Leica Super-Elmar-M 21mm f/3.4 ASPH. Lens on SL2

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All this is a matter of tolerance.  Personally, and I don't think I'm alone in this, I would never spend just shy of $9300 total for this level of performance. I spend up for Leica as I expect minimal compromise, and as the above demonstrates, it is hard to argue that the SEM on SL2 meets that standard when compared to SL native glass. Some might find, after buying an SL2, if they already have a SEM, that they can live with the diminished performance. Perfectly fine decision. But there is little doubt in my mind that M glass, or any other lens for that matter, which projects it image onto the sensor at something other than the perpendicular is problematic in the digital context due to the presence of cover glass and the physics of refraction.  Where the M does an excellent job of overcoming this presumably due to its custom microlensing, the SL2 lags noticeably in this regard.

Regardless, from an acuity standpoint, AFAIC the Pano, at half the cost of the SEM, has a clear and obvious advantage. It would be interesting to see how the Sigma 21mm fares, but personally I'm waiting for the 21mm Summicron.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Personally I find the SEM21 results on the SL2 unacceptable.  In my experience the Pano zoom is far sharper than the SEM21 in the corners. Quick test made just for you, stepped outside the front door and shot.  Both focus at the same location, both f5.6, change in lighting due to variable sun.  Unfortunately the site does some scaling, but at 100% local the difference is both obvious and significant.   Both crops approx. 1800px square.

<snip>

 

According to my tests, SEM21 has much better corners at f/8 and f/11 than at f/5.6.

[Advertisement]

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

[SrMi]

14 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

All this is a matter of tolerance.  Personally, and I don't think I'm alone in this, I would never spend just shy of $9300 total for this level of performance. I spend up for Leica as I expect minimal compromise, and as the above demonstrates, it is hard to argue that the SEM on SL2 meets that standard when compared to SL native glass. Some might find, after buying an SL2, if they already have a SEM, that they can live with the diminished performance. Perfectly fine decision. But there is little doubt in my mind that M glass, or any other lens for that matter, which projects it image onto the sensor at something other than the perpendicular is problematic in the digital context due to the presence of cover glass and the physics of refraction.  Where the M does an excellent job of overcoming this presumably due to its custom microlensing, the SL2 lags noticeably in this regard.

Regardless, from an acuity standpoint, AFAIC the Pano, at half the cost of the SEM, has a clear and obvious advantage. It would be interesting to see how the Sigma 21mm fares, but personally I'm waiting for the 21mm Summicron.

The argument for using SEM21 is also its size and weight. It seems to me that, if you need critical corner quality, you have to use as least f/8 with SEM21. Another alternative is the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21, which seems to perform better at f/5.6 than SEM21.

[LikameLeica]

I have owned the Super-Elmar-M 21mm f/3.4 ASPH on with both the Leica SL and the SL2 and can tell you that it works very well and is extremely sharp from edge to edge.  Definitely some vignetting that has been pointed out, but this can easily be corrected in post.  Not the best of pictures (mid-day full sunlight) but this was taken on the SL2 a couple weeks back.

 

 

 

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!

[Tailwagger]

1 minute ago, SrMi said:

According to my tests, SEM21 has much better corners at f/8 and f/11 than at f/5.6.

Interesting, but I'm not sure why that would be. On the M, the SEM is perfectly sharp at f5.6 across the full frame, arguably true even wide open. I've not noticed it getting any better at f8 on the M. The problem on the SL is that the design of this optic results in a steep angle of incidence being projected to the corners which results in smearing due to refraction through the cover glass.  AFAIK, not an optical engineer, stopping down shouldn't alter that angle of incidence, so its not clear to me how it would improve much, but I'll take your word for it. 

To be clear, I have no axe to grind here. I owned a full compliment of M lenses prior to buying the SL2 and would have preferred to have been positively wowed. I didn't set out to test or find flaw with the SEM or any other M optic on the SL2. I just went out and shot with them and found on my very first trip out, shooting environmental shots for a concert gig, I was quite disappointed with the SEM on SL2.  As a result, I ordered the Pano given the Summi 21mm was and remains a distant dream and put myself on the list for an M10R from the moment it was rumored. In the meantime, if I want to shoot with M glass or travel light, I use an M10 where I've seen none of the issues I've encountered with this lens on the SL2.

Again, we all have different thresholds and are shooting different material. If you're using the SEM for landscape, the corner sharpness of the sky doesn't matter in the least and any lack of clarity in the foreground corners can often simply be seen as generically OOF.  SEM sharpness across the X and Y central axis is indeed fabulous on the SL2. And often that is all anyone is interested in. But shoot something where everything is at infinity or square to the target where the bulk of the material is all in the same plane and you may suddenly come to a different conclusion as to just how good things actually are. Equally, I'd wager that many of those who tout the SEM on the SL2 have yet to shoot with any of the available native wide options and done any direct comparison. Personally, though it is not without flaw, I far prefer the lowly Pano on the SL2, despite the 200g penalty and since acquiring it have not shot the SEM since, save for this thread. It too has some slight corner weakness, but nothing akin the SEM in similar circumstance.  If the OP already has a SEM, adding an adapter is relatively inexpensive, so its worth deciding for one's self.  But if the thought is to acquire a copy, I'd encourage considering the native alternatives before making a final decision.

Lumix 16-35@16mm  

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!

[SrMi]

23 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Interesting, but I'm not sure why that would be. On the M, the SEM is perfectly sharp at f5.6 across the full frame, arguably true even wide open. I've not noticed it getting any better at f8 on the M. The problem on the SL is that the design of this optic results in a steep angle of incidence being projected to the corners which results in smearing due to refraction through the cover glass.  AFAIK, not an optical engineer, stopping down shouldn't alter that angle of incidence, so its not clear to me how it would improve much, but I'll take your word for it. 

To be clear, I have no axe to grind here. I owned a full compliment of M lenses prior to buying the SL2 and would have preferred to have been positively wowed. I didn't set out to test or find flaw with the SEM or any other M optic on the SL2. I just went out and shot with them and found on my very first trip out, shooting environmental shots for a concert gig, I was quite disappointed with the SEM on SL2.  As a result, I ordered the Pano given the Summi 21mm was and remains a distant dream and put myself on the list for an M10R from the moment it was rumored. In the meantime, if I want to shoot with M glass or travel light, I use an M10 where I've seen none of the issues I've encountered with this lens on the SL2.

Again, we all have different thresholds and are shooting different material. If you're using the SEM for landscape, the corner sharpness of the sky doesn't matter in the least and any lack of clarity in the foreground corners can often simply be seen as generically OOF.  SEM sharpness across the X and Y central axis is indeed fabulous on the SL2. And often that is all anyone is interested in. But shoot something where everything is at infinity or square to the target where the bulk of the material is all in the same plane and you may suddenly come to a different conclusion as to just how good things actually are. Equally, I'd wager that many of those who tout the SEM on the SL2 have yet to shoot with any of the available native wide options and done any direct comparison. Personally, though it is not without flaw, I far prefer the lowly Pano on the SL2, despite the 200g penalty and since acquiring it have not shot the SEM since, save for this thread. It too has some slight corner weakness, but nothing akin the SEM in similar circumstance.  If the OP already has a SEM, adding an adapter is relatively inexpensive, so its worth deciding for one's self.  But if the thought is to acquire a copy, I'd encourage considering the native alternatives before making a final decision.

Lumix 16-35@16mm  

<snip>

After I ran my tests, I checked Sean Reid's reviews and read that he also notices that some M-lenses fare better (especially corners) on SL2 when stopped down. I think somewhere he even explains why. 

My point was to inform those who want to shoot with SEM21 on SL2 that they need to close down the aperture in order to get good corners.

Currently my main wide angle lens for SL2 is SVE-SL 16-35. If weight/size matters, then I take the Tri-Elmar. SEM21 is for M10s.

[Joakim]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the images @Tailwagger, quite enlightening and images are so much better than words in a discussion like this. I have the 24/3.8 Elmar and my SL2 will arrive next week hopefully so then I can do some testing myself, since I am looking for a 21 (or 18) for landscape shooting for my SL2 maybe I should forget about M-mount lenses  and aim for an SLR lens instead. Let's see.

I read the test of the VC 21 and while it generally seems to perform well the corners are not good at all even at f/8 so it's not a landscape candidate for me. 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Joakim

[panoreserve]

Am 2.7.2020 um 23:15 schrieb Tailwagger:

but personally I'm waiting for the 21mm Summicron

Exactly. It‘s a pity that we have to wait until 2021...🙁

Edited July 7, 2020 by panoreserve

[mmx_2]

There is always the Elmarit 19 R, yes an older design, but still a very fine such. I have personally not tested it on SL, but I have used it exensively on Canon and Leica M, and it is a very fine performer.

[Eclectic Man]

Just wondering whether Tailwagger's experience with the 21mm and the Panasonic zoom could be due to field curvature?  If the Pano zoom has greater field curvature than the Leica 21mm, you would expect the bottom left corner to be more in focus.

[jrp]

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/07/guide-to-leica-wide-angle-lenses-on-sony-a7-series-bodies/
 

here’s how various Leica wide angles look on Sony a7 bodies. They will look no worse on Leica SL bodies. 

[AZN]

On 7/7/2020 at 5:00 PM, mmx_2 said:

There is always the Elmarit 19 R, yes an older design, but still a very fine such. I have personally not tested it on SL, but I have used it exensively on Canon and Leica M, and it is a very fine performer.

I have and use the Leica Elmarit-R 19mm v2 and can confirm it works brilliantly on the SL Typ601 and my Sony A7RII and A7RIV.  With the approrpriate adapters of course 😃

There is a slight amount of vignetting and the extreme corners are dark, but this is relatively easy to fix in post. With its large rectangular hood it is bulky though, and forget about using filters (the built in turret has 3 colours: blue, orange and yellow)

OTOH the Elmar-M 24mm ASPH is ½ the size and is corner-to-corner sharp on the SL Typ601 (bad smearing on the Sonys).  Can also use any filter you want.  So instead of going wider, may be an idea to go a little longer?