*Leica* 21mm elmarit asph or super-elmar ?

[phototrope]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has anyone used both the Leica 21mm f/2.8 elmarit asph and  the 21mm f/3.4 super-elmar lenses, and preferred the elmarit?

I ask because I am looking to buy either one of these lenses very soon. I've been looking at lots of pictures made by these lenses. I can see that the super-elmar produces stunningly sharp images, edge to edge, and vivd colours.. and yet I can't help preferring the images made by the elmarit asph  (not the pre-asph). I'm wondering if I am imagining it or if anybody else who has experience with both these lenses agrees.  Care to share your experiences?

Dislaimers:
- I use only film leica cameras, for now.
- I am aware of the 21mm lenses made by Zeiss, Voigtlander, 7Artisans and Contax, have researched them, and am not interested in them (so please don't mention them as "possible alternatives").

Edited May 28, 2020 by phototrope

[SiggiGun]

I owned the 2.8 pre ASPH. For a long time and replaced it by the SEM 3.4. Simple no question for my. The difference is very impressive. Same for the 3.8 /24mm extremely good lens

[wda]

I have the Elmarit which I used on film and digital bodies. I continue to be very impressed with the performance of each of my Elmarit lenses.

[Gobert]

I had the Elmarit On my M10 before replacing it by the WATE. I can highly recommend it.

[a.noctilux]

Phototrope,

- I use one Elmarit-M 21mm asph. for decades and never need to "upgrade" (to one the "best" like the SEM 😇 ).

- as I like different lenses, I have over years other 20/21mm lenses Super-Angulon 3.4 or 4/21 , Zuiko 2/21, 2 x Nikkor 20,

my best all-round 21mm lens is the Elmarit-M asph. which shines on films and sensors

- a bit of "moustache" distortion for precise work, that is the only thing I care about when framing tight

[lct]

I have both M 21/2.8 asph and 21/3.4 asph indeed. My only reason to keep the former is speed because i'm a raw shooter so i can adjust contrast in PP. But i don't use the lens that much to be honest. If you shoot film or jpegs you may prefer its slightly less contrasty rendition but you may find some color shifts at edges and corners if you have an earlier digital camera than the M10. Easy to adjust in PP though.  

[giannis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The f/3.4 lens is more consistent across the frame, and maybe a bit sharper, but all this is fine print; someone could switch the lenses in your bag when you're not looking, and you could never tell from sharpness alone.

The most important difference is distortion and size. That's the f/3.4's claim to fame. It offers very minimal distortion and a very compact size. It's designed as a modern equivalent of the super angulon. In terms of distortion and size, it's only bested by the Zeiss 21mm f/4.5 Biogon.

Are you willing to sacrifice (lack of) distortion and size, for 2/3rds of a stop gain in aperture? That's the question you need to answer, and obviously it depends on how much you need that extra light. To make the difference in size a bit more tangible, the f/2.8 is about 50% heavier, give or take, than the f/3.4 and uses 55mm filters versus 46mm for the slower lens.

Edited May 28, 2020 by giannis

[lct]

1 hour ago, giannis said:

The most important difference is distortion and size. That's the f/3.4's claim to fame. It offers very minimal distortion and a very compact size. It's designed as a modern equivalent of the super angulon.

OK for the size but i hardly see significant difference re distortion between my 21/2.8 asph and 21/3.4 asph i must say. I'm no pixel peeper though. Did ou see such a difference on the specs? 

[giannis]

16 minutes ago, lct said:

OK for the size but i hardly see significant difference re distortion between my 21/2.8 asph and 21/3.4 asph i must say. I'm no pixel peeper though. Did ou see such a difference on the specs? 

The difference is very small of course and only noticeable in architecture shots with lots of straight lines. (I'm talking about film btw, on digital many lenses are profiled and have their distortion corrected digitally in-camera even). Just as the difference in sharpness is very small. All those are within the pixel peeping realm, which I find is a moot point to begin with.

The only lens that you can notice its lack of distortion without pixel peeping too much, is the f/4.5 Biogon. (Also the same for the super angulon design).

Anyway, people should handle lenses to see how they actually feel in hand, how is the size/weight, or how long the focusing distance on the lens is from infinity to minimum. And how they handle flair, backlit situations, etc., what apertures they end up using the most, etc. These are the things that affect your pictures the most, and how much you'll enjoy using the lens. All the rest, like minute differences in sharpness, and secondarily distortion, is a distant second concern.

Edited May 28, 2020 by giannis

[lct]

Just had a look at the Leica specs and distortion looks similar on both lenses. I mean the Elmarit 21/2.8 asph and Super-Elmar 21/3.4 asph. No idea about the Biogon 21/4.5  but my Super-Angulon 21/3.4 looks superior to both lenses re distortion. BTW Leica M bodies do not correct for distortion, at least my M240 does not. My digital CL does but its distortion corrections look similar on both lenses as well. FWIW.

Edited May 28, 2020 by lct

[sebben]

Super Elmar. It's all in the name. Super.

[louys]

I bought the Super-Elmar a few weeks ago in preference to the f/2.8 ASPH. 

The difference between 2.8 and 3.4 is not important for me. But size and weight are. On my M10 the Super-Elmar sits comfortably in the hand and focus is swift and smooth. The results are superb. I don’t want to take it off the camera!

[Schittra]

21 hours ago, Gobert said:

I had the Elmarit On my M10 before replacing it by the WATE. I can highly recommend it.

I am thinking about WATE too. I want to go wider and look like WATE can give better solution and more option. How do you like it so far?

[pgk]

The SEM is a state-of-the-art lens. It is a fabulous performer with low distortion and pretty flare resistant. It’s the ‘best’ 20-21mm lens I’ve owned (and I’ve owned a lot). For me the question and it’s answer are a no brainier: the SEM.

[Gobert]

2 hours ago, Schittra said:

I am thinking about WATE too. I want to go wider and look like WATE can give better solution and more option. How do you like it so far?

I love the wate. The most perfect wide angle travel lens as long as you are not looking for a fast lens.
 

[J.Nordvik]

Everyone should have a 21mm SEM. It is by far the best lens for value of Leica lenses today.

[phototrope]

Thank you everyone who posted.  I really appreciate the many helpful and informative replies.

I see there's lots of love for the 21 SEM, and it seems to make perfect sense to go for that. But there's a couple of things which have been mentioned about the 21 elmarit asph which keep me coming back to it. Namely, the lower contrast and the extra 2/3 stop of light, both of which I think would be more helpful for film. Weight and size don't bother me - I've become used carrying a noct E58 around. Also I think I can see more pleasing results from the 21 SEM on film but I'm still not sure if I'm imagining it.

The 21 SEM certainly has incredible resolution which draws an almost hyper-real image on digital - not sure it works so well on film, but I would like to be convinced that the 21 SEM is incredible for film as well.

Still undecided.

[Gobert]

I think you are more attracted to the Elmarit than to the SEM. My advice is to follow your heart...

 

May be you’d have a look at even faster 21’s. However, please consider that you might be attracted to the DOF, Hight shutter Speed and/or shaky hands are of less relevance with a wide angle like this.

[pgk]

9 hours ago, phototrope said:

.....the lower contrast .....

I don't get this. Lower contrast = greater veiling flare = less shadow detail. Its a fault not a benefit!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[phototrope]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

I don't get this. Lower contrast = greater veiling flare = less shadow detail. Its a fault not a benefit!

mm, not really. Veiling flare is an aberration which occurs when a lens (or its coating) does not correctly handle stray incoming light rays hitting the lens at unusual angles of incidence. It only occurs when such light rays are present. Whereas the "lower contrast" I'm referring is a permanent feature of the lens configuration, and equates to capturing of greater tonal gradation. This is a benefit mainly for black and white film (but also colour in certain situations)

Edited May 30, 2020 by phototrope