Super Elmar 21mm f3.4 ASPH vs Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 f4

[wolan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

I am planning to exchange my Super-Elmar for a Tri-Elmar in very good condition.

I have seen very good reviews about the Tri-Elmar, and I like the flexibility with the 2 additional focal lengths.

What do you think? As I understand it, the Tri-Elmar was not a successful lens for Leica, but why?

Thanks.

 

[rtai]

I have no idea if the WATE was successful or not. If I shot color I would have bought one but as a monochrom user I need to mount color filters without that huge adapter. Same reason why I didn’t buy the 18MM either.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jean-Michel]

Well, there is a Tri-Elmar and there is a Tri-Elmar. 

The first, which came in two versions, was a 28-35-50mm lens. Leica discontinued it. It is a rather complex lens to manufacture.

The other one is the 'WATE": wide angle Tri-Elmar with 16-18-21mm range. That lens is actually a zoom and can be set at anywhere between 16 and 21mm. I have it and am quite happy with it. I use it primarily with an M-P(240) with an EVF for framing. Given the wide dof everything appears quite in focus in the EVF so I use the rangefinder for the focusing when needed, or just zone focus using the the scale on the lens. You can get a finder for this lens –known as a frankenfinder– but an EVF make a lot more sense unless you have an M9 or a film M.

As to which lens, Super Elmar or Tri-Elmar, is more useful, only you can assess that. At 21mm the Super-Elmar is probably technically superior. The Tri-Elmar does have some 'moustache' distortion that is not possible to fully correct; depending on the type of subject that may or may not be relevant. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Jean-Michel
typo

[adan]

6 hours ago, wolan said:

As I understand it, the Tri-Elmar was not a successful lens for Leica, but why?

History of the 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar ASPH.

When Leica introduced their first digital M (M8 - late 2006**), they had not yet solved all of the - difficulties - with using short-focus film-rangefinder lenses on digital sensors. Especially in the extreme corners of a film-size (24x36mm) sensor.

Therefore Leica opted for a smaller "cropped" sensor of about  ~18mm x 27mm. A cropping factor of 1.333x. Which had already been developed with Kodak for the Leica Digital-Module-R, and eliminated the "corner problems"

That meant that wide-angle M lenses used on the M8 would no longer be as "wide" as they were on film. A 24mm would only capture the field of view of a "32mm" lens on the M8, a 21mm would show the view of a "27mm" lens, a 35mm lens would only capture the view of a 46mm lens, and a 28mm lens would deliver the view of a 37mm lens.

Since some Leica M users do actually like using very wide fields of view, a camera limited to only "27mm viewing" was going to be a major problem in the marketplace.

Therefore Leica introduced two new lenses at the same time as the M8. A very compact 28mm (f/2.8 ASPH) that, cropped to "37mm," could substitute for the very compact and very popular 35mm Summicrons (ASPH and pre-ASPH) dating back 50+ years in the M system.

And a single lens that would restore the effective wideness of the existing 21/24/28mm lenses, when cropped by the M8. The 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar. Faster and cheaper to design than designing three separate new super-wide lenses all at once.

In both cases, while those lenses could and can cover a full sensor - and remain in the lineup today - the design emphasis on image quality was for the center of the image. The M8 would crop off any weaknesses or compromises in the outer parts of the image.
_____________________
** It should be noted that Leica management at the time was under extreme pressure to develop a digital M, as film-camera sales decayed rapidly. Dr. Andreas Kaufmann had bought the company, fired the existing CEO and COO, and brought in a turnaround specialist (Dr. Josef Spichtig) to light a fire under the process, and get it done - FAST!

Comparing the 21mm Super-Elmar to the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21, we can see the compromises on a full-frame 24x36 sensor, in Leica's own MTF charts.

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!

An additional comparison - the size of the lenses, to the same scale (yes, the Elmar is missing its lens hood - that makes some difference). The vignetting and distortion are pretty similar, however.

 

I can't say whether the Tri-Elmar was "unsuccessful." I do know that around the time of the M10-R and M11 introductions (and also Covid) just a few years ago, one on-line dealer had perhaps 50 used Leica M lenses for sale - and 13 of them at once (25%) were 16-18-21s. Apparently they were considered "expendable" if one was trimming one's lens collection, or trading for the new cameras, or for other lenses.

But in any case, they did all eventually sell. So someone wanted them. 😁

[jimtong]

Is there a 2 versions of the 21mm Super-Elmar?

[Ken Abrahams]

I have to say that I am a big fan of the 21 Super Elmar M. A recent video that investigated all the Leica super wides including the most recent APO SL 21 Summicron. Technically, the Tri Elmar lens has exceptional sharpness compared to other wides on the market. I was surprised to "see" that level of quality * (16-18-35) watching all the lens comparisons. (And I could have inserted * "for a zoom lens".  It's simply not the case with modern lenses unless one chooses obviously inferior glass. 

So I haven't used the Tri Elmar but the statistics look great and for that outlay, you get three lenses in one. Unfortunately I already know about the 21 Super Elmar lens so my experience is biased. Out of all the lenses I own (not many) I talk about the 21 SEM more often than any other lens in my possession or not.  

 

Best

Ken  

 

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Versatiity and complexity versus specialism and simplicity. I once had a loan of the WATE and it was very good, but I have the 21SEM and it is an exceptionally good lens in a very small package. The WATE also needs a Frankenfinder .....

[adan]

5 hours ago, jimtong said:

Is there a 2 versions of the 21mm Super-Elmar?

Sort of.

The very first batch sold revealed a binding problem internally (the ring with the DoF scale on it was too thin and flexible, and could jam the focusing ring if gripped too tightly).

Leica redesigned that DoF ring to be thicker and stiffer (larger outer diameter) - and may have recalled the first batch to get the new ring as well. Someone else may have even more detail.

Edited December 15, 2023 by adan

[Jean-Michel]

4 hours ago, Ken Abrahams said:

I have to say that I am a big fan of the 21 Super Elmar M. A recent video that investigated all the Leica super wides including the most recent APO SL 21 Summicron. Technically, the Tri Elmar lens has exceptional sharpness compared to other wides on the market. I was surprised to "see" that level of quality * (16-18-35) watching all the lens comparisons. (And I could have inserted * "for a zoom lens".  It's simply not the case with modern lenses unless one chooses obviously inferior glass. 

So I haven't used the Tri Elmar but the statistics look great and for that outlay, you get three lenses in one. Unfortunately I already know about the 21 Super Elmar lens so my experience is biased. Out of all the lenses I own (not many) I talk about the 21 SEM more often than any other lens in my possession or not.  

 

Best

Ken  

 

Hi Ken

Are you perhaps confusing the M lens 'WATE' Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 with the L lens LEICA SUPER-VARIO-ELMAR-SL 16-35 F/ 3.5-4.5 ASPH ?

 

[Ken Abrahams]

41 minutes ago, Jean-Michel said:

Hi Ken

Are you perhaps confusing the M lens 'WATE' Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 with the L lens LEICA SUPER-VARIO-ELMAR-SL 16-35 F/ 3.5-4.5 ASPH ?

 

No but thanks for the inquiry. 

[M11 for me]

Hi Nico,

you have so wonderful images on flickr so that I do not dare to give you any advice. Your 21mm landscape pictures are amazing. And intersting enough my wife could pick out the images that were done with M cameras (many anyway). She thought that they look much more natural.

You make lots of images with relative heavy and fast zoom lenses. In that case you would probably not mind the size and weight of the tri elmar. What I am concerned I think that the 21 Super Elmar is an amazing lens: light and small and it renders great. I would never give it away.

[wolan]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb M11 for me:

Hi Nico,

you have so wonderful images on flickr so that I do not dare to give you any advice. Your 21mm landscape pictures are amazing. And intersting enough my wife could pick out the images that were done with M cameras (many anyway). She thought that they look much more natural.

You make lots of images with relative heavy and fast zoom lenses. In that case you would probably not mind the size and weight of the tri elmar. What I am concerned I think that the 21 Super Elmar is an amazing lens: light and small and it renders great. I would never give it away.

Many thanks , I feel flattered by your comments.

I am very happy indeed with the 21mm, I am considering the tri-elmar because I have the feeling that 16 and 18mm could open new creative possibility, especially in monochrome. 

Wish you a nice we.

Cheers 

[tsleica]

WATE is a great lens and gets the shot..

What more could you ask for?

[Gobert]

I exchanged my 21 SEM voor the last version of the WATE. I have never regret it, although I am not a wide angle lover.