Super Elmar 18mm / 3.8 - thought?

[Schittra]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi 

I start to like wide angle more these days. I like my Summilux 24 as a go-to lens when I need light (e.g., museum, restaurant, indoor, etc.). I have interesting perspective from Voigtlander 12mm/5.6. I use to have SEL 21/3.4 before. I see SEL can give dramatic viewpoint - but not dramatic enough. At the same time, it's not natural enough (comparing to 24). 

I found the Super Elmar 18/3.8 in town - like new in box condition at half price of new one. I don't expect speed from it. I'm interested in the perspective of 18mm at 100 degree. If you have it, can you share the experience please? If you don't have it, but you used to have it - please share experience too. Thanks a lot.

[Advertisement]

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

[derleicaman]

I tested the 18 SEM vs the Zeiss 18/4 ZM. I did this for the LHSA Viewfinder. I found the two lenses to have virtually the same performance. The 18 SEM is very problematic when using filters. The Zeiss uses a 58mm I believe.

I sold my Zeiss to partially fund my WATE.

[Schittra]

1 hour ago, derleicaman said:

I tested the 18 SEM vs the Zeiss 18/4 ZM. I did this for the LHSA Viewfinder. I found the two lenses to have virtually the same performance. The 18 SEM is very problematic when using filters. The Zeiss uses a 58mm I believe.

I sold my Zeiss to partially fund my WATE.

Thank you for the input. Can you elaborate more on the problematic using filter on 18 SEM? My understanding is, SEM18 needs to have adapter ring. 

From your message, you did go to Zeiss and later come back to WATE I personally like WATE too.. close focus at 0.5 meter with 16mm and 21mm too. How do you like WATE so far?

[newnew]

My two cents. As you have just acquired the 24 lux I suggest you continue using it for a while in order to understand in which situations your photo would have been better with another focal , like 18 or 21. I have my SEM 21, I have the 24 Elmarit and I have once tested the 18mm, because one was available. I did not retain it as it is too wide versus I used to be compfortable , and did not think it would add more to my photography ( very personal p.o.v.). I was more interested to go wider for instance with a Zeiss 15/2.8  ZM but it gave me purple fringing so it was out. A better option may be the 15 R from Leica but it is heavier. 18mm will be available around for some time.

[derleicaman]

1 hour ago, Schittra said:

Thank you for the input. Can you elaborate more on the problematic using filter on 18 SEM? My understanding is, SEM18 needs to have adapter ring. 

From your message, you did go to Zeiss and later come back to WATE I personally like WATE too.. close focus at 0.5 meter with 16mm and 21mm too. How do you like WATE so far?

Yes, the adapter ring seemed like a major PITA to deal with. I thought the Zeiss approach was more straight forward.

I love the WATE! I used it extensively on my Med Cruise in 2018, and got some incredible images with it. Here is my review for the LHSA Viewfinder

https://lhsa.org/2019/06/the-wate-wide-angle-tri-elmar-the-ideal-travel-lens

I also sold my 21/2.8 Elmarit ASPH to help fund the WATE. Live view with the M10 is much better than using optical finders or the Frankenfinder for the WATE. On the Med Cruise, I used the Viso 020 the first day, but found it slowed me down too much. I needed accurate framing with the WATE, especially for interior shots of the Sagrada Familia and Bernini’s Alter in St Peters, and Live View worked a treat.

I am a wide angle junkie, and for me a 28 is like a normal lens. I have the 28/2.8 ASPH, the 24/3.8 Elmarit ASPH and the ZM 25/2.8 from Zeiss. All fantastic lenses in their own right. Also a vintage 28 Summaron and Hector for loads of character. I kept my CV 21/4 Color Skopar to have a compact super wide in the bag when I don’t want to haul the WATE or one of the other super wides. I still have the CV 15, but have never gotten along with it, as the 16 of the WATE is far superior.

[jankap]

Did you try a loupe (Hoodman for instance)? Sigma offers one for its FP. I like EVF very much, but some cameras don't have the interface and a built-in EVF cannot rotate. In principle an EVF is similar to a live view plus loupe.

[FDS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd like to offer a somewhat different point of view concerning the 18mm Super-Elmar.   I have never needed to use a filter with the lens so that's not an issue for me.  

I use it with both M10P and M10-M and I like the results from this lens very much.  It is nearly as 'refined' as its 21mm 'sister' which I also have (I would corroborate Erwin Puts's review).  It is rather more demanding to use than the 21mm but, when deployed effectively, offers a perspective that can be very enhancing.  For some situations, I use the Viso 020 but mostly the optical viewfinder is usually sufficient for framing and offers great brightness;  I greatly prefer the feeling of not having to look through a 'tunnel'.    

I have shot with the WATE at 18mm and found that I preferred the imagery of the Super-Elmar, especially wide open.  But this could be down to the individual sample of each lens.   Also, I haven't felt the wish for the 16mm advantage of the WATE.   

'Free advice is only worth its price' as the cliche goes but, if the 18mm that you are considering is a good 'specimen' then you should be able to sell it later on without much of a loss.   You could certainly put it to one side while you get to know the 24mm very well, as newnew suggests.  A 24mm Summilux plus 18mm Super-Elmar plus 12mm Voigtlander could be a great trio.   

 

 

[darylgo]

The 18mm lens is one I’ll never part with, at the same time it gets little use but when I see the images it produces I am continually amazed. The only other wide I’ve seen with similar imaging is the Leica S 24mm.  
 

The lens is sharp into the corners, the light falloff is well controlled, the astigmatism and curvature of field are minimal.  I considered the Wate, I’ve never shot one, but on paper the 18mm is technically a better optic. I don’t look for character in wides at 18mm, so this is a more clinical approach.