Super Elmar 18 mm - couple of questions.

[Guest brisman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

From all accounts the Voightlander 15 is not ideal on the M9 which has me looking at the Super Elmar 18 mm (to pass the time while I await delivery in Australia of my Black M9) which is reported as performing very well on the M9. I do have a question that I am hoping someone can answer before I take the plunge (and go on another waiting list).

 

Given that I want the lens for an M9, the UV/IR filter option between the hood and the lens is not an option - therefore I am seeking clarity on my options:

 

1) no UV filter (for protection of the front element) but I can use the hood

 

2) use the filter holder and put a 77 mm uv filter in front of the lens, which prevents me from using the hood (is this a problem for this lens)

 

Are there any other options - does someone produce a filter that can go (like the special UV/IR) between the hood and the lens. I am guessing that using a UV/IR filter when one is not required by the camera on such a wide lens is going to cause problems?

 

Thanks in advance......

[Advertisement]

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

[RockyIII]

I am pretty sure that Leica does not make a filter that mounts between the 18mm lens and hood other than the UV/IR. I am not a fan of filters, so I am looking forward to using just the hood without a filter on mine.

 

Rocky

[hoppyman]

Brisman, somewhere in the archives is a thread where somebody clever used a reversed normal filter and some step rings from memory. Otherwise perhaps John Milich may come to the rescue (having made clever adaptors for other lenses).

I have shot the Super Elmar on an M8 for a couple of hours. It really is excellent. The hood supplied does provide very good mechanical protection for the front element.

I have a feeling that you may be waiting a while for an M9 to try your Super Elmar on:). Get in line to be the SECOND Brisbane owner of a black M9

The good news is that you may be able to pick up the dedicated UV/IR discounted from the USA currently, thanks to very favourable exchange rate.

 

From all accounts the Voightlander 15 is not ideal on the M9 which has me looking at the Super Elmar 18 mm (to pass the time while I await delivery in Australia of my Black M9) which is reported as performing very well on the M9. I do have a question that I am hoping someone can answer before I take the plunge (and go on another waiting list).

 

Given that I want the lens for an M9, the UV/IR filter option between the hood and the lens is not an option - therefore I am seeking clarity on my options:

 

1) no UV filter (for protection of the front element) but I can use the hood

 

2) use the filter holder and put a 77 mm uv filter in front of the lens, which prevents me from using the hood (is this a problem for this lens)

 

Are there any other options - does someone produce a filter that can go (like the special UV/IR) between the hood and the lens. I am guessing that using a UV/IR filter when one is not required by the camera on such a wide lens is going to cause problems?

 

Thanks in advance......

[sfokevin]

Here is a pic of Maurizo's work around before the stock filter became available - I do not think this would work for FF Format - Too much Vignetting?...

 

[Guest brisman]

Thanks everyone for their thoughts.

[marknorton]

That UV/IR filter for the 18mm lens - a shameless copy of John Milich's adapter for the WATE - is only suitable for the cropped sensor camera and the official Leica filter solution is hardly one. Highlights the problems of using filters at all with such wide lenses so my view is don't. The hood will more than protect the front lens element - though you might want to check out the cost of a replacement hood if you regard it in any way an an expendible item...

 

I like the Super-Elmar, much better value for money than the WATE. Come to think of it, the 24mm Elmar and 28mm Elmarit are refreshingly compact after dealing with the big Summiluxes.

[Jonsi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would like to add a question:

 

If you use the E77 Filter holder (Art.No. 14 484) for the Super Elmar 18mm for FF format, can you use normal Filters (i.e. with front screw) or do you have to use "slim" filters to avoid vingetting?

 

Thank you very much for your help.

 

Jonsi

[thrice]

Highlights the problems of using filters at all with such wide lenses so my view is don't.

 

Which brings me to my problem which is that I shoot at the seaside, often when the sea is rather rough, resulting in a lot of salt-spray in the air. I'd rather be cleaning that off a replaceable filter surface than a multi-thousand dollar lens.

 

Hence the reason I went with the 18mm ZM, so that I can mount my LEE ND grad system to the 58mm filter thread.

 

Picture related:

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/10940611-lg.jpg

 

I shot around this location for 30 minutes during rough seas, I had to carefully clean the filter, camera and finder when I got home, thankfully the lens glass was pristine thanks to the protection of the filter.

[Jonsi]

Picture related:

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/10940611-lg.jpg

 

Wonderful picture!

[thrice]

Wonderful picture!

 

Thanks Jonsi

 

I prefer to work with grads rather than blending exposures as the results always look more natural to me, I'm less tempted to go overboard and the water doesn't get that ugly layered look where the images overlap.

 

I would have loved the 18mm Super-Elmar for it's size, but alas no standard filter mount makes it a non-starter for me. I used to shoot with the 19mm Elmarit-R and loved that lens to bits, but I had to fashion my own 77mm filter holder to make the lens practical for me.

[markowich]

i did like the SE18mm a lot...sharp to the edges, much better and cheaper than the WATE. until i tried architecure....the moustache distorsion is very bad and hard to correct. still, for what the WATE costs you can get the SE18mm and the ZM 21mm f2.8, which is an excellent lens with very little distorsion. or if 21mm is wide enough for you, just forget the SE18mm and give the ZM a try. it does beat the leica 21mm f2.8, in every respect. that is if you can live with the blue dot instead of the red one---))).

peter

[lars_bergquist]

The ZM 18mm has no problems with distortion.

 

The old man from the 5cm Age

[sjt1]

That UV/IR filter for the 18mm lens - a shameless copy of John Milich's adapter for the WATE - is only suitable for the cropped sensor camera and the official Leica filter solution is hardly one. Highlights the problems of using filters at all with such wide lenses so my view is don't. The hood will more than protect the front lens element - though you might want to check out the cost of a replacement hood if you regard it in any way an an expendible item...

 

I like the Super-Elmar, much better value for money than the WATE. Come to think of it, the 24mm Elmar and 28mm Elmarit are refreshingly compact after dealing with the big Summiluxes.

 

Two things I would add - First, the Leica UVIR filter severely vignettes when you use it on full frame - I used the SE18 on a film camera forgetting the UVIR filter was on the front of the lens and the results were lots of black edges. Second, the lens hood is metal and I think pretty tough - I think it was designed to be since the front element sticks out proud in front of the lens barrel.

 

HTH

[adli]

I once accidentally forgot to take off the UV/IR filer on the Super Elmar when I took a picture with it on my M6. The result was that the inner parts of the hood, when stacked on top of the filer, was visible on the corners of the picture.

[Mauribix]

Here is a pic of Maurizo's work around before the stock filter became available - I do not think this would work for FF Format - Too much Vignetting?...

[/img]

 

Thank you mate for the credits!

BTW, that solution visibly vignettes with the FF M9.

[markowich]

The ZM 18mm has no problems with distortion.

 

The old man from the 5cm Age

so how does the expert in geometry call a map that turns stright lines into waves? SE 18mm, no PP, just RAW conversion in C1.

peter

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!

[wattsy]

so how does the expert in geometry call a map that turns stright lines into waves? SE 18mm, no PP, just RAW conversion in C1.

peter

 

I think Lars was referring to the Zeiss 18mm.

[lars_bergquist]

I think Lars was referring to the Zeiss 18mm.

 

Correct. The 18mm Zeiss Distagon ZM has a hair under 1% barrel distorion, i.e. distortion is negligible even when shooting architecture. (An 18mm lens is not a copy lens, to be sure.) The maximum occurs at an image height of 16mm, and the value then reaches 0.5% in the extreme corner. This regression is not enough to create visible 'mustache distortion', especially as the maximum value is so low.

 

The Super-Elmar reaches 1.9% barrel distortion at c. 15mm image height, falling abruptly to 0.5mm in the corners. The maximum value is not unacceptable in a superwide lens, but the fall-off of nearly 1.5% creates the villainous mustaches.

 

The Distagon is also very sharp, solidly built, takes a standard 58mm filter and sports a sturdy bayonet hood, the way modern lenses should. Remains the issue of rededge. The Distagon should not be coded as a WATE. I have no personal experience of using it as a Super-Elmar, because I bought the lens before the SEM existed. Mine is coded as a 21mm Elmarit pre-asph, with good results. This of course requires a bayonet that keys in the 28+90 frames; as standard, the lens is sold with a bayonet for 50+75mm. Just say that you want it for M cameras (so that the dread word Leica is not uttered).

 

The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Elmar

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[markowich]

Correct. The 18mm Zeiss Distagon ZM has a hair under 1% barrel distorion, i.e. distortion is negligible even when shooting architecture. (An 18mm lens is not a copy lens, to be sure.) The maximum occurs at an image height of 16mm, and the value then reaches 0.5% in the extreme corner. This regression is not enough to create visible 'mustache distortion', especially as the maximum value is so low.

 

The Super-Elmar reaches 1.9% barrel distortion at c. 15mm image height, falling abruptly to 0.5mm in the corners. The maximum value is not unacceptable in a superwide lens, but the fall-off of nearly 1.5% creates the villainous mustaches.

 

The Distagon is also very sharp, solidly built, takes a standard 58mm filter and sports a sturdy bayonet hood, the way modern lenses should. Remains the issue of rededge. The Distagon should not be coded as a WATE. I have no personal experience of using it as a Super-Elmar, because I bought the lens before the SEM existed. Mine is coded as a 21mm Elmarit pre-asph, with good results. This of course requires a bayonet that keys in the 28+90 frames; as standard, the lens is sold with a bayonet for 50+75mm. Just say that you want it for M cameras (so that the dread word Leica is not uttered).

 

The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Elmar

 

yes, sorry. i overlooked 'ZM' in your posting.

peter

[lars_bergquist]

yes, sorry. i overlooked 'ZM' in your posting.

peter

"Interdum dormitat et bonus Homerus."

 

The old man from the Age of ...