Jump to content

Leica 18mm vs. 21mm SEM


Dirk Mandeville

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own an M9 and will soon own an M10. I have a wide selection of M mount lenses in the following focal lengths: 15, 28, 35, 50, 75, 85, 90, and 135. My photography covers the gamut from portraits to architecture to street to nature/wildlife/landscape to family snapshots. I like variety and having different lenses to suit different purposes. In that vein, I have a nice mix of modern and vintage lenses and a wide variety of focal lengths. At this point, the biggest gap in my lens selection seems to be in the range between 15mm and 28mm. I would like a modern lens to fill in this gap. So for my next lens purchase, I am thinking about getting either the 18mm or 21mm SEM. Just curious what people's thoughts are regarding the differences between these two lenses / focal lengths and the advantages / disadvantages of each, especially given my current selection of lenses. I could also consider an equivalent focal length lens by Zeiss, so that is up for discussion as well.

 

Let me say that I don't bring all of my lenses with me every time I shoot. I pick a few lenses to take on a shoot based on my anticipated need for that day. The lens I am considering for this purchase would be mostly used for landscape and architecture. When I think I might need wider than 28 but don't want to go as wide as the 15. Speed of the lens is not much of an issue, but I want good sharpness edge-to-edge, good microcontrast, and low distortion. For reference, I currently own the CV 15mm (second gen, soon to be replaced with 3rd gen) and the 28 Elmarit. At some point, I may also purchase the CV 10mm or 12mm. Obviously, I prefer to spend my money on lenses rather than camera bodies. :) Any thoughts or insights are greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't speak for the 18; I've owned the 21 SEM for 2 years. Prior to this, a ZF 21 and 14-24 Nikkor. 

In comparison, the SEM is one for the ages.

A design tour de force; compact, none of the color issues of the Summilux, and sharper into the corners at equivalent f-stops. Very modern 'look', if that's what you're after.

 

Recall also that the 18 has no built-in filter thread in contrast to the M46 of the 21mm and is essentially an ƒ/4 lens. You already own a 15. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Super-Elmar-M 18 mm Asph is a very good lens. The Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph is an amazing lens–and it takes E46 filters.

If you could elaborate on this, I'm curious what qualities make the 18 very good vs. the 21 being amazing. This seems to be a common theme that both lenses are great, but that the 21 is the better of the two. Other than the filter thread, can you quantify what the differences are? Thanks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not choose between the 18mm and 21mm on the basis of technical performance. They are both "as good as you can get at the size" lenses.  So you need to choose on the basis of which focal length is most useful.  (In my case, I find a 21mm wide enough, but use the 18mm for particular shots.). That said, the Summilux does allow more interesting low light / close up shots, if not the technical perfection of the slower lenses.  So I'd get the 18mm and a 21mm Summilux.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you could elaborate on this, I'm curious what qualities make the 18 very good vs. the 21 being amazing. This seems to be a common theme that both lenses are great, but that the 21 is the better of the two. Other than the filter thread, can you quantify what the differences are? Thanks.

Well, Puts writes that the 21 SEM "has just a little bit more optical finesse." That should clarify things for you.  :blink:

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could elaborate on this, I'm curious what qualities make the 18 very good vs. the 21 being amazing. This seems to be a common theme that both lenses are great, but that the 21 is the better of the two. Other than the filter thread, can you quantify what the differences are? Thanks.

 

Simply, the extra coverage is why I chose the 18. Can't wait to see what I can do with it in about 3 weeks when I take my setup to White Sands National Monument.

 

Sunrise through the office window, with the M262..

 

[url=https://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Other/Leica-M262-Images/i-RjmL6f7/A]L1018068-X2.jpg[/

url]

 

L1017644-X2.jpg

Edited by Gregm61
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Simply, the extra coverage is why I chose the 18. Can't wait to see what I can do with it in about 3 weeks when I take my setup to White Sands National Monument.

 

Sunrise through the office window, with the M262..

 

[url=https://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Other/Leica-M262-Images/i-RjmL6f7/A]L1018068-X2.jpg[/

url]

 

 

 

 

Is that a straight or curved building?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The SEM 18 should be incredible on Digital M, but many less own that lens which is why it gets less love.

 

When Sony mods are tested against the M240, the SEM 18 is one lens which is actually the same on the Kolari A7 v2 as the Leica, according to multiple sources. (Kasson and Digilloyd) That tells me the idea that it's a bit older and not as digital friendly as the 21 is not the case. Looking at the charts, the 18 actually seems a tad stronger, but somebody else may see that better.

 

I have the SEM 21 and Zm18. The 21 is alot stronger on the far edge. But I really want a SEM 18. :)

Edited by uhoh7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait till you get Jaap in on this 18mm love-fest!

haha, I found that out :) Well, Jaapv is usually correct.

 

Another thing is the SEM 18 had a very high price for a time. Now you see them under 2k.

 

I don't buy lenses that often anymore (I should sell a bunch), though I still don't have a FLE, 50 Lux, Macro-Elmar, or 90 cron.

 

But there is one lens ahead of all of those for me: SEM18.

 

The 21 is outstanding:

21444177093_0bffc7378f_b.jpg

Apparition by unoh7, SEM 21 A7.kolari

 

but I shoot the 28 cron alot, and 18 is a better match.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Buy both and return the one you like the least. :)

 

Personally, I purchased the SE 18 to shoot architecture and interiors (churches, etc.). For the past four years, I have been a Fuji X shooter and the excellent Fuji XF 10-24 f4 lens has been my most used lens for my various travel vacations to Iceland, China, Japan and Europe. Since some of my favorite images were shot in the 10 to 14mm range, the Super Elmar 18 for my Lecia M10s was a no-brainer.

 

I still own and use my Fuji X gear, but for my vacation to New Zealand and Australia later this year, I will be taking my 2 M10s and SE 18, Lux 50 and Cron 35 and 75 lenses. It all fits very easily in my Billingham Hadley Pro bag.

 

Regards,

Bud James

 

Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.

Edited by budjames
Link to post
Share on other sites

Buy both and return the one you like the least. :)

 

 

. . . . and you would not mind if it were you to be the next customer to get then the "new" lens that is not new at all? A lens that is not originally parcelled and that is full of finger prints? If I would get such a lens i would send it back  :blink:

 

I would propose to rent these lenses and try them out like that.

Edited by Alex U.
  • Like 3
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...