Leica Vario Elmar R 21-35mm opinion

[stam6882]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

I am planning to purchase a small wide angle R lens for my R 6.2 body.  I have been considering the R 24mm due to it's compactness and faster aperture while I have been told the 21-35mm is a very good alternatives. I am still weighting if the slower zoom lens would offset it's versatility.  Would anyone be able to shed some light about the 21-35mm Vario Elmar for general and traveling photography? I am investing for the possibility of adapting this lens on a digital SL body in the future as well. Thanks.

 

[AZach]

Used this lens on SL, it is light, handles well and is easy to focus with the SL. Picture quality very good and colours pleasant. Had also the R 35-70mm but finally traded both for the SL 24-90mm zoom when it became available. Actually regret selling the R 21-35mm, because often found the SL 24-90mm too heavy and clumsy even if picture quality is outstanding.  

[bcorton]

I used the 21-35mm Vario Elmer on an R9/dmr.  The crop sensor took some of the teeth out of the wide-angle capabilities of the lens, but I found the lens to be very sharp and small enough as to balance well with the camera.  I cannot compare it to the 24mm.  For my uses (mostly landscape), the smaller max. aperture of the lens was fine. The ability to zoom a bit was really nice.  What I did miss on all Leica zooms that I used was the depth of field scale.  

Obviously, if you need the greater aperture of the 24, get that.  On balance, I think what you were told is correct, that the 21-35 would be "a very good alternative."  I've attached a .pdf of Erwin Puts' discussion of the lens.  According to him, "The LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 21-35 mm f/3.5-4 ASPH. has an optical performance that equals and in many cases surpasses the comparable fixed focal lengths and delivers very punchy images."  Also attached is Puts' chapter on the 19mm and 24mm lenses for comparison.

Best wishes,

Brent

35-70.PDF 19, 24mm.pdf

[stam6882]

Thank you bcorton, this is very useful. Your attachment is for 35-70mm but the 24mm chapter is very useful.

[bcorton]

Oh, dang!  Let me try to attach the correct file.

21-35.PDF

[stam6882]

I think the R 21-35mm is more useful and versatile in my case. I do traveling photography mostly during the day and rarely doing indoor. I can live with a slower aperture with the benefit of having a wider lens comparing to the R24mm.  This 21-35mm zoom is not too big nor heavy. Thanks for sharing the info.

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Years ago, the BBC documentary "The Genius of Photography" featured, among many others, William Klein who at that time was in his late 70s. Being asked for his opinion on digital photography, he replied something like, "I don't care. I've got my camera, I've got film, I don't need anything else ..." while wielding his Leica R camera with a Vario-Elmar-R 21-35 mm lens attached.

At 1:3,5-4, the lens speed isn't that much slower than an Elmarit's. Focal length is more important than speed. So I'd choose the Vario-Elmar-R 21-35 mm over the Elmarit-R 24 mm any time.

[Stuart Richardson]

I think it is a no-brainer if you are shooting film and focused on travel. You lose one stop but gain three main focal lengths (21,28,35). Something like the 21-35mm and the 50mm 1.4 E60 and 100mm APO Macro and that's basically all you need for most any situation you would reasonably encounter on a trip. Another thing is that the 21-35mm is a bit better at the longer end, which is most likely what will suit you best (the longer the lens, the more of the subject fills the frame equidistant from the camera in most cases, and the more important edge to edge performance).

[stam6882]

Very true,  I am thinking the combo of 21-35mm and 35-70 f4.0 is best for traveling light.

[GregNski]

I have made the 21-35 my go-to lens on my R8. It takes beautiful pictures, with no discernable barrel or pincushion distortion even at 21mm. 35mm is a perfectly good focal length for walking around, and 21mm is great to have when you need it. I am even considering selling my 35-70 in favor of the 21-35. You simply cannot go wrong buying the 21-35.

[rcusick]

It’s super sharp - sharper than the 35-70.  Shot on sl2s. 

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!

[Keith (M)]

Very highly regarded by the late Erwin Puts in his Leica Compendium.  Haven't used mine for a while but I do have an album on Flickr of my results.  A very versatile (and not too heavy) lens.

[stam6882]

I just bought my R 21-35mm; can't wait to test on the field. It's a ROM lens and will work with digital SL very nicely in the future. I have my eyes on SL-2s given the price has come down lately and I don't need more than 24mp for traveling and holidays.

[davidmknoble]

Just another FYI on this thread, I have used the 21-35 on both the SL digital system and with film, and it really has a hard time flaring.  I shoot directly into the sun sometimes at the coast and everything around it still has a lot of contrast.  You won’t win awards for shallow depth portraits, but its a great all around landscape lens.

[masjah]

Also great for architecture. In conjunction with my SL2 + adapter, and with the latter's own perspective correction feature, I no longer need my 28/2.8 PC Super Angulon R. (I keep the latter for now for sentimental reasons, just in case I get a hankering to use it with film on my R9.)

 

[davidmknoble]

@masjah, just a note on perspective correction.  Stretching pixels will loose some of the finest details, not that it is as big of a deal with the newer large megapixel sensors.  However, the Leica R 28/2.8 PC doesn’t need that level of correction and in some cases may keep detail you wish to. 

Some subjects won’t matter, and I haven’t done a side-by-side comparison, but just a thought.  I love my PC lens for playing with some landscapes where I would use a 28mm anyway, but you are right, the 21-35 is good for architecture as well!