Which superwide option for my SL? R 19mm f/2.8, 14-24mm f/2.8 or 21mm f/2 apo?

[SJCoates]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

I have an SL (601) which I use with my R lenses (28, 50, 100, 105-280), and am looking for a superwide option, so a focal length around 20mm. I used to have an R 19mm f/2.8 (ver 2) but sold it a while back, which I regret now as it really was a fantastic lens and commands quite high prices on the market today. So, I am looking for a superwide lens, and am looking for practical advice from people who have used the various lenses I am looking at. I have narrowed it down to three lenses: the 19mm f/2.8 R ver 2 (the one I used to have), the SL 21mm f/2 apo and the 14-24mm f/2.8. The 16-35mm might seem another option but I have the R 28mm so it would be duplicating this lens. I would mainly use this lens for landscape photography.

Using R lenses on the SL means I don't have autofocus, but this is not really an issue for me, I have used this with my R lenses with no issues as AF doesn't really matter to me; with a superwide lens this will of course be even less of an issue with the depth of field with such a lens. Also, the functionality of the R lenses with the aperture ring rather than having the camera control this is again no issue for me, and in many ways keeping it the same as my other lenses might be preferable, as it means that if I change lenses I would have to remove the adapter along with the lens, which seems a bit of a faff.

Out of the three I am probably leaning towards the 14-24mm as it comes in quite a bit cheaper than the 19mm, so I am really wondering about real world experiences with this lens and if the results are noticeably lower in standard than the 21mm apo, for example? Also, how it compares to the 19mm? The 19mm is of course a prime lens, so you might expect it to perform better, however it is an older design, so perhaps lens designs have moved on to such a degree that the zoom can match the prime? The 19mm however was one of the highlights of the R range and recognised as being one of the best superwide lenses ever made at the time. Regarding price, it would seem bonkers to consider going for a 20+ year old lens rather than a new lens for quite a bit more money - but then again I suppose this is the sort of thing us Leica fans might consider totally normal!!

And then looking at the 21mm apo, I would expect this lens to be the highest performer, but the price is really very high; I am suspecting a lot of this will be down to it having a large aperture which for me would be a bit of a waste as I very rarely shot wide open when I had the 19mm. I don't think I could justify this spend as I know I won't use it that often; just nice to have the superwide option when it is needed for that photo when such a focal length will give a unique image.

So going back to the zoom lens, the aspect of being able to go to 14mm interests me as I have never used such a wide angle before so it might well open up unique possibilities. Anyway, over to you guys to give some good advice please!

 

[Advertisement]

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

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The only real downside of the 14-24 is filters. Generally you wouldn’t polarise such a wide lens but ND filter use could be a pain. Optically though, it’s excellent. Personally I’d save the money and get the identical Sigma variant. Sigma make the Leica version.

The 21APO SL is outstanding. Near perfect from wide open. The sheer detail it gathers is astonishing. It’s biggish and expensive but brilliant. The biggest downside is it’s near impossible to stop at one. Plus you may then feel like a higher resolution body. An APO Summicron Sl is a slippery slope.

I do not have the R19 Elmarit so can’t comment.

I’ll suggest one more lens. The WATE. Tiny. It’s an excellent performer around f8. It accepts filters with an adaptor (67mm). It’s a true zoom and can be used as such on a SL camera. It’s more in line with the look of your R glass. For a compact landscape lens for you, this would be at the top of my list.

Another option is to skip the Leica APO and get a Sigma 20mm DGDN. Sharp, cheap and tiny. Not much weather sealing. A real aperture ring. Heck you could add the 18mm and still not spend half of what the APO will cost. Fabulous at f4 and beyond. Still very good wide open. I love these as travel lenses.

The APO SL is the best lens here. Easily. It will likely best anything you’ve ever used. I think everyone should experience an APO at least once. It may not be the most practical option. That’d be the SIgma’s or the WATE. But I have a few APO’s including the 21 and there’s no going back.

Gordon

p.s. Each lens I’ve mentioned I actually own.

[Stuart Richardson]

I used to have that 19mm 2.8 R lens. It is very good. In terms of optics, however, it is not that competitive with newer lenses like the 14-24mm and 21mm APO. The 21mm has at least 70% contrast at 40lpmm over almost the whole frame except the corners. (Meaning it shows very sharp and highly crisp detail right out to the edges). It is sharper across the frame at f2 than the 19mm is at any aperture. The 14-24mm is similarly sharp as the 21mm APO, at least according to the MTF. It is a very very good lens if you can live without filters.

https://leica-camera.com/sites/default/files/pm-83848-EN_Datasheet Super-APO-Summicron-SL 21 - 2022.pdf

https://leica-camera.com/sites/default/files/pm-101480-en_datenblatt_super-vario-elmarit-sl_14-24_asph.pdf

https://www.overgaard.dk/pdf/Elmarit-R_19_mm_Technical_Data_en.pdf

You can see the charts there to compare. The 21mm will be slightly more contrasty and crisper than the 14-24mm, particularly in the center, and it should be largely immune to chromatic aberrations, given its APO name. That said, the 19mm is still a respectable lens and of course the only one that will work on your R cameras as well.

 

I should say I have not owned the 21mm APO or 14-24mm. I have the Sigma 24mm 3.5 and it is excellent. I do have the 35mm and 50mm APO Summicrons and they are the best lenses I have ever used in their focal lengths. They are spectacular.

Edited July 2, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[beewee]

If you’re considering the SL 14-24, you should also consider the Sigma 14-24mm DG DN. My copy is as sharp as my SL 16-35 SVE. Aside from lack of filters, my complaint for that lens is that it has a tendency flare when shooting with the sun in view. Not sure if Leica’s version has better coating. Maybe?

[Patrickfoley@mac.com]

Have you thought about the Super-Elmar-M 21 f/3.4 ASPH, with a M/L adapter? A great lens. Ive been thinking about getting the 21 APO for my SL3 but what keeps stopping me is that I already own the 21 SEM. 

Edited July 3, 2024 by Patrickfoley@mac.com

[Virob]

As has been mentioned, the 14-24 doesn’t take filters well. Landscapes that include water, any kind of moisture or foliage can benefit from a polarizer, which where I live is almost all the time. I never use one to darken the sky, especially with an ultra wide. As good as this lens is reported to be, that reason alone rules it out for me for landscapes.
The 16-35 would be a better choice, it is heavy and expensive and gets mixed reviews which made me shy away from it.  I use the Panasonic 16-35 which is considerably smaller and lighter, but suffers from purple fringing.

As an older lens and looking at the mtf charts, the 19mm doesn’t look all that impressive. I’m sure it was great in its day but is no match to modern prime unless it is the character of the lens you are interested in. Lens design has advanced significantly the last few years from every manufacturer. I have the sigma 20/2 which is an excellent lens and would recommend it. What I don’t like about it is the strong vignetting even when stopped down and lack of weather sealing, but the 19 wouldn’t be any better in that respect.

The 21 APO is the best ultra wide that I have used. It is worth it to me because I really like that focal length and gets a lot of use, but it is very expensive. It takes 67mm filters but you must use very thin ones as it will vignette otherwise, or use step up rings and larger filters. I have been using the magnetic Maven filters with it that are very thin, but stacking two filters will cause vignetting, I get around this by using dark polarizers which combine a CPL and ND into one ( very thin) filter. 

if you are not afraid of a bit of post processing, stitching 3-4 vertical shots with the 21 will give roughly the equivalent of a 14mm perspective. I’ve just started doing this and it gives incredibly detailed results, but use a nodal slide and tripod for subjects that are very close.

 

 

[bab]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

at f8 either the APO or any other premium quality lens should be almost the same image file according to most reviews.  What f stop do you plan to shoot at for the most part?

[SJCoates]

1 hour ago, bab said:

at f8 either the APO or any other premium quality lens should be almost the same image file according to most reviews.  What f stop do you plan to shoot at for the most part?

With my 19mm I usually used f/5.6 or smaller; this is one of the reasons why I am not really considering the 21 apo; I understand that it is the highest quality superwide Leica do, but the price is really high, and I can't really justify that sort of outlay as part of the price will be to get the fast f/2 aperture. If they offered something like an 18mm apo f/4 then that would be interesting!

[hoolyproductions]

16 hours ago, SJCoates said:

With my 19mm I usually used f/5.6 or smaller; this is one of the reasons why I am not really considering the 21 apo; I understand that it is the highest quality superwide Leica do, but the price is really high, and I can't really justify that sort of outlay as part of the price will be to get the fast f/2 aperture. If they offered something like an 18mm apo f/4 then that would be interesting!

Yes, this is pretty much why I've settled with the tiny Sigma's 17mm f4 and 24mm f3.5 for my camera.