What is a good wide angle prime lens to use on the SL?

[robgo2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, tommydom said:

John, you have wonderful photos.

Makes me think about a wide angle M Summilux as an addition to my SL and M lenses...

I agree that there are some fine photos in that gallery, but ultra-shallow DOF is not my style. Probably the 21 SEM is my best bet. 

[bags27]

very interesting to me because I'm still thinking about a prime lens for my CL. Following this thread, I discovered this comment on the B&H site for the lens, which doesn't seem confirmed by folks here.

This 21mm on an M240/M10 is absolutely perfection. You won't find a better performing lens on those bodies. Mount this lens on a Leica SL and you will be disappointed. It's a slightly older lens design and the SL does not have offset microlenses so the result is slightly soft images...a major disappointment.

[robgo2]

33 minutes ago, bags27 said:

very interesting to me because I'm still thinking about a prime lens for my CL. Following this thread, I discovered this comment on the B&H site for the lens, which doesn't seem confirmed by folks here.

This 21mm on an M240/M10 is absolutely perfection. You won't find a better performing lens on those bodies. Mount this lens on a Leica SL and you will be disappointed. It's a slightly older lens design and the SL does not have offset microlenses so the result is slightly soft images...a major disappointment.

I was aware of this criticism, but then you read opinions of other users who feel that the SEM is just great on the SL. The fact is that there aren’t many other options at that focal length. 

With regard to using the 21 SEM on the CL, only the center portion of the lens will matter with the smaller sensor. I would expect performance to be excellent. 

[Jenningsmca]

1 hour ago, bags27 said:

very interesting to me because I'm still thinking about a prime lens for my CL. Following this thread, I discovered this comment on the B&H site for the lens, which doesn't seem confirmed by folks here.

This 21mm on an M240/M10 is absolutely perfection. You won't find a better performing lens on those bodies. Mount this lens on a Leica SL and you will be disappointed. It's a slightly older lens design and the SL does not have offset microlenses so the result is slightly soft images...a major disappointment.

I am in the market for a wide angle lens for a future trip and found a used SEM 21 on sale and was thinking of picking it up as the new Leica 21-SL will be probably another couple of years before its introduced. So I am now confused, I thought all M lenses worked well on the SL ?

Edited March 3, 2019 by Jenningsmca

[IkarusJohn]

He comment about the SL not having microlenses is terribly misleading. Yes, some M lenses do not perform as well on the SL as others, but the SL is designed for M lenses ...

[helged]

11 hours ago, Jenningsmca said:

I am in the market for a wide angle lens for a future trip and found a used SEM 21 on sale and was thinking of picking it up as the new Leica 21-SL will be probably another couple of years before its introduced. So I am now confused, I thought all M lenses worked well on the SL ?

21SEM works fine on the SL, no problem. 

[verwackelt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am curious if the S1R and the coming SL2 (same sensor?) will handle the M lenses the same manner…

[Jenningsmca]

2 hours ago, helged said:

21SEM works fine on the SL, no problem. 

I am on the fence to wait for new lens from alliance or wait even longer for the 21/2-SL lens from Leica. I want the lens for travel, mainly inside churches and caves we will be walking through. The preferred lens would be the 21 Summilux but I cannot afford it new and cannot find one used.

Any thoughts ?

[verwackelt]

What about the milvus Lenses from Zeiss?

[Jenningsmca]

19 minutes ago, verwackelt said:

What about the milvus Lenses from Zeiss?

I was thinking more like a native lens for the SL. Not liking the adapters too much accept the M adapter which works flawlessly.

[saxo]

Am 23.2.2019 um 22:56 schrieb robgo2:

I have read that the Super-Elmarit-M 21 f3.4 is superb on M cameras but just OK on the SL. Any truth to that?

I use the 3.4/21 Super Elmarit on the SL. I'm very happy with it for landscape e.g..

As long as you don't need a fast lens, like the summilux 1.4, I would go for the super-elmar. It has minimal distortion (even on film!) and at corresponding aperture better contrast. Look at the MTF-charts of both lenses.

[ramarren]

My favorite wide-angle prime lens on the SL was/is the Leica Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5. 

... Of course this would be some idiotic "upload free" Sunday. sigh. I'd show a couple of photos otherwise. ... 

I love how this lens renders. The FoV is of course tighter on the CL, but I still love the photos it makes...

Edited March 3, 2019 by ramarren

[BernardC]

4 hours ago, verwackelt said:

I am curious if the S1R and the coming SL2 (same sensor?) will handle the M lenses the same manner…

They may have the same basic sensor, but the SL2 will probably have offset microlenses and other subtle tricks to help it deal with M lenses.

The Q, SL, and M10 have the "same sensor," but they don't behave identically, or have the same specifications.

 

As far as the original question is concerned, the Super-Elmar - M 21 seems to be your answer until you can get the Summilux. There are alternative options from Zeiss (Biogon ZM 2.8/21) and Voigtlander (1.8/21), but the Super-Elmar will be more of a seamless marriage with your SL.

[jonoslack]

On 2/23/2019 at 8:47 PM, robgo2 said:

I am interested in something in the 21 to 25mm range. It can be an M, an R, a Zeiss or something else.  Most importantly, it has to work well with the SL sensor. Thanks. 

Rob

Hi There Rob

must it be a prime? the 16-35 works so well on the SL, and of course it's flexible as well. Certainly as good as most primes, especially for landscape work etc.

All the M lenses work well on the SL (it's just that some of them work slightly better on an M - especially the older ones). 

the 21 SEM should be fine on the SL, but contrary to the rest of the world I found that it was slightly soft at the corners towards infinity (that was on an M246). If you aren't planning on fabulously detailed landscapes that shouldn't matter. the 21 and 24 summiluxes are excellent, and probably actually work better on the SL than on an M. 

The WATE is also excellent on the SL, and it's so nice and small as well!

. . but my go-to lens is still the 16-35 Sl.

All the best

Jono Slack

[robgo2]

4 hours ago, jonoslack said:

Hi There Rob

must it be a prime? the 16-35 works so well on the SL, and of course it's flexible as well. Certainly as good as most primes, especially for landscape work etc.

All the M lenses work well on the SL (it's just that some of them work slightly better on an M - especially the older ones). 

the 21 SEM should be fine on the SL, but contrary to the rest of the world I found that it was slightly soft at the corners towards infinity (that was on an M246). If you aren't planning on fabulously detailed landscapes that shouldn't matter. the 21 and 24 summiluxes are excellent, and probably actually work better on the SL than on an M. 

The WATE is also excellent on the SL, and it's so nice and small as well!

. . but my go-to lens is still the 16-35 Sl.

All the best

Jono Slack

Hello, Jono,

Many thanks for your response. I have no doubt that the 16-35 SL is superb, but its size and weight make it unsuitable for my use at this time. The summiluxes cost more than I care to spend, especially considering that I have no need for speed at these short focal lengths. As it happens, highly detailed landscapes are not a strong interest of mine, so it would appear that the 21 SEM is a good choice for me.

Rob

[jonoslack]

14 hours ago, robgo2 said:

Hello, Jono,

Many thanks for your response. I have no doubt that the 16-35 SL is superb, but its size and weight make it unsuitable for my use at this time. The summiluxes cost more than I care to spend, especially considering that I have no need for speed at these short focal lengths. As it happens, highly detailed landscapes are not a strong interest of mine, so it would appear that the 21 SEM is a good choice for me.

Rob

Great! and to be fair, my criticism is minor and a result of obsessive testing! I'm sure you'll love it, and it is delightful and small.

best

[AndreaP75]

On 2/23/2019 at 9:47 PM, robgo2 said:

I am interested in something in the 21 to 25mm range. It can be an M, an R, a Zeiss or something else.  Most importantly, it has to work well with the SL sensor. Thanks. 

Rob

Hi Rob, 

I’ve gone through the same some time ago, from 21 SEM to VM 21 Ultron and eventually set down with the SL 16-35, which is simply outstanding. It’s the perfect landscape and architecture lens, but also totally usable for street and documentary in daylight.

If I have to pick again a 21mm prime for the SL now (while waiting for the SL 21 Cron to be released next year), I would go again with the VM 21, especially if landscape work is not the absolute priority.

The light gathering capability of the VM 21, opening up to f1.8, results in a much better choice for general photography, a lens you can use at any time of the day, in any light, with excellent results. It’s plenty sharp for landscapes stopped down, distorsion is very well corrected (possibly even better than the 21 lux), and it matches the SL sensor nicely.

f1.8 on a 21mm lens allows great shutter speeds when shooting indoor, excellent for documentary work. Unless shooting closeups, you won’t notice much background isolation anyway.

Hope this helps!

Cheers,

Andrea

 

[caissa]

Regarding latest discussions about usability of M lenses on future cameras (like Lumix S and Sigma Foveon) with potentially thicker cover glass, it is maybe wise to consider also how "fail-safe" a lens is.

In this regard the WATE is probably the best M wide-angle. And the L-mount lenses have the advantage that they (SL 16-35, Sunnilux SL 21/24) will be immune against this problem. Interesting will also be to see the quality of the Sigma Art lenses (f 1.4 28 24 20) at a completely different price point. And the adapted old SLR lenses (like Contax Distagon 21mm) will also not be touched by this problem.

Edited March 6, 2019 by caissa

[BernardC]

40 minutes ago, caissa said:

Regarding latest discussions about usability of M lenses on future cameras (like Lumix S and Sigma Foveon) with potentially thicker cover glass, it is maybe wise to consider also how "fail-safe" a lens is.

One clarification: future L-Mount cameras definitely won't have "thicker cover glass." It is inconceivable to suggest that Leica forgot to mention this critical optical detail when defining the L-Mount standard.

That's not to say that Leica L-Mount cameras won't have other optimizations for non-telecentric lenses, like offset microlenses. The cover glass thickness if definitely in the L-Mount spec.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[caissa]

Well Jono thought that it (the thickness) is not part of the L-mount specification, and that Panasonic might try to optimize the thickness for their own lenses, regardless of M lenses.   We will see ....   

(Thicker glass means better protection and less visibility of dust  on the glass cover and better UV filter).

Edited March 6, 2019 by caissa