meerec Posted January 29, 2017 Share #1 Posted January 29, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) How's the combo for landscapes? Has it been discussed here or elsewhere? Considering to buy it to replace my two Voigtländer-M 10mm and 15mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 Hi meerec, Take a look here 18mm/f3.8 Super-Elmar-M ASPH on SL for landscapes. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jrp Posted January 29, 2017 Share #2 Posted January 29, 2017 Why? Too much to carry? (Get the 12mm) Too wide (the 18mm is a fine lens on the SL). The alternatives are the WATE (more expensive), the 21mm Leica lenses (narrower) and a whole set of Zeiss alternatives (no native profiles). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meerec Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share #3 Posted January 30, 2017 Why? Too much to carry? (Get the 12mm) Too wide (the 18mm is a fine lens on the SL). The alternatives are the WATE (more expensive), the 21mm Leica lenses (narrower) and a whole set of Zeiss alternatives (no native profiles). Not too much to carry, both Voigtländer are very small. But I'm trying to reduce both to just one lens, and the 18mm elmar takes "legacy" 77mm filters so it's an advantage for landscapes. Also I may be happier with IQ and overall results from the 18mm elmar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted January 30, 2017 Share #4 Posted January 30, 2017 Not too much to carry, both Voigtländer are very small. But I'm trying to reduce both to just one lens, and the 18mm elmar takes "legacy" 77mm filters so it's an advantage for landscapes. Also I may be happier with IQ and overall results from the 18mm elmar. The 18mm SEM works very well on the SL - as it does on the M240. f/5.6 is sharpest in the centre region but f/8 gives the best overall coverage. A tripod and exemplary technique are required to routinely be affected by such considerations. Not sure about fitting filters, as far as I know it requires a special adaptor because of the shape of the front glass surface. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted January 30, 2017 Share #5 Posted January 30, 2017 The 18mm SEM works very well on the SL - as it does on the M240. f/5.6 is sharpest in the centre region but f/8 gives the best overall coverage. A tripod and exemplary technique are required to routinely be affected by such considerations. Not sure about fitting filters, as far as I know it requires a special adaptor because of the shape of the front glass surface. Yes, the filter ring is an accessory for the WATE. It costs about $100 and takes 67mm filters... It's easy to use it with a 67->77 step up ring if you want to standardize on 77mm filters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted January 30, 2017 Share #6 Posted January 30, 2017 I think Nick Rains (Leica Ambassador and Academie instructor) uses the 18 as his wide solution. Maybe shoot him an email. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meerec Posted January 31, 2017 Author Share #7 Posted January 31, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) g I think Nick Rains (Leica Ambassador and Academie instructor) uses the 18 as his wide solution. Maybe shoot him an email. Gordon good idea ... do you happen to know the email address he's most likely to read (as I'm sure he has several) -mirek Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted January 31, 2017 Share #8 Posted January 31, 2017 Yes, the filter ring is an accessory for the WATE. It costs about $100 and takes 67mm filters... It's easy to use it with a 67->77 step up ring if you want to standardize on 77mm filters. Leica sell a dedicated adaptor for fitting E 77 filters to the 18mm SEM. It's part number 14484 and retails for about £80 (GBP) in the UK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meerec Posted January 31, 2017 Author Share #9 Posted January 31, 2017 Still deciding about this lens, researching, weighing options for the upcoming SL-16-35 zoom that will be pretty good (weather sealed) however much larger and more expensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
su25 Posted February 1, 2017 Share #10 Posted February 1, 2017 Still deciding about this lens, researching, weighing options for the upcoming SL-16-35 zoom that will be pretty good (weather sealed) however much larger and more expensive. I am also considering this lens as well as Zeiss 18m f4 ZM. SL 16-35 zoom has been ruled out as it will be expensive, although much better optics. Zeiss - because it is cheaper, and I will not be using 18mm often. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted February 1, 2017 Share #11 Posted February 1, 2017 WATE or SL 16-35 is the difficult choice (in about a year). A second-hand WATE is almost affordable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meerec Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share #12 Posted February 1, 2017 WATE or SL 16-35 is the difficult choice (in about a year). A second-hand WATE is almost affordable. Haven't seen "cheap" WATE on the market, have you? At what price? WATE and SL 16-35 so different can't be really compared in my thinking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alo Ako Posted February 2, 2017 Share #13 Posted February 2, 2017 I thought about the WATE. My conclusion is: wate for 16-35 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meerec Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share #14 Posted February 2, 2017 Yes. I will wait till 16-35. But hey, there's more money to spend earlier on the SL-75. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted February 3, 2017 Share #15 Posted February 3, 2017 I like the clean look of the Super Elmars. Have the 18 and the 21. The 21 is a good fit with an M, but the 18 really needs the SL to be usable. Here's an example of an image from the 18 SEM with some depth to it, shot at f/8. Not intended to be a pretty landscape, rather the opposite in fact: S1030649 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted February 3, 2017 Share #16 Posted February 3, 2017 Live view on the M240 is good enough for the 18mm SE, but it is great on the SL, too. As your photo illustrates, these are high contrast lenses! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoySmith Posted February 3, 2017 Share #17 Posted February 3, 2017 I like the clean look of the Super Elmars. Have the 18 and the 21. The 21 is a good fit with an M, but the 18 really needs the SL to be usable. Here's an example of an image from the 18 SEM with some depth to it, shot at f/8. Not intended to be a pretty landscape, rather the opposite in fact: S1030649 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr scott I thought this was an environmental self portrait I have the 18 SEM and the 24 Elmar and really like them. The 21 is tempting and would complete the set. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meerec Posted February 3, 2017 Author Share #18 Posted February 3, 2017 I've owned the Elmar 24 for some time. Great lens. Today I've bought the Super Elmar 18 !! So much cheaper in London than in Sydney, by the way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.