super-elmar 18mm f3.8

[markowich]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Altough the Zeiss18mm lens is really a top performer, the viewfinder you are refering above is a 21mm finder. Even Ken Rockwell talks about it in his site. Since I own many 21mm finders, I can compare.

The difference between the Zeiss 18mm finder and the Leica 21mm is that the Zeiss shows a higher magnification, thus giving the impression that it is wider but in reality, the they are 21mm framelines. A Pity.

 

Go with the Leica 18mm finder for an accurate view.

 

interesting. but so far it did not bother me more than the usual rangefinder inaccuracies. but i shall doublecheck.

thanks for the hint, p

[NB23]

interesting. but so far it did not bother me more than the usual rangefinder inaccuracies. but i shall doublecheck.

thanks for the hint, p

 

What's the point of using a 21mm finder for a 18mm lens? This is what Zeiss offers you.

[lars_bergquist]

The difference between the Zeiss 18mm finder and the Leica 21mm is that the Zeiss shows a higher magnification, thus giving the impression that it is wider but in reality, the they are 21mm framelines. A Pity.

 

Go with the Leica 18mm finder for an accurate view.

I use the Zeiss 18mm finder. What's wrong with it?

 

The old man from the Age of Zeiss Ikon

[NB23]

I use the Zeiss 18mm finder. What's wrong with it?

 

The old man from the Age of Zeiss Ikon

 

Make a search. Or better yet, read the 3 posts above this one.

[carstenw]

What's the point of using a 21mm finder for a 18mm lens? This is what Zeiss offers you.

 

I am probably splitting hairs here, but this is not a 21mm finder. It says F18 right on it, and it is sold by Zeiss as an 18mm finder. Zeiss also sells a 21mm finder. The field of view on both Leica and Zeiss finders is greater than 18mm, to allow some room around the frame, M-style. The framelines on the 18 might be inaccurate, as you say, I wouldn't know. Should be easy to test.

[NB23]

I am probably splitting hairs here, but this is not a 21mm finder. It says F18 right on it, and it is sold by Zeiss as an 18mm finder. Zeiss also sells a 21mm finder. The field of view on both Leica and Zeiss finders is greater than 18mm, to allow some room around the frame, M-style. The framelines on the 18 might be inaccurate, as you say, I wouldn't know. Should be easy to test.

 

The test is already done.

 

What's more interesting is that the Voigtlander 21mm finder and the Zeiss 18mm finder match exactly. One on each eye and they match perfectly. Same magnification, same framelines. I could easily go Jog or even drive my car with those finders on my eyes.

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Now wouldn't that be a sight Make sure to do a self-portrait in the mirror with those on!

[Rick]

i tried it on the m9, but found the 18mm super elmar soooo much better in the corners. and to have much less distorsion. but anyway, i absolutely dislike bending lines in images and some people are immune to it and could not care less.

p

 

I'm really disappointed to hear that the WATE performs so poorly on the FF M9. I have a WATE I use on my M8 and it is one of my favorite lenses partially because I think the IQ is so nice. But, I understand that I'm only seeing the sweet spot of the lens. Sorry to know now that the corners performance sucks so badly compared to the Elmar 18 on FF.

 

I was really looking forward to using my WATE FF when I get my M9.

[jonoslack]

I'm really disappointed to hear that the WATE performs so poorly on the FF M9. I have a WATE I use on my M8 and it is one of my favorite lenses partially because I think the IQ is so nice. But, I understand that I'm only seeing the sweet spot of the lens. Sorry to know now that the corners performance sucks so badly compared to the Elmar 18 on FF.

 

I was really looking forward to using my WATE FF when I get my M9.

 

HI Rick

I radically disagree - I have the WATE - whatever markowitch may say, it performs excellently on the M9 - it's been my second most used lens since June on the M9.

 

The LFI article on wide angles also shows an excellent performance at full frame- the 18mm might be a little better with respect to distortion (but that's close as well).

 

I don't think he has owned one, (he simply says 'I tried it on the M9') I think he simply tested one, and I can only assume that he got a dud one.

 

Of course, I don't own the 18mm, so I can't do a comparison. But you should rest assured, if you have the WATE, it performs wonderfully on the M9, it's a joy not to have to fiddle in menus, it seems much smaller without the filter adapter, and the results are excellent. What's more, the frankenfinder provides really accurate framelines, and the 'spirit level' is really useful.

 

I'm not trying to undermine markowich, and you would certainly expect the 18mm to be great on the M9, but I have to stand up for the lovely WATE, which works really well on the M9, has excellent corner rendering, very little vignetting and distortion which is quite manageable (especially for landscape).

[Rick]

jono, thanks for the report. I'll try and find that article in LFI. I took the WATE with me to Italy this summer and got some astounding pictures from it. Really nice contrast, color and sharpness. I didn't notice any problems in the corners on the M8. I was actually quite impressed with it.

 

It is good to hear that you like the performance on the M9 because, I really stretched my budget to own that lens and part of my reasoning was that I fully expected a FF M from Leica in the near future and I was anticipating that the WATE would be so nice to use at true 16-18-21 on FF. So, I bought it and the Frakenfinder hoping that it would be an enen greater lens to have on FF.

 

Like you, I also find the finder really nice for the same reasons you stated. I almost left it at home because of all of the static it gets around here. I was going to take an external small 21mm finder and just use that. But, in the end I took the big Frankenfinder and I was really glad I did. It doesn't take up much space in a pocket and when mounted it really isn't that big... I mean it isn't like you have a flash on the camera to contend with, it is relatively small.

 

The advantage was much better framing at all focal lengths without guessing/chimping/re-shooting/chimping/then reshooting/chimping, which is what my shooting workflow ends up being with the small finder that doesn't quite match the WATE focal lengths. Really, a very nice piece of optics.

 

Thanks again for your thoughts about the WATE on the M9. I'm once again looking forward to getting my M9 and trying the WATE on it.

 

p.s. Do you just smile every time you view 16mm images on the M9?

[markowich]

HI Rick

I radically disagree - I have the WATE - whatever markowitch may say, it performs excellently on the M9 - it's been my second most used lens since June on the M9.

 

The LFI article on wide angles also shows an excellent performance at full frame- the 18mm might be a little better with respect to distortion (but that's close as well).

 

I don't think he has owned one, (he simply says 'I tried it on the M9') I think he simply tested one, and I can only assume that he got a dud one.

 

Of course, I don't own the 18mm, so I can't do a comparison. But you should rest assured, if you have the WATE, it performs wonderfully on the M9, it's a joy not to have to fiddle in menus, it seems much smaller without the filter adapter, and the results are excellent. What's more, the frankenfinder provides really accurate framelines, and the 'spirit level' is really useful.

 

I'm not trying to undermine markowich, and you would certainly expect the 18mm to be great on the M9, but I have to stand up for the lovely WATE, which works really well on the M9, has excellent corner rendering, very little vignetting and distortion which is quite manageable (especially for landscape).

 

oh jono please ..... i have owned one, disliked it (my copy only?) on the m8, sold it 6 months ago and did 2 hours of comparative testing (different copy) with the 18mm f3.8 last friday on the m9. you like the WATE...fine, no matter. but maybe you want to check out what puts says on it (dislike scientific tests?), distorsion is not subjective, it can be measured scientifically. then you notice it in your images or you don't. good for you if you don't. same holds for loss of edge contrast. but maybe you do not believe in MTF curves either..

peter

[xjr]

I have the 16-18-21 and a close friend the 18f3.8

We use both lenses and interchange them on our M7's or MP's

Neither of us can any difference between the two.

Can you elaborate on the "beats the WATE hands down" because the statement implies very obvious and stand-out differences which are simply not there ! ?

[jonoslack]

oh jono please ..... i have owned one, disliked it (my copy only?) on the m8, sold it 6 months ago and did 2 hours of comparative testing (different copy) with the 18mm f3.8 last friday on the m9. you like the WATE...fine, no matter. but maybe you want to check out what puts says on it (dislike scientific tests?), distorsion is not subjective, it can be measured scientifically. then you notice it in your images or you don't. good for you if you don't. same holds for loss of edge contrast. but maybe you do not believe in MTF curves either..

peter

 

Hi Peter

 

First I should apologise for making assumptions -

And no - I'm not very interested in what Puts says - the photographs he uses to illustrate his points have always put me off. On the other hand I thought that the LFI article was rather comprehensive and compelling, with good examples at the edge of the frame for all the Leica wides (and the WATE did very well).

 

As for MTF curves, I think the in camera processing of wide angles (which include the 18mm by the way) makes them a little academic for this kind of lens. However, the corners at 18mm are sharp (if in focus), which does for me.

 

Did I say there was no distortion? Of course I notice it, and if necessary I correct it.

 

You were slagging off a lens on the basis of 2 hours of comparative testing on the M9, and seriously disappointing someone who already owns it. I was simply averring that I think it's a fine lens (and I'm not alone) and it's based on over 3 months experience and at least 1000 photos.

 

Of course it isn't perfect - but a 1.3x zoom is not a very big compromise for wide angle, and the slight disadvantage is compensated by the good 16mm and excellent 21mm . . and the accurate finder.

[Guest AgXlove]

this shot was taken with 18 @ ƒ8

focus in on the chair or far right of sushi bar, not a wise choice on second thoughts, but driven by necessity to have sharpness on sushi chef.

 

IMHO, this 18 has a bit of a punchier contrast rendering its use a careful matter in contrasty situations. But the beauty of the sensor of the M9 retains information even in darker areas. Distortion is moderate at corners, very.

 

 

this is the 24 Elmar 3.8, always at ƒ8

same focus choice.

 

Those images are just beautiful!

 

Piero, you are hurting me - now I want the Super Elmar 18 even more than I did. I have been infatuated with this lens since it was released; I think it would make a great companion for my 28/2 to cover all the wide angle possibilities.

 

I guess I'll add the 18/3.8 and shoe mount finder to my shopping list, right next to the M9. That's right around $11,000 U.S. for those three little tidbits.

 

GAAAAAAAAAAK!!!

 

Of course, "Wife" will respond as she usually does, with a laugh and her ever-popular "People in hell want ice water, too" comment.

 

Ah, the joys of being married to a wise-ass...

[Woody Campbell]

I'm with Jono on the WATE. I spent the last three days torture testing a wide range of M lenses on the M9 - getting an idea of what works and what doesn't Here are my notes on the WATE:

 

@16 - f4.0 resolution and contrast are outstanding from the center nearly to the edges, with minor funkiness in the corners (see crop below). At f5.6 corners are improved and at f8.0 they are perfect. There is minor mustache distortion but it's not that pronounced compared to most other lenses in this focal length range. Some evidence of CA in the corners - B/Y +16 in LR corrects it. Vignetting is easy to control in LR. Good resistance to veiling flare.

 

@21 - f4.0 resolution and contrast outstanding corner to corner. Outperforms my copy of CZ 21, and has a smoother, more pleasant fingerprint. Surprisingly little vignetting for a lens of this focal length. B/Y +5 corrects the very slight CA. Really excellent freedom from distortion.

 

@18 - Sort of half way between 16 and 21. CA corrected by B/Y +14.

 

Examples of a corner crops at 18mm and f8.0 (the first image) and f4.0 below.

 

 

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!

 

[Woody Campbell]

On the WATE what solutions are people using in terms of viewfinder? The Frankenfinder really does an excellent job, but its ... well ... the Frankenfinder. There's got to be something smaller that can cover a couple of focal lengths reasonably accurately.

[markowich]

Hi Peter

 

First I should apologise for making assumptions -

And no - I'm not very interested in what Puts says - the photographs he uses to illustrate his points have always put me off. On the other hand I thought that the LFI article was rather comprehensive and compelling, with good examples at the edge of the frame for all the Leica wides (and the WATE did very well).

 

As for MTF curves, I think the in camera processing of wide angles (which include the 18mm by the way) makes them a little academic for this kind of lens. However, the corners at 18mm are sharp (if in focus), which does for me.

 

Did I say there was no distortion? Of course I notice it, and if necessary I correct it.

 

You were slagging off a lens on the basis of 2 hours of comparative testing on the M9, and seriously disappointing someone who already owns it. I was simply averring that I think it's a fine lens (and I'm not alone) and it's based on over 3 months experience and at least 1000 photos.

 

Of course it isn't perfect - but a 1.3x zoom is not a very big compromise for wide angle, and the slight disadvantage is compensated by the good 16mm and excellent 21mm . . and the accurate finder.

 

jono,

i did not say that the WATE is a bad lens, on the contrary, it is pretty good. but the super elmar is still -IMHO-much better (wide open) and distorsionwise. and yes, the WATE finder seemed to me very good.

as far as puts'reviews go, i can understand your point about his sample photographs. but also other prominent reviewers feature very poor photography on their sites. so puts is not alone in this. however he is definitely a lens expert and i do trust his statements on lenses. i recommend to take seriously what he says and to ignore his photographs---)))

peter

[jonoslack]

jono,

i did not say that the WATE is a bad lens, on the contrary, it is pretty good. but the super elmar is still -IMHO-much better (wide open) and distorsionwise. and yes, the WATE finder seemed to me very good.

as far as puts'reviews go, i can understand your point about his sample photographs. but also other prominent reviewers feature very poor photography on their sites. so puts is not alone in this. however he is definitely a lens expert and i do trust his statements on lenses. i recommend to take seriously what he says and to ignore his photographs---)))

peter

 

HI Peter

Well, perhaps we don't differ so far then, and I'm certainly not casting any aspersions at the 18mm. I simply didn't want the WATE damned by comparison. I'm not trying to have a punch up . . . just do a little balancing act!

 

If you have neither lens, then I can see arguments in both directions, but if you already have a WATE, then I can't see much of an argument for changing it, unless you are doing architecture, where the extra distortion might be an issue (mind you, compared to some very well thought of SLR lenses this is insignificant, and it's also simple to correct).

 

For me, having a good 16mm and an excellent 21mm thrown in is more than compensation for a little distortion at 18mm (I don't really think the corners are an issue if you stop down a little (see Woody's example) for most of us we aren't buying it to shoot at f4 anyway).

 

With respect to Mr. Puts, I do look at his lens reviews, although I'm less impressed with his camera reviews. He was pretty much responsible for my getting the tiny 35 summarit, which I think is a lovely lens.

 

On the WATE what solutions are people using in terms of viewfinder? The Frankenfinder really does an excellent job, but its ... well ... the Frankenfinder. There's got to be something smaller that can cover a couple of focal lengths reasonably accurately.

 

HI Woody

Thanks for these samples - good summary I think.

 

As far as the Frankenfinder is concerned, I think that the answer is to learn to love it! It's nicely made, and it's so good, one has to find some beauty in it's function I think!

I also feel that any viewfinder sticks up and makes the camera an awkward shape, but the frankenfinder isn't much higher than anything else.

[markowich]

HI Peter

Well, perhaps we don't differ so far then, and I'm certainly not casting any aspersions at the 18mm. I simply didn't want the WATE damned by comparison. I'm not trying to have a punch up . . . just do a little balancing act!

 

If you have neither lens, then I can see arguments in both directions, but if you already have a WATE, then I can't see much of an argument for changing it, unless you are doing architecture, where the extra distortion might be an issue (mind you, compared to some very well thought of SLR lenses this is insignificant, and it's also simple to correct).

 

For me, having a good 16mm and an excellent 21mm thrown in is more than compensation for a little distortion at 18mm (I don't really think the corners are an issue if you stop down a little (see Woody's example) for most of us we aren't buying it to shoot at f4 anyway).

 

 

 

With respect to Mr. Puts, I do look at his lens reviews, although I'm less impressed with his camera reviews. He was pretty much responsible for my getting the tiny 35 summarit, which I think is a lovely lens.

 

 

 

HI Woody

Thanks for these samples - good summary I think.

 

As far as the Frankenfinder is concerned, I think that the answer is to learn to love it! It's nicely made, and it's so good, one has to find some beauty in it's function I think!

I also feel that any viewfinder sticks up and makes the camera an awkward shape, but the frankenfinder isn't much higher than anything else.

 

totally d'accor. p

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M