The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

16-18-21mm f/4 Tri-Elmar vs 21mm 1.4 or 18mm 3.8

mAlKhamis

New member
HI M
With respect to coding - just do it, it may not always be necessary, but life gets very confusing and error-prone if you have some coded lenses and some which aren't . . . on the other hand, you can easily use a coding kit to code lenses manually - it needs refreshing every few weeks, but if you get into the habit of keeping a sharpie and checking it really isn't a bother.

I quite agree about the 50 f1.4 - I often carry just that and the WATE with me.

as for Panoramas - 24 is (IMHO of course) too wide for stitching - I usually use a 35mm (or a 28), often held vertically for landscapes - here is one taken a week or so back using 35mm on the MATE (28,35,50 tri-elmar) - 5 shot (I think) no tripod, I was on skis:



all the best
thank you so much Jono, that was really helpful, the shot is amazing, the handheld panorama is just perfect :thumbs:, i think the 35mm is a must have for panoramas :)

cheers my friend :D:D
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Another question !

does the 6bit digit coded lenses makes a difference with the M9 ?

for example 50 cron vs 50 lux 6bit coded lets say at F/2.8 , will be there any noticeable differences ?

thank you so much

cheers!

M
For wides I would say definatly yes.
For 50mm I am not sure. My 50/1.4asph is coded and I havent tried without.
 

bradhusick

Active member
HI M
With respect to coding - just do it, it may not always be necessary, but life gets very confusing and error-prone if you have some coded lenses and some which aren't . . . on the other hand, you can easily use a coding kit to code lenses manually - it needs refreshing every few weeks, but if you get into the habit of keeping a sharpie and checking it really isn't a bother.

I quite agree about the 50 f1.4 - I often carry just that and the WATE with me.

as for Panoramas - 24 is (IMHO of course) too wide for stitching - I usually use a 35mm (or a 28), often held vertically for landscapes - here is one taken a week or so back using 35mm on the MATE (28,35,50 tri-elmar) - 5 shot (I think) no tripod, I was on skis:



all the best

Jono - that pano is STUNNING! Well done!
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Hey guys,

hope every one is enjoying his M9 ;)

Well, I'm kind of hovering around, exploring my options and so on :confused:

So i decided to include a rangefinder in my future new camera system.

I'm gonna get the 50mm 1.4 for sure

but i'm confused regarding the wide angle option for landscapes

so my question is about the performance of the tri-elmar vs lenses with single focal length, is it same as the 35mm systems where fixed prime wide angle lenses are mostly better than zoom ones ?

how is the 18mm 3.8 ?? is it sharper than the tri-elmar @ 18mm ?

if you were to choose between the tri-elmar and 21mm 1.4, what would be you first option ?

your input will be really appreciated

cheers!

M
I'd presume that if you are shooting W/A landscapes you'd be stopping down a bit anyway ... so a WATE seems the likely choice. It is an awesome optic, quite an achievement in design and performance. The Frankenfinder isn't my favorite Leica item but it sure works.

As to any other choices, it depends on one's use and applications.

I make my living with photography, mostly shooting people, and the M9 plays a big role in that ... so I have a lot of lenses for various paying applications. Two M9s and a 21/1.4, 24/1.4, 28/2, 35/1.4, 50/0.95, 75/1.4, and a 90/2.8 Portrait lens ... in addition to the WATE.

They are all factory coded so I can see the Exif info and "sort by lens" when processing ... which allows for easier batch corrections.

Each M9 is set up to be dedicated to 1) wide angle, or 2) 35mm and above. The WA M9 has a 1.25X mag and a 21/24/28 finder ... the other M9 has a Thumbs Up and will sport a 1.4X mag as soon as I get it (currently have a 1.15X on it). Most work includes lower available light which is why my concentration is on the faster optics. While bigger and heavier than more demure/slower M lenses, the fast aperture M kit fits in a bag that barely can hold a Pro Canon DSLR with a 85/1.2 alone.

When I travel it's the WATE, 28/2 or 35/1.4 for aperture speed, and the little 90/2.8. That is a very small kit in comparison.

-Marc

(Here's My WA dedicated M9 & 21/1.4 ASPH with the 21/24/28 "Bullet Finder" that I prefer to swapping out smaller individual finders while shooing on the run. I like the looks of it, sort of retro).
 

mAlKhamis

New member
Marc, thank you so much for the recommendation, it seems that you are having lots of fun with Leica M gear ;) i really appreciate your input, you have added lots of considerations in my future project. cheers!
 
Spectacular pano Jono!. Really inspires me to delve into this world. Marc- How are you liking the 21 lux? To the OP original question, I can't hope to come up with more useful advise than you have gotten, so 'll just tell my story. I had a 24 elmarit (now sold) that I used a LOT on the M8. On the M9 less so, and the 28 cron took it's place in that range. I wanted a truly wide alternative, and considered the WATE vs 21 lux a long while, eventually choosing the 21 lux. I felt I would not use the 16 or 18 FL that much, and because I do a lot of indoor and low light work, I wanted the speed of the lux. I still wrestled with the 21 lux vs 24 lux, (I like Marc's solution!), and felt the 28/2 would cover enough of what the 24/1.4 would, (not really but close), and I wanted a true wide angle to work with. The 21 lux is a terrific lens, so no regrets. best....Peter
 

mAlKhamis

New member
Spectacular pano Jono!. Really inspires me to delve into this world. Marc- How are you liking the 21 lux? To the OP original question, I can't hope to come up with more useful advise than you have gotten, so 'll just tell my story. I had a 24 elmarit (now sold) that I used a LOT on the M8. On the M9 less so, and the 28 cron took it's place in that range. I wanted a truly wide alternative, and considered the WATE vs 21 lux a long while, eventually choosing the 21 lux. I felt I would not use the 16 or 18 FL that much, and because I do a lot of indoor and low light work, I wanted the speed of the lux. I still wrestled with the 21 lux vs 24 lux, (I like Marc's solution!), and felt the 28/2 would cover enough of what the 24/1.4 would, (not really but close), and I wanted a true wide angle to work with. The 21 lux is a terrific lens, so no regrets. best....Peter
thanks peter, i really appreciate the advice, i think the 21mm lux is an excellent option together with 50mm lux, i won't find a better combination, hope to get hold of the M9 sooner than later, i'm so excited !!! :D:D:D
 
You're welcome Mohammad- You are absolutely correct, the 21 and 50 lux asphericals make an unbeatable 2 lens kit. If I had to keep only 2 of mine, (please no), they would be the 2 for the M9 hands down. Looking forward to seeing your images. best....Peter
 

markowich

New member
I have owned all three and decided to keep the 18/3.4 for its sharpness and compact size.
yes, the 18/3.4 is very sharp, even wide open and corner-to corner. in this respect it easily beats the WATE (i didn't even like it on the m8 sharpness wise). the biggest disatvantage of the 18mm super elmar is the moustache type distosion which -for me- makes it impossible to use it for architecture. even seascapes become funny, with moustache type sea-sky interface. the WATE is even worse in this respect. and the 24 LUX -otherwise a great lens- has bad distorsion, too.
my new favourit WA lens is the zeiss biogon 21mm f2.8. with the new M9 firmware there is hardly any red angle problem and distorsion is well controlled.
peter
 

mAlKhamis

New member
yes, the 18/3.4 is very sharp, even wide open and corner-to corner. in this respect it easily beats the WATE (i didn't even like it on the m8 sharpness wise). the biggest disatvantage of the 18mm super elmar is the moustache type distosion which -for me- makes it impossible to use it for architecture. even seascapes become funny, with moustache type sea-sky interface. the WATE is even worse in this respect. and the 24 LUX -otherwise a great lens- has bad distorsion, too.
my new favourit WA lens is the zeiss biogon 21mm f2.8. with the new M9 firmware there is hardly any red angle problem and distorsion is well controlled.
peter
i agree with you peter, the 21 is the best for ultra wide angle, going more is not practical.

now! lets say that i don't need to shoot fast.
what your input about the following

both 50 f/2 cron and 21 f/2.8 elmarit are sharper, lighter, cheaper, and more compact than 50 and 21 lux

thank you guys, i really appreciate your input and advice, cheers!
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
yes, the 18/3.4 is very sharp, even wide open and corner-to corner. in this respect it easily beats the WATE (i didn't even like it on the m8 sharpness wise). the biggest disatvantage of the 18mm super elmar is the moustache type distosion which -for me- makes it impossible to use it for architecture. even seascapes become funny, with moustache type sea-sky interface. the WATE is even worse in this respect. and the 24 LUX -otherwise a great lens- has bad distorsion, too.
my new favourit WA lens is the zeiss biogon 21mm f2.8. with the new M9 firmware there is hardly any red angle problem and distorsion is well controlled.
peter
My experience with the WATE and the 24 lux is quite different.
 

D&A

Well-known member
I agree with you Woody regarding the WATE.

Peter, from my experience of testing out two samples of the WATE against both the Leica 18mm as well as the Zeiss 18mm, the WATe for all intended purposes held it's own regarding sharpness...even at 100% crop. Sounds like maybe you might have used a sub par sample.

I completely though agree with you regarding the moustache type distortion with the leica 18mm. For some critical uses it is close to un-usable and cannot be delt with in post processing. The Zeiss is much better in this regard and in terms of shapness, holds it's own against the Leica. The Zeiss may actually be a bit sharper in the central part of the frame with Leica holding an edge in the corners....the Zeiss having better control over distortion. Just my shooting experience with these lenses.

Dave (D&A)
 

henningw

Member
I concur with Peter that the 18/3.8 and 24 lux have distortion that is at times disturbing; on the other hand the 21/2.8 Biogon still has over 1% which is definitely noticeable. The 21/4.5 Biogon is really the one to get for excellent distortion correction.

On the other hand, for architectural work there are other tools that are generally more suitable, although I used an f/3.4 SA and a 15/8 Hologon many years in this field.

With regard to 'sharpness' all these lenses are excellent, and I have no qualms in using my WATE and 21 lux at whatever aperture is most suitable. My pictures might suffer from all sorts of faults, but they are not dragged down by lack of sharpness.

BTW, panotools and its descendants deals with all types of distortion, including moustache distortion very well. It's just another step in processing.

Henning
 

markowich

New member
dave,
even the MTF graphs of the WATE tell a great deal of the story as far as corner contrast is concerned. well, and i have to admit i am a pixel peeper and i do analyse images on a scientific level (local contrast and frequency analysis and so on). of course, prints tend to equalize...
i am very dillusioned about the distorsion of the WA leica glass.
peter


I agree with you Woody regarding the WATE.

Peter, from my experience of testing out two samples of the WATE against both the Leica 18mm as well as the Zeiss 18mm, the WATe for all intended purposes held it's own regarding sharpness...even at 100% crop. Sounds like maybe you might have used a sub par sample.

I completely though agree with you regarding the moustache type distortion with the leica 18mm. For some critical uses it is close to un-usable and cannot be delt with in post processing. The Zeiss is much better in this regard and in terms of shapness, holds it's own against the Leica. The Zeiss may actually be a bit sharper in the central part of the frame with Leica holding an edge in the corners....the Zeiss having better control over distortion. Just my shooting experience with these lenses.

Dave (D&A)
 

markowich

New member
henning,
agreed on the zeiss 21mm offerings but the f4.5 gives very bad colored angles.
and yes, panotools is quite nice.
peter

I concur with Peter that the 18/3.8 and 24 lux have distortion that is at times disturbing; on the other hand the 21/2.8 Biogon still has over 1% which is definitely noticeable. The 21/4.5 Biogon is really the one to get for excellent distortion correction.

On the other hand, for architectural work there are other tools that are generally more suitable, although I used an f/3.4 SA and a 15/8 Hologon many years in this field.

With regard to 'sharpness' all these lenses are excellent, and I have no qualms in using my WATE and 21 lux at whatever aperture is most suitable. My pictures might suffer from all sorts of faults, but they are not dragged down by lack of sharpness.

BTW, panotools and its descendants deals with all types of distortion, including moustache distortion very well. It's just another step in processing.

Henning
 

mAlKhamis

New member
Peter what is your thought on the following ?

now! lets say that i don't need to shoot fast ( i don't need the 1.4)

both 50 f/2 cron and 21 f/2.8 elmarit are sharper, lighter, cheaper, and more compact than 50 and 21 lux
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Hi Mohammed,

Based on your past and current usage..what fls dominate?

All leica lenses are very very good.use the frame lever to find out which one
you feel comfortable with. Borrow a lens of the fl required if possible and
see how it works for you.

My landscapes are predominantly with longer fls! 28mm is for me uber wide!

Good luck and let us know how you fare.
 
Last edited:

mAlKhamis

New member
Hi Mohammed,

Based on your past and current usage..what fls dominate?

All leica lenses are very very good.use the frame lever to find out which one
you feel comfortable with. Borrow a lens of the fl required if possible and
see how it works for you.

My landscapes are predominantly with longer fls! 28mm is for me uber wide!

Good luck and let us know how you fare.
Thanks Rayyan, i really appreciate your advice, yap i agree, perhaps i should do that !! cheers! :thumbup:
 
V

vanhulsenbeek

Guest
.......................

as for Panoramas - 24 is (IMHO of course) too wide for stitching - I usually use a 35mm (or a 28), often held vertically for landscapes - here is one taken a week or so back using 35mm on the MATE (28,35,50 tri-elmar) - 5 shot (I think) no tripod, I was on skis:.................
I respectfully beg to differ. I find 35mm Panorama's with the M9 too restricted in height.

I have published several of my very recent New Zealand pano's on Zenfolio (see for a quick slidehow here: http://sanderva.zenfolio.com/ ) and most are shot with the WATE at 16-21mm. The New Zealand Pano's are in this Group of Gelleries: http://sanderva.zenfolio.com/f52853875
For the connoisseur: many of these are pictures made on the Milford and Routeburn Tracks

This item: http://sanderva.zenfolio.com/p301833660/h3276db6b#h3276db6b in the South Island Gallery, is for me a typical 35mm: too long and narrow.

Also I should state here that the WATE, together with PTGui, produces excellent Pano's and distortion does not come into the game at all, with me that is :D
 
Last edited:
Top