Super Elmar 21mm f3.4 ASPH Vs. Ultron 21mm f1.8 ASHP on M10?

[anickpick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have owned and used both lenses. The Leica SEM21/3.4 is sharp however I have had two samples that were not consistent across the frame (decentred). They went back to Leica a few times and I was never satisfied with it. 

 

The only benefit of the SEM21/3.4 is that it is a bit lighter and that you can mount filters on it easier - optically the VC21/1.8 was better for me before I gave up because Leica's QC was lacking

 

 

Same here. I was surprised to find out that my copy of the 21 SEM was less consistent across the frame than my 21 Lux...

[Advertisement]

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

[Gregm61]

Try using the 21/1.8 with a 35mm f1.7 Ultron-M. Quite a combination.

[Peter H]

I had the 1.8 Ultron for a couple of years and loved it but I prefer the colours and contrast of the SEM, and much prefer the size.

[rramesh]

Not sure what your other lenses are, but for me, having a 50 lux and a 28 cron, the 21 SEM was a no brainer. You see, they all use 46mm filters. Fast 21s were not really critical for me, as I can always use a small tripod if needed.

[Gregm61]

The size argument against the 21mm f1.8 Ultron is definitely a legitimate one. It's quite a bit heavier and bulkier than the 21mm f3.4 Super Elmar.

 

The 21 SEM I have is quite good, and most of the time I prefer using Leica 6 bit-coded lenses for the convenience of the EXIF data being "complete". I have a three lens Voigtlander outfit of the 21/1.8 Ultron, 35/1.7 Ultron-M and 75/1.8 Heliar Classic with my M262, but most of the time my preferred setup is the 21 SEM, 35/2 ASPH and 75mm f2 APO.

[onasj]

A bit of a tangent from the original topic, I realize, but today I had the rare opportunity to shoot the 21 SEM and the 21 lux side-by-side with the M10 on the same subjects (buildings).  Of course the 21 SEM is optically amazing, just not fast.  The real question for me is whether or not the 21 lux could serve as a truly sharp landscape lens at any aperture-- f/1.4 through 3.4 or beyond.  

 

Happily, the answer is a resounding YES.  In fact at f/3.3, the 21 lux on an M10 was virtually indistinguishable from the superb 21 SEM at f/3.4.  In a blind test, the only way I could pick them apart was to zoom in to 100% and squint at the high-contrast edges of buildings against a bright sky, which had a tiny amount more red fringing from the lux than from the SEM.  At any reasonable print size, I wouldn't expect this difference to be distinguishable.

 

So to my (fairly picky) eyes at least, the 21 lux includes a 21 SEM built into it.  The real downside to the lux over the SEM is the cost ($5,300 or so more!) and the size (super fat diameter at the end of the lens, which could wreak some havoc with your meticulously planned camera bag

 

Of course in low light, the 21 lux is amazing, and even for some context-rich portraits shooting the 21 lux at f/1.4 or f/2 can be awe-inspiring.

[Mr.Q]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not sure what your other lenses are, but for me, having a 50 lux and a 28 cron, the 21 SEM was a no brainer. You see, they all use 46mm filters. Fast 21s were not really critical for me, as I can always use a small tripod if needed.

 

Yeah, filter size is one of my criteria as well. My selection of 21 sem, 35 fle, 50 lux, and a 90 Elmarit all use 46mm filters.

[Jared]

A bit of a tangent from the original topic, I realize, but today I had the rare opportunity to shoot the 21 SEM and the 21 lux side-by-side with the M10 on the same subjects (buildings).  Of course the 21 SEM is optically amazing, just not fast.  The real question for me is whether or not the 21 lux could serve as a truly sharp landscape lens at any aperture-- f/1.4 through 3.4 or beyond.  

 

Happily, the answer is a resounding YES.  In fact at f/3.3, the 21 lux on an M10 was virtually indistinguishable from the superb 21 SEM at f/3.4.  In a blind test, the only way I could pick them apart was to zoom in to 100% and squint at the high-contrast edges of buildings against a bright sky, which had a tiny amount more red fringing from the lux than from the SEM.  At any reasonable print size, I wouldn't expect this difference to be distinguishable.

 

So to my (fairly picky) eyes at least, the 21 lux includes a 21 SEM built into it.  The real downside to the lux over the SEM is the cost ($5,300 or so more!) and the size (super fat diameter at the end of the lens, which could wreak some havoc with your meticulously planned camera bag

 

Of course in low light, the 21 lux is amazing, and even for some context-rich portraits shooting the 21 lux at f/1.4 or f/2 can be awe-inspiring.

 

 

I agree that the 21 'lux is a very cool lens, but my experience does not match yours.  Up to f/5.6 or so there is a pretty sizable difference in contrast between my 'lux and my SEM.  The SEM has significantly higher contrast, quite easily visible at magnifications well below 100%.  Both were very good, but there is no question the SEM had higher contrast--both on axis and in the corners.  Field curvature was also very different between them, though I have not tried to map it out yet.  By f/8 it was harder to tell them apart, and at f/11 they were indistinguishable at less than 100% (or even 200%) magnification.  At all f-stops where they overlap using my two samples the SEM had the "edge".  Of course, sample variation can account for our different experiences.  Perhaps my 'lux is a little worse than average?  Or my SEM is a little better?  Or the reverse might be true for you?

[Steve McGarrett]

I agree that the 21 'lux is a very cool lens, but my experience does not match yours.  Up to f/5.6 or so there is a pretty sizable difference in contrast between my 'lux and my SEM.  The SEM has significantly higher contrast, quite easily visible at magnifications well below 100%.  Both were very good, but there is no question the SEM had higher contrast--both on axis and in the corners.  Field curvature was also very different between them, though I have not tried to map it out yet.  By f/8 it was harder to tell them apart, and at f/11 they were indistinguishable at less than 100% (or even 200%) magnification.  At all f-stops where they overlap using my two samples the SEM had the "edge".  Of course, sample variation can account for our different experiences.  Perhaps my 'lux is a little worse than average?  Or my SEM is a little better?  Or the reverse might be true for you?

 

Judging by official MTFs, I'd say the latter...

 

And yes, I've returned one misaligned SEM (and I see I'm not alone in having found some QC problem...), so I think it's absolutely possible that a below average SEM may look identical to a good Summilux...