21mm Sumerlux or 21mm Super Elmar on the SL

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I get my new SL with a Noctilux 50mm f0.95 on Wednesday. I am thinking about which WA I should get. Originally I had a 21mm Sumerlux when I was shooting with my M and that was a amazing lens (big on the M) but even so an amazing lens. The 21mm 3.4 Elmar is supposed to also be an amazingly sharp 21mm lens but due to the small size of it would you think that the Elmar would look dwarfed on the SL.......what about Zeiss or any other 3rd party wide angle lens would you guys recommend?? IF you also have pictures that would be cool to

Thanks in Advance

 

Neil

[Advertisement]

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

[ramarren]

I tend to prefer using R lenses on the SL for ergonomics sake, and on that basis have Super-Elmar-R 15mm, Elmarit-R 19mm, and Elmarit-R 24mm lenses. But the Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH is indeed an outstanding performer on the SL; I use that frequently. 

 

I haven't heard too much about the Summilux-M 21mm on the SL but I kind of presume that it will work very well. 

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

I tend to prefer using R lenses on the SL for ergonomics sake, and on that basis have Super-Elmar-R 15mm, Elmarit-R 19mm, and Elmarit-R 24mm lenses. But the Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH is indeed an outstanding performer on the SL; I use that frequently. 

 

I haven't heard too much about the Summilux-M 21mm on the SL but I kind of presume that it will work very well. 

 

Mate

I've never seen any of the tri range lenses...........I'm heading to my mates Leica shop later this morning I will have a look and see what they are all about

Cheers 

 

Neil

[steppenw0lf]

The R 19mm Version 2 is great. The Milvus 2.8/21 is quite big but wonderful. I would probably go for that.

 

I also like the WATE very much (16-18-21) - it is by far the smallest and lightest lens of this focal range and with high IQ.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

The R 19mm Version 2 is great. The Milvus 2.8/21 is quite big but wonderful. I would probably go for that.

 

I also like the WATE very much (16-18-21) - it is by far the smallest and lightest lens of this focal range and with high IQ.

 

Stephen, small like its going to get dwarfed on the SL or small like in the sumerlux size....what f stop is the WAIT

[steppenw0lf]

WATE stands for Wide Angle Tri Elmar, so it is the same lens that Ramarren suggested. (16-18-21 at f/4).

Typically UWA zooms are terribly big and heavy - the WATE is the big exception. It weighs only 335g.

I think it has the right size, but it is expensive. It is also very easy to use filters - while most UWAs are difficult in that regard.

Some people like lenses to be weatherproof, the WATE isn't. The Milvus is weatherproof and one of the best Zeiss constructions.

 

I actually have the WATE and it is very often in my bag. But currently the Milvus 21 (or Distagon 21) is at the front of my shopping list.

 

There is an image somewhere ...

Here it is - I posted it some months ago:  http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/261883-has-anyone-tried-the-zeiss-zm-15mm-distagon-on-the-sl/?do=findComment&comment=3066290

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 21 Summilux sits very well on the SL (as does the 15 Distagon), and the results are better on the SL than on the M (in my view).  Can't post a picture from the office, though ...

[JeffWright]

I get my new SL with a Noctilux 50mm f0.95 on Wednesday. I am thinking about which WA I should get. Originally I had a 21mm Sumerlux when I was shooting with my M and that was a amazing lens (big on the M) but even so an amazing lens. The 21mm 3.4 Elmar is supposed to also be an amazingly sharp 21mm lens but due to the small size of it would you think that the Elmar would look dwarfed on the SL.......what about Zeiss or any other 3rd party wide angle lens would you guys recommend?? IF you also have pictures that would be cool to

Thanks in Advance

 

Neil

 

 

The 21 Super-Elmar is my choice, its fantastic for what I use it for (landscape). I found it better than the Zeiss 21/2.8 ZE formulation, and it's much smaller. 

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

The 21 Super-Elmar is my choice, its fantastic for what I use it for (landscape). I found it better than the Zeiss 21/2.8 ZE formulation, and it's much smaller. 

 

Jeff I've asked my mate at the Leica store in KL to get me one

[MT0227]

Hey Neil....if razor sharpness and zero distortion is your desire, the 21 Super-Elmar M (SEM) is a wise choice if f/3.4 works for you.  If you put the SL in 1x1 aspect ratio, slap on the 21SEM,  you kind of have a digital SWC/M at f/3.4.   It certainly looks small on the SL, and probably the only negative.

[vanhulsenbeek]

Have a look at the Ultrawide Picture thread on the Leica M lenses subforum:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/253730-your-ultra-wide-angle-uwa-pictures-10mm-to-21mm/

[ramarren]

Hey Neil....if razor sharpness and zero distortion is your desire, the 21 Super-Elmar M (SEM) is a wise choice if f/3.4 works for you. If you put the SL in 1x1 aspect ratio, slap on the 21SEM, you kind of have a digital SWC/M at f/3.4. It certainly looks small on the SL, and probably the only negative.

That depends on how you figure the SWC FoV-DoF vs 1x1 inch FoV-DoF. The SWC FoV is ~90 degrees across the frame diagonal, which requires about a 16mm lens on 1x1 (24 x 24 mm ) format. A 21mm lens on FF 24x36mm nets about the horizontal FoV of the SWC, but not the vertical.

 

See this chart for AoV equivalents:

 

Likewise, the smaller format's DoF gain is about 3 stops, so for example an SWC focused for 10' @ f/11 generates depth of field  approximately equal to a Leica SL in square format mode with 16mm lens focused for 10' @ f/4. 

[MT0227]

Thanks for the chart Ramarren...I did said "kind of", this helps clarify

 

That depends on how you figure the SWC FoV-DoF vs 1x1 inch FoV-DoF. The SWC FoV is ~90 degrees across the frame diagonal, which requires about a 16mm lens on 1x1 (24 x 24 mm ) format. A 21mm lens on FF 24x36mm nets about the horizontal FoV of the SWC, but not the vertical.

See this chart for AoV equivalents:

[ramarren]

Thanks for the chart Ramarren...I did said "kind of", this helps clarify

 

 

You're welcome. 

 

This is one of my specialties ... the Hasselblad SWC remains my all-time favorite camera. I bought the Super-Elmar-R 15mm and Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm to continue my obsession with ultra-wide square format photography. 

[pico]

This is one of my specialties ... the Hasselblad SWC remains my all-time favorite camera.

I have another WA to ruin your day: Horseman 6x12 with 35mm Grandagon.

 

I think I already posted pics of my recently finished 4x5", 6x9cm w/ 47mm SA.

[Helmut99]

You're welcome. 

 

This is one of my specialties ... the Hasselblad SWC remains my all-time favorite camera. I bought the Super-Elmar-R 15mm and Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm to continue my obsession with ultra-wide square format photography. 

You should really try the VL 10mm. It offers a whole new perspective and good IQ at the price. ;-)

[ramarren]

My ultrawide obsession is rather specific. I'm not really interested in wider than the SWC or other formats than square. The 15-16mm lens on the SL set to square format is just right. 

 

(This is why I'd like a Hasselblad X1D with a 22mm lens .. :-)

[Jeff S]

FWIW, the Fuji GFX lens road map shows a 23mm weather resistant lens in mid-2017.  The EVF (detachable, with optional tilt) offers square format cropping.  

 

Although not sleek like the X1D, it will offer 'old school' controls.....ISO dial, shutter speed dial, aperture markings on lenses, etc....with modern features as well such as tilt  screen.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[MT0227]

Mine too...I will never give mine up 

 

.. the Hasselblad SWC remains my all-time favorite camera. 

[MT0227]

I may have to give the Tri-Elmar-M a test.

 

My ultrawide obsession is rather specific. I'm not really interested in wider than the SWC or other formats than square. The 15-16mm lens on the SL set to square format is just right. 

 

(This is why I'd like a Hasselblad X1D with a 22mm lens .. :-)