jimleicam3 Posted June 19, 2009 Share #1 Posted June 19, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Comments please on the 18 mm f/3.8. I know that I am all over the place on these wide angles and to use the viewfinder or not, but all of the posts have been very helpful. Thanks again! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 Hi jimleicam3, Take a look here Comments please on the 18 mm f/3.8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lars_bergquist Posted June 19, 2009 Share #2 Posted June 19, 2009 I have no hands-on experience of the lens, but Leica's filter 'solution' is bizarre indeed. This is the first time since the 1940 Summitar that a Leica lens has needed a filter in a unique special mount. The Carl Zeiss Distagon 1:4/18mm ZM manages with a perfectly conventional 58mm screw-in filter. Why the Super-Elmar can't do that is beyond me, and a wanton way of causing aggravation to the user. Leica seem to have lost touch with reality. The case is essentially the same with the 21 and the 24mm Summiluxes. The old man from the Age of Screw-In Filters Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat_mcdermott Posted June 19, 2009 Share #3 Posted June 19, 2009 Personally, I love the lens. You can safely save several hundred dollars by going with the Voigtlander 25mm viewfinder; it works very well. If you where glasses like I do there's no way you're getting away with not using an external viewfinder. The special filter to me really isn't a big deal as until the day comes (if it ever does) that there's a digital M that doesn't require IR filters that thing is staying on the lens all the time. It is even more expensive that normal IR filters, but if you search around some of the advertisers on this forum have it for about $100 less than some of the biggies out there like B&H. Image quality is great wide open--which is pretty much the only aperture where you'll be able to achieve genuine selective focus and shallow(ish) depth of field. Gripes: The aperture ring is a little bit loose compared to other lenses I've used and I tend to bump it unintentionally pretty frequently; I managed to lose the lens cap within the first two hours of shooting...but I'm chalking that up to user error more than poor design Here's a set of photos I put up on flickr just for this lens: Leica 18/3.8 Super-Elmar-M - a set on Flickr And it was used pretty extensively in this set on the High Line as well: The High Line - a set on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfarkas Posted June 19, 2009 Share #4 Posted June 19, 2009 Back in March I posted a small write-up of the 18 SE on my blog, with sample pictures. David Farkas Photography Blog: Shooting the New Leica 18mm Super Elmar-M ASPH David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted June 19, 2009 Share #5 Posted June 19, 2009 It's really expensive () Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted June 19, 2009 Share #6 Posted June 19, 2009 It's really expensive () My sentiments exactly. Why not get the Zeiss with a Milich bayonet and spend the nearly other $2K on other lens(es). The Zeiss is fantastic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat_mcdermott Posted June 19, 2009 Share #7 Posted June 19, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I got a deal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfokevin Posted June 19, 2009 Share #8 Posted June 19, 2009 My sentiments exactly. Why not get the Zeiss with a Milich bayonet and spend the nearly other $2K on other lens(es). The Zeiss is fantastic. I originally had the Distagon 4/18... Now I have the SEM... I think it is worth the extra money... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted June 19, 2009 Share #9 Posted June 19, 2009 I originally had the Distagon 4/18... Now I have the SEM... I think it is worth the extra money... Kevin I would be interested in your POV. I have most of the wide angles both leica and zeiss so you can reference any of them for how the images look. I find the zeiss exceptional in sharpness and contrast. If the image will benefit for razor sharp lines or contrast ..the zeiss 18 has it. The color saturation is excellent but not as good as the 21/2.8 asph. I shot both on the brooklyn bridge and you could see the difference....the zeiss was crisp and sharp and the yet the 21 asph did better on the sky at dawn or dusk. I know the new 18 and 24 render a little different than the other asph..different design goals. How would you describe the 18. Roger Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfokevin Posted June 19, 2009 Share #10 Posted June 19, 2009 Kevin I would be interested in your POV. I have most of the wide angles both leica and zeiss so you can reference any of them for how the images look. I find the zeiss exceptional in sharpness and contrast. If the image will benefit for razor sharp lines or contrast ..the zeiss 18 has it. The color saturation is excellent but not as good as the 21/2.8 asph. I shot both on the brooklyn bridge and you could see the difference....the zeiss was crisp and sharp and the yet the 21 asph did better on the sky at dawn or dusk. I know the new 18 and 24 render a little different than the other asph..different design goals. How would you describe the 18. Roger I am no expert in this... I guess I would just say that the Distagon was just too clinical a lens in both use and the images it produced... I may start a bit of a flame here... But in my relatively short experience with a rangefinder (2 years)... I stared out branching out to Non-Leica lenses occasionally and have always discarded them and upgraded to a Leica lens equivalent... I can't defend that position other than to say the synergy of use and the consistency from lens to lens is to my taste... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted June 20, 2009 Share #11 Posted June 20, 2009 Reasons I got the Leica over the Zeiss: Ergonomics match my other Leica lenses better: The Zeiss has 3 click stops per f/stop and the Leicas have 2. I'd rather just know 2 clicks = 1 stop than have to change gears from lens to lens. No coding kludgery - mount it out of the box, it works. The way it draws. Cosmetics, which don't count for a lot, but count for something. No silly chrome ring around the front, red vs. blue dot, yellow and white scales. But then I painted my Cosina 15's red numbers yellow, too. Filtering is easy: I mounted a $7.00 55-58 step-up ring backwards on the lens' male thread, and put my (free) 55 Leica IR filter on the step-up ring. The 18mm shade (which is the best shade Leica has made for a wide since the f/3.4 Super-Angulon - and metal) press-fits onto the 55 filter. A 52mm generic snap-on lens cap fits the rear thread of the 55mm filter, so the whole combo ends up feeling very compact, compared to my 21 pre-ASPH (60mm cap) or the Zeiss. Alternatively, get a cheap 58mm UV filter, knock out the glass, and put that on the lens, and use a 58mm IR filter (just as on the Zeiss) reversed. That was Maurizio's idea. A Leica 21 finder is exactly accurate for the 18 field of view on the M8 at infinity - but with no leeway for sloppiness. At closer than 3 meters, one must either frame loosely (especially at the top) or use a 24/25 finder. Otherwise you cut off heads and such. Performance: I get a sense that the center resolution is very slightly below my 21 pre-ASPH, although the MTF (resolution + contrast) is higher - and better in the corners. However, I did a resolution-chart test and the lens nudges 80 lppm wide-open - the chart was shot at 50x focal length, so double the res numbers: On the whole, it is nicer carrying just the 18, and getting close to what my 21 gave me on film (factoring in slide mounts or negative carriers) without having to carry both a 21 for speed and a 15 CV for wideness. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/88383-comments-please-on-the-18-mm-f38/?do=findComment&comment=938142'>More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted June 20, 2009 Share #12 Posted June 20, 2009 Kevin Nothing wrong with your logic......consistency is a valued property in a set of lenses. I find that matching the set of working lenses (before setting out ) to my anticipated requirements is useful. The clinical look of the zeiss lens set can be a real value on a cloudy low contrast day or when the desired rendering is maximum sharpness and resolution. The opposite might be true if you have everyday bright sunny lighting. Then I might favor the higher saturation of many of the leica set. The 28 summicron is loved for its high color saturation and micro contrast....yet is slightly lower contrast compared to the zeiss equivalents. The zeiss 18 and the leica 35 lux work well together both having the clinical sharpness characteristic. I need to look for a thread comparing the new 18 with the WATE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimleicam3 Posted June 20, 2009 Author Share #13 Posted June 20, 2009 Kevin Nothing wrong with your logic......consistency is a valued property in a set of lenses. I find that matching the set of working lenses (before setting out ) to my anticipated requirements is useful. The clinical look of the zeiss lens set can be a real value on a cloudy low contrast day or when the desired rendering is maximum sharpness and resolution. The opposite might be true if you have everyday bright sunny lighting. Then I might favor the higher saturation of many of the leica set. The 28 summicron is loved for its high color saturation and micro contrast....yet is slightly lower contrast compared to the zeiss equivalents. The zeiss 18 and the leica 35 lux work well together both having the clinical sharpness characteristic. I need to look for a thread comparing the new 18 with the WATE. Please start that thread!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimleicam3 Posted June 20, 2009 Author Share #14 Posted June 20, 2009 I would love to hear comments about the Tr-Elmar vs the Super-Elmar 18 mm. They both seem very compact, light, etc...It is very difficult to drop a large sum of money for something that you only get a chance to use in a camera store. This thread has been very helpful in that regards. Thanks again!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted June 20, 2009 Share #15 Posted June 20, 2009 I dont think the WATE can really be described as compact. I see the 28 elmarit and 35 summicron as compact. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimleicam3 Posted June 20, 2009 Author Share #16 Posted June 20, 2009 I guess I mean compact in comparison to the 21 mm Lux and the 24 mm Lux. But I agree that the 28 & 35 are the most compact. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanhulsenbeek Posted June 20, 2009 Share #17 Posted June 20, 2009 I need to look for a thread comparing the new 18 with the WATE. Just look in the new LFI (2009/5), page 41: SE18 tested against WATE on M7 and M8. The WATE almost does a little better, but that view mays be biased because I am a WATE owner. Anyhow, that little test will not make me run to the shop and trade it in for a SE18! . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted June 20, 2009 Share #18 Posted June 20, 2009 Just look in the new LFI (2009/5), page 41: SE18 tested against WATE on M7 and M8. The WATE almost does a little better, but that view mays be biased because I am a WATE owner. Anyhow, that little test will not make me run to the shop and trade it in for a SE18! . Thanks I haven t received my issue ? guess I will have to track it down. I have a WATE and the zeiss 18 and enjoy both. They are very different . I almost always use the WATE as a 16/4 ....neither are fast enough for all around use on the street. But on a nice day with reasonable light they are great performers. The WATE has better color saturation and I think micro contrast. The Zeiss is sharper. The WATE is a fantastic sunny day lens even with its contrast the images hold up. The zeiss performs better on a cloudy overcast day . I would pick the zeiss for B&W and the WATE for color. I am just wondering where the 18/3.8 fits in. I will look for my issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sclamb Posted June 21, 2009 Share #19 Posted June 21, 2009 I have been using my 18/3.8 for a while now and I am always amazed at the quality, even wide open. It handles beautifully and is great for close-ups as well as scenics. Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted June 21, 2009 Share #20 Posted June 21, 2009 Back in March I posted a small write-up of the 18 SE on my blog, with sample pictures. David Farkas Photography Blog: Shooting the New Leica 18mm Super Elmar-M ASPH David David, I really enjoyed your picture set in your Blog. Thank you. Not only did you shoot some beautiful subjects, particularly the unique ceiling lights, but there was no trace of flare. If you have time, could you share with us your method of metering these long exposure shots? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.