gowron808 Posted January 30, 2018 Share #1 Posted January 30, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello everybody, I am new to the forum, though not to Leica. My first camera was a late 1940's Leica rangefinder that my father gave to me over half a century ago - regrettably long lost. But today I have a very specific question about the Vario-Elmar R 21-35mm. I shoot with Sony full frame (A7 and A7R). In your opinion, can the Vario-Elmar 21-35mm replace a set of primes in that range of focal lengths? My question is mostly focused on convenience. I do quite a bit of landscape and travel photography, and going around (read airport security) with a whole bunch of primes is getting tiresome. I currently have two setups in this range: Elmarit R 24, Elmarit R 28 and Summicron R 35. I used to have a Super Angulon 21mm f/4 but sold it, as I never came to see it as an equal of the other three lenses, which I truly like (yes, the "Minolta" too). and Zuiko 18mm, Zuiko 21mm f/3.5, Zuiko 24mm f/2.8 and Zuiko 28mm f/2.8 I truly like the images that I get with both of these setups, but am looking to make my life simpler. However, I will not do so at the expense of image quality. Moreover, in order to fund the 21-35 I will have to sell many of these lenses, which are dear to my heart, although I will almost certainly keep the Summicron 35 and the Zuiko 18, no matter what. I have had a very hard time trying to find out meaningful information about the Vario Elmar, as much of what is out there is either old or written with an axe to grind. Any and all opinions are most welcome! Thanks! Alberto Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 Hi gowron808, Take a look here Vario-Elmar R 21-35mm on Sony FF. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tritentrue Posted January 31, 2018 Share #2 Posted January 31, 2018 Whether the lens can replace primes would be up to the individual user, but it can effectively augment any lens setup. It is one of my favorite lenses to use on my a7rII, at least as good as any primes I've used at corresponding focal lengths and apertures. The one exception might be the 21mm f/3.4 Super-Elmar-M, though this lens seems to be at its best on a Leica body. For landscape photography it's hard to beat. For architecture, even at 21mm, its modest distortion is simple and easy to correct, either with the Lightroom profile or by slider. Properly focused it is sharp in the corners wide open at any focal length, though at its best from 24-35mm. I originally sought the 21-35mm to replace my Elmarit-R 24mm f/2.8, which--as a reportage lens--did not serve me well for shooting landscapes. It also ended up replacing my version 1 Elmarit-R 19mm, which has harder-to-correct complex distortion. Compared to the much-hyped 28-90mm Vario, it gives a bit more contrast and resolution at 28mm when both are compared using the a7rII. I've never used either version of the R 28mm prime, so have no frame of reference for it. The one lens it won't replace for me is the 35mm Summicron-R. I don't mind carrying both when I head out the door. Before I sourced my copy a few years back, I couldn't find much information about the lens other than a couple of "reviews" where the sample photos appeared to have been framed and poorly focused without much care. I took a chance on it when I came a cross a mint copy, and have found it to be a very rewarding lens, especially so on the a7II and a7rII. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.noctilux Posted January 31, 2018 Share #3 Posted January 31, 2018 Welcome Alberto. My temptation to buy the Vario-Elmar-R 21-35 vanished when I've found one. I wanted the wide Vario-Elmar second hand for long time to "replace my primes" as you but on R (and M) Leica. But in the shop, when I saw the big distortion at 21mm and 24mm, I didn't buy it. When consulted later the specifications those are almost 4% distortion at 21mm I saw. But those are easy corrected "simple" distortion as Rob stated. If you can accept this why not. You can find in Wiki some informations on the lens here: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/21mm%E2%80%9335mm_f/3.5%E2%80%93f/4.0_ASPH._Vario-Elmar-R 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.noctilux Posted January 31, 2018 Share #4 Posted January 31, 2018 Forgot to link technical data. So here, to download 21-35 Vario-Elmar-R , in pdf: http://us.leica-camera.com/Service-Support/Support/Downloads?category=&subcategory=93778&type=68377&language=all 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 31, 2018 Share #5 Posted January 31, 2018 It’s a heavy beast on a mirrorless, over half a kg IIRC. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.noctilux Posted January 31, 2018 Share #6 Posted January 31, 2018 Not light as all R lenses. At 500g the Vario-Elmar-R 21-35mm is a bit heavier than 430g of Summicron-R 2/35mm (II). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted January 31, 2018 Share #7 Posted January 31, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) I bought the 21-35mm Vario Elmar a couple of months ago for my R5 & M240. My first zoom since parting with my Canon 5D MkII & 16-35mm when I switched to Leica in 2009. When considering the purchase, one deciding factor was the statement by E Puts in his Leica Compendium:- This lens is very pleasant to use, compares favourably to companion lenses of fixed focal length, has excellent to outstanding overall performance and gives the user a new range of creative possibilities. It is one of the few lenses that has no weak points in performance or handling. Good enough for me! My results so far certainly agree with Erwin's assessment. As to use on the Sony A7 family, I seem to recall quite a few comments about corner smearing when using wide angle Leica lenses, so testing before committing to purchase would be a good idea. Hmm, I might (out of curiosity) try mine out on my new Sony A6500 APS-C - I tried my 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH and did not see any obvious degradation in the corners. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tritentrue Posted January 31, 2018 Share #8 Posted January 31, 2018 Corner smearing on Sony full-frame seems to be a characteristic of some M-mount lenses, which is why I prefer to use R lenses with Sony. I suppose I could post corner crops of the 21-35mm at 21mm to illustrate its sharpness; but people are gonna believe what they're gonna believe anyway. As for distortion, again, it's a matter of one's preferences or requirements. Someone who shoots a lot of architecture or urban landscapes might find even the simple correction it requires to be tedious, while someone like me can shoot varying subject matter with very satisfying results. Too, shooting rectilinear graphs at or near minimum focus distance might produce a more alarming result than a real world shot, one of which is attached (uncorrected) below. Bear in mind that the ceiling edge is shot at an angle, not squared. 21-35mm @21mm, f/5.6 on Sony a7rII . . . 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! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/281362-vario-elmar-r-21-35mm-on-sony-ff/?do=findComment&comment=3452382'>More sharing options...
tritentrue Posted February 1, 2018 Share #9 Posted February 1, 2018 I agree with Mr. Puts' assessment of the lens, as quoted above. Another uncorrected example at 21mm, f/5.6 on Sony a7rII: 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! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/281362-vario-elmar-r-21-35mm-on-sony-ff/?do=findComment&comment=3452386'>More sharing options...
gowron808 Posted February 1, 2018 Author Share #10 Posted February 1, 2018 Thank you all for the very useful input. I learned more over the last 24 hours than in several days of googling! I am not concerned about a bit of distortion, I can certainly live with what Rob's samples show - and definitely with the other qualities that the lens displays in these images . I think that these are the first images that I see taken with this lens that I find to be useful to form an opinion. I am not concerned about the bulk either, 500g or so is not all that different from other lenses that I use assiduously, such as the 35-70 Vario Sonnar or the 58mm f/1.2 Rokkor. I think of it the other way around: the A7xx are light and small for the lens, but you get used to it. As for corner smearing, I am aware of the problem with M lenses, and that is why I stayed away from them. And I think that it is an issue with individual lenses, not an issue intrinsic to Sony FF. For example, the Super Angulon 21 f/4 was absolutely horrible (at least mine was), the Zuiko 18 is significantly better but not perfect, the Zuiko 21 is much better, and the Zuiko 24, Elmarit 24 and Elmarit 28 are all perfect. I had read Erwin Puts' various incarnations of his review of the lens, but for some reason had never focused on the quote that Keith brings up - that one sentence more or less closes the deal for me And, as Rob, I will always keep my Summicron 35. It is one of those magical lenses that I cannot see parting with, together with the Summilux 50, Summicron 90, a couple of Vario Sonnars and the Rokkor 58 1.2 Thanks again!! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tritentrue Posted February 1, 2018 Share #11 Posted February 1, 2018 Although I am not one who goes looking for brick walls to shoot, my path took me past a fake one today while I had the 21-35mm mounted, and I couldn't resist. Shot at about 60cm, 21mm @f/3.5. This is not how I would use this lens under everyday circumstances . . . 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! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/281362-vario-elmar-r-21-35mm-on-sony-ff/?do=findComment&comment=3452550'>More sharing options...
Steve McGarrett Posted February 1, 2018 Share #12 Posted February 1, 2018 Corner smearing on Sony full-frame seems to be a characteristic of some M-mount lenses, which is why I prefer to use R lenses with Sony. I suppose I could post corner crops of the 21-35mm at 21mm to illustrate its sharpness; but people are gonna believe what they're gonna believe anyway. As for distortion, again, it's a matter of one's preferences or requirements. Someone who shoots a lot of architecture or urban landscapes might find even the simple correction it requires to be tedious, while someone like me can shoot varying subject matter with very satisfying results. Too, shooting rectilinear graphs at or near minimum focus distance might produce a more alarming result than a real world shot, one of which is attached (uncorrected) below. Bear in mind that the ceiling edge is shot at an angle, not squared. 21-35mm @21mm, f/5.6 on Sony a7rII . . . 21mmdistortion.jpg I'm interested in seeing some other sample for sharpness evaluation, especially at 21 (which is the weaker focal lenght according to specs...) at real world apertures (f/5.6 to 11) Thank you Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tritentrue Posted February 1, 2018 Share #13 Posted February 1, 2018 The image in the post you quoted was shot at f/5.6. The lens seems to be at its best at about 24-35mm, but it's still plenty good for me at 21mm . . . 21mm @f/5.6 (entire frame) 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! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/281362-vario-elmar-r-21-35mm-on-sony-ff/?do=findComment&comment=3452887'>More sharing options...
tritentrue Posted February 1, 2018 Share #14 Posted February 1, 2018 Above shot, upper left crop at 100% . . . 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! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/281362-vario-elmar-r-21-35mm-on-sony-ff/?do=findComment&comment=3452889'>More sharing options...
tritentrue Posted February 1, 2018 Share #15 Posted February 1, 2018 Lower left crop at 100% . . . 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! 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/281362-vario-elmar-r-21-35mm-on-sony-ff/?do=findComment&comment=3452891'>More sharing options...
Steve McGarrett Posted February 1, 2018 Share #16 Posted February 1, 2018 These were taken on A7? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted February 1, 2018 Share #17 Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) These were taken on A7? A7rII according to the earlier photos from 'tritentrue'. Edited February 1, 2018 by Keith (M) 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McGarrett Posted February 1, 2018 Share #18 Posted February 1, 2018 OK, so on SL should be at least as good Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted February 2, 2018 Share #19 Posted February 2, 2018 I have not tried my 21-35mm Vario-R on my A6500 as I have that range more than covered with a Sony/Zeiss E 16-70mm ZA with OSS. When I use one of my R or M prime lenses it is necessary to go into the menu system and set the specific focal length. I imagine the A7RII's menu system is similar, so which focal length to choose? 21mm & hope/assume that will not over-correct when zooming in? Or opt for 28mm as an average? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tritentrue Posted February 2, 2018 Share #20 Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) Keith, the a7rII needs to know focal length only if stabilization is switched on. The only menu option I see for distortion is in the Lens Comp. option (#7 under the gear icon). I leave all three items switched off, as I believe the other option, auto, is for native lenses only--although the a7rII instruction manual doesn't specify one way or the other. When I shot the lens on the SL, which supposedly has some sort of in-built "profile" for the lens, I wondered how it knew what focal length to apply, as I was using R-Adapter-M and M-Adapter-T stacked, which does not transmit focal length data. I came to realize that--at least for distortion, vignetting, and CA--no corrections were being applied by the camera. Rob Edited February 2, 2018 by tritentrue 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.