica Super Angulon R 21/4 is often found with 'Schneideritis' whereby the lens elements' edge paint has deteriorated - but this does not compromise its imaging and can be a £negotiating factor when buying. 

dunk 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

An old thread I know but I am considering a 21-35 to use on my R9 with film. The respect these lenses are held in is reflected by the prices that 17 to 10 year old lenses are fetching or being asked. I expected to be able to find one at less than £1,000 but on research, I was in for a rude awakening. The cheapest, well used ones are over £1500 and for a newer good condition one closer to £2,000. I am not sure I can justify this sort of expense for occasional film use. 

Wilson

That is good to know - I bought my near mint example from the Guildford branch of LCE just over a year ago. They had reduced it from £2000 to £1500 during a sale (possibly it was being sold on commission?).  A wonderful lens on both my R5 and M240 (and Sony A6500, albeit as a 32-52mm).

Edited by Keith (M)
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The going rate in the UK seems to be around £1500. A well-known London dealer has three listed at around this price. If they are being sold on commission, it might be worthwhile making an offer, say 10% down on asking price, for the dealer to pass on to his client. If the lens has been sitting around a while the client might well be minded to accept. I have experience of this from the other side as a commission seller - I was invited to accept 10% less than the asking price, which I did. As it happened, the proposed sale then didn't materialise, and shortly afterwards the lens was sold by the dealer for the original asking price!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Super Angulon 21/4 has too much against it for me to put it on my wish list. Soft corners, a bit slow, vignetting, no ROM version (as far as I know) and generally slightly less than traditional Leica image quality. I know Erwin is not a Schneider fanboy but he damns it with faint praise.  If I was going to buy a wide prime, I would buy the Leica ELMARIT-R 24mm f/2.8 ROM. The 19mm is too expensive at over £2000. I will speak to Ivor at the Red Circle Ranch and see if we can come to a landing on price, on one of the three 21-35 lenses he is offering. The 24 Elmarit ROM lenses generally go for about £1000. I know there is a cheaper one from Chile but this is too difficult if there is a problem with the lens, getting customs duty refunded etc. 

Wilson

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not get any of the 21-35 sellers to knock a single cent/centime/milli-zloty off their asking prices, which took them outside my budget. I did find a 24/2.8 ROM lens, where the German seller (from whom I have bought in the past) reduced the price from €1100 to €1001, which I therefore bought. Unlike some other sellers, this one includes the pin mount hood and I am sure I must have an e60 skylight or UV filter somewhere. 

Wilson

Edited by wlaidlaw
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...