Wide M lens on the SL

[Daedalus2000]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Will it be possible please to share your opinions/knowledge on what wide M lenses work well with the SL? I am interested in the range 18mm to 24mm, especially the 18mm and 21mm Super elmars, but in general, it would be good to know which lenses do not have issues with the SL.

 

Thanks!

 

[ramarren]

The best for me is the Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH. Three lenses in a single unit, essentially, and all rendering beautiful, sharp, clean results corner to corner. 

[Advertisement]

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

[saxo]

The 21er Asph. Superelmar is a good lens, performs well with the SL, and very good for panorama shootings. I like the 21, especially because it is not too wide, and only minor distortion.

 

Example:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/251907-bilder-aus-der-sl/?p=3117549

[steveBK]

I only tested with 1 wide - MS Optics 35/1.4 Apoqualia, but it performed no different on SL than on M240

[helged]

I sold my Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm, but keep and use and love the 21mm Super-Elmar-M (ex1 ex2 ex3). At the wide end I have added the Voigtlander Heliar 16mm version III that renders beautifully on the SL.

[Daedalus2000]

Thank you for your replies. Any views on the 18mm Super Elmar?

[rpittal]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use both the 21SEM and 21Lux on my SL. The SEM is much sharper (and much smaller!) compared to the Lux (which I tend to use wide open). Closed down, the Lux approaches the SEM in IQ, but doesn't seem quite as tack sharp (but certainly more than adequate!). Neither present any issues on the SL which is a joy t use with the great EVF for accurate framing. I only take one of these when I travel, depending on need for small size (and best IQ) or fast optic (and flexibility). I have not tried my 21/4 super angelon on the SL (for my M3 and external finder). I recently purchased the 24 elmar (not sure why it is not labeled "super") and it also works very well on the SL, although I do not have as much experience with it.

Regards,

Bob

[ramarren]

Since you asked about wide M lenses, I restricted my comment to the WATE ... I sold the Color Skopar 21/4 and Elmar-M 24/3.8 ASPH to get the WATE and I find it an outstanding performer in all regards.

 

However, the ultra-wide lens I really prefer on the SL is the Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5. This is the Zeiss Distagon 15mm built for Leica R, to Leica's specs on internal filters and tuning. It focuses a lot closer than any of the M lenses and, while it's no match for the WATE at corners and edges, it has its own extremely wonderful imaging qualities that I prefer over any other lens in the range for the SL. It's my second most-used lens on the SL.

[rafael_macia]

I use the 21 SE Elmar  regularly on my SL. It's a spectacular lens. 46mm front, light, blister sharp ..... what's not to like?

The 15 Super Elmar R lens sounds like a winner. I shoot 4K video with the SL, and with ULTRA HD 4K one has a factor of 1.5. so the 21 is 75% higher in mm's. ..... maybe like a 35. To get the angle of a 21 I would need a 12-14 mm lens.

Video is good but the factor is something to think about.

Video severely impacts wide angle lens use with the factor.

Edited May 6, 2017 by rafael_macia

[Guest VVJ]

I sold the 21mm SEM, 28mm Cron and 35mm Cron to fund the 24-90mm zoom.

 

I haven't regretted selling the Crons.  I sometimes regret the 21mm even though it was not getting that much use.

 

It would be very much appreciated if Wetzlar could give an indication of when a 21mm (and especially also a 28mm) prime is to be expected.

 

About the upcoming WA zoom, it should have been the 3rd lens, not the 6th...

[Vieri]

In your range, the Tri-Elmar and the 21mm Super-Elmar, definitely. I you want to go wider, the Voigtlander 10 and 15mm are superb performers without breaking the bank, and work fantastically well on the SL thanks to its brilliant EVF.

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Here's a couple of shots taken with the SL and the 21mm Super Elmer.............love this lens

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[lanetomlane]

WATE 16-18-21 works great for me.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo]

Many users prefer WATE, but if I would go for a lens wider than 21mm, e.g. 16mm, the WATE would not be my choice, it does not focus close enough and is too slow.

 

A fast 16mm lens is good for astrophotography, and close ups are spectacular. Therefore a combination of SE 21mm (light, minimal distortion, razor sharp, high contrast, same filter size as many other M-lenses) in combination with the R 2,8 15mm or the forthcoming SIGMA 1,8 14mm (both lenses bold and heavy!) may be a good choice.

 

But if you are not aiming for these purposes, you will be happy with the WATE, which is a good performer for landscape.

[helged]

Still early days to conclude whether Sigma 14/1.8 is good for astrophoto. If coma is as bad as for Sigma 20/1.4, its a no-go for me. Otherwie, I am in...

[saxo]

As I said, the sigma 'may be a good choice'. Sigma is promoting it for astrophotography, but bad coma would be a no go. We shall see. What would be your choice of  15mm for astrophotography?

[Daedalus2000]

Thanks again to everyone that replied.

 

I can see that the 21mm SE seems to be the preferred lens in this range for most people. I am looking for a lens to use for street photography, and really I am between the 18 SE and 21 SE at the moment.  I am surprised that noone comments on the 18mm, is the 21mm so much superior, or are they both good and it comes down to the focal length preference?

[thighslapper]

to quote Leica 'the Leica Super-Elmar-M 21mm f/3.4 ASPH is a benchmark in all optical performance characteristics'.

 

you will not find a better w/a lens in this focal length. 18mm is just a tiny bit too wide for 'general' use ...... I would rather skip 18 and go straight to 15/16mm if you have a specific need for very w/a. 

 

I had the 18 SE, which is fine but never used it much and is one of the few M lenses I have sold and not regretted it. The WATE is very good at 16 & 18mm and all the Voigts (10-15mm) are excellent. 

 

The images from the SE 21/3.4 are startlingly good ...... you would not regret this as a choice. 

Edited May 7, 2017 by thighslapper

[scott kirkpatrick]

I have the 18 and 21 SEMs.  I find that the 18 only comes out when the 21 can't fit everything in because of access or other space constraints.  I suspect the 18 is a somewhat older design.  I can use the 21 on the street and capture a world that looks familiar, but opened up.  To me the perspective of the 18 is not natural, although it can be interesting in its own right.

 

scott

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jrp]

I think that the 18mm and the 21mm are variations on the same design.  The 18m might not be quite as stunning as the 21mm but, if you need a wider lens, the two are not sufficiently different for that to be the deciding factor.

 

The 10-15mm Voigtlanders are great lenses, when you need them (eg, large interiors, unique perspectives) although I find the colours to be less appealing than the Leica lenses.

 

The wider Summiluxes are not as perfect in their rendition, but have great bokeh when you are trying for a bit of subject separation.