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

[fotografz]

The slide show started in about 5 seconds - which is pretty good. It also started when I clicked on weddings - again, relatively quickly.

Thanks, it must be my Comcast server gumming up the works ... or my machine.

-Marc

 

[jonoslack]

Thanks, it must be my Comcast server gumming up the works ... or my machine.

-Marc

With a bit of luck I might have an ipad to test it on tomorrow!

 

[mAlKhamis]

Hi Peter, Marc, Jono, M (and hope I didn't leave anyone out)...

I think we can all agree as Marc said, that it's horses for courses, regarding lens choices and what our expectations and needs are regarding optical performances and parameters set by both the optical enginers that design these lenses as well as optical limitations in any one particular design. There are tradeoffs to be sure, but how big they are depends on our own personal use. Certain distortions found problematic for architecuture use, may be acceptable or hardley noticed in pictorial type imagery, or at the very least exploit its use for creative purposes. Then again it depends what kind of distortion we are talking about, how severe and whether it can be corrected, if necessary. So many factors go into choosing a lens thats right for a particular application.

Marc, I did mis-understand you, as in sending the Leica 18mm back for repair, as opposed for a refund. I can't say whether the Zeiss 18mm for SLR has the same characterisrics as the M version, but the 18mm Zm is a formatable optic and one where distortion is held down to respectable levels compared with its Leica counterpart. As for how it draws, it's farily typical in Zeiss fashion...a bit higher contrast than the Leica, with terrific resolution, basied slightly for the center of the frame.

I agree with Jono, and others that the WATE doesn't have quite the issue with severe distortion as the Leica 18mm does and as such, can be used in a wider set of applications, in my opinion. What distortion it does have, can often be delt with, when required, in post processing. I cannot say the same thing regarding the Leica 18mm.

As for the tradeoffs of the 21 and 24mm Lux's...vs. their f2.8 counterparts...I find them more than acceptable, for as Marc so aptly put it, they were designed for those that require their low light-shallow depth of field characteristics (among others). There are always tradoffs when we talk about ultra fast counterparts to normal speed lenses in a given focal length, especially in the wide angle arena...whether they be optical, size, handling etc. I'm reminded years ago about a optic designed by Pentax...their FA 85mm f1.4 lens. People wondered why between f1.4 and f4, shots taken at mid-infinity distances were very soft, but at close range, had both incredable sharpness and yet asoft diffuse glow, that made it one of the most incredable portrait lenses around...something the optical designer at Pentax stated he strived for when questioned (although Pentax never mentioned the purpose of its design) Desire a better all around 85mm, then their 85mm f1.8 was the ticket. Even the Nikon Af 85mm f1.4, which I used and compared with....couldn't hold a candle to the Penatx FA 85mm f1.4, when it came to portrait work (nor do I believe that optic is the best choice for portrait work). Point is, picking the right lens for its intended purpose and work with it's optical characteristics, exploit them to their best advantage, is how any lens should be used.

Obviously, Marc, Jono and many others here have done just that and their work illustrate the point better than any printed words can. It fact, many of their images not only illustrate, but inspire!

Dave (D&A)

Dave thank you so much for the excellent statement, i agree with every word. actually !! i know exactly now what i want, and how should i proceed. :thumbs:

Marc. I've just checked your website, and yes you are a true inspiring master, my hat is down for your respect.

It's a truly big pleasure and honor to get to chat with you guys, the Leica Forum has really awesome people as the MF forum. Can't wait to get my new gear.

HEAR THAT CAPTURE INTEGRATION !!!!

cheers!

M

 

[markowich]

I would have sent that lens right back to Leica.

It reminds me of a job where I had to shoot the dairy section in a Supermarket. We had shoot it in sections to print huge panels pieced together for a trade show display. I used a Contax 645 and Zeiss 35mm ... what a nightmare. We could not get any of the shelves to line up due to horrible wavy distortion.

I don't do any of that stuff with a 35mm camera any longer. It's all a done with a tech camera and Schneider or Rodenstock HR Digital APO lenses.:thumbs: Horses for courses.


I did liked the Nikon 14-24/2.8 a lot. Unfortunately it is huge and unwieldy with protruding front element ... not to mention you had to use it on a Nikon camera with it's CMOS sensor and AA filter which I subjectively dislike. Same for the Nikon 24/1.4 ... doesn't matter how good it is, it fits on a CMOS DSLR.:thumbdown:

Eye of the beholder and all that.

-Marc

marc,
i just realised that the pbase version of the 18mm super elmait shot was already worked on. here is a conversion of the original, to make things worse.
peter

 

[gero]

Grate thread in general.

In Turkish the word for art is "Sanat" and the word for craft is "Zanaat"; hence similar, but not the same. I understand that a craftsman aiming to satisfy the customers may not tolerate distortions, whereas it may be unimportant or even pleasing for an artist. I wish I was an artist,

Osman

Osman, I find the difference very interesting as well, in Mexico we have the words: Artista and Artesano (for Artist & Craftsman). I find myself, more and more, wanting to be an Artesano. I have never quite known how to be an Artist and never really tried.

 

[gero]

wa=distortion, photography is a distortion (or a representation), an interpretation?

 

[otumay]

Grate thread in general.



Osman, I find the difference very interesting as well, in Mexico we have the words: Artista and Artesano (for Artist & Craftsman). I find myself, more and more, wanting to be an Artesano. I have never quite known how to be an Artist and never really tried.

Gero, a similar situation then. I think it was in 2005, I discovered while touring the fascinating Yucatan Peninsula, that it became more and more difficult for me to distinguish between artists and artisans. In the handcrafts section of the market places we visited, there were always creative people whose output differed from the mainstream in a sense that nearly always appealed to me.

Best regards,

Osman

 

[gero]

Osman, while traveling through Nogueras-Colima this last new year we found Emilio Pinto (painter-sculptor-artisan) he worked for the painter Alejandro Rangel. When he died, Emilio started to fuse the clay pre-colombian modeling tradition with the paintings that he used to do for Alejandro. In this fusion, I think his in a very interesting path just by his craft.

This is a painting & a sculpture from his town:

 

[otumay]

I agree. The first painting is a good example of the dividing line between art and craft fading into nothingness. I also like the subtle stylizing of the dog. Artistic AND real. Thank you for this info.

 

[mAlKhamis]

hey guys ,,

found this nice post in photo.net that i found very interest

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00FHJQ

Simon Galbally [Subscriber] , Feb 16, 2006; 09:18 p.m.

Terence, while you've had some good responses there is one very important element not fully addressed. These names refer to speed designations especially in the more modern use of the Leica nomenclature - Summicron being f2 etc. What has not been covered is that the attributes of these "manes" do differ for obvious reasons - a 35mm format lens of say f4 fastest / widest aperture is comparatively easy to design and build to a high performance standard - not so difficult to address / correct / deal with the optical aberrations a lens designer faces. The faster lenses are harder to design and build so each can / does have differing performance attributes, which I try to outline here.

So my comments below should be read in terms of the generations of each group of lenses - compare like generations with like (eg 1960s to 1960s) since glasses, technologies etc applied much the same.

This goes some way to explain why a Tele-Elmar (first iteration) and Tele-Elmar-M (second which is optically the same) 135mm lens is superb at widest aperture of f4 and shows virtually no improvement as it is closed down until diffraction is caused. The same basically applies to the f3.5 Apo-Telyt-M 135mm still regarded as possibly the most outstanding optical performer ever built by Leica.

So the Elmarit lenses of f2.8 largest aperture are relatively easier for good designers to design and build to a wonderful performance standard today but not so easy as an f4 lens because 100% more light means the designers are trading off various aberration corrections to achieve a targeted spec for manufacturing economies etc and what marketing has set as some parameters too.

Hence the Elmarit-M 90mm is a superbly sharp and well corrected lens showing little "trade-off" in performance attributes and little trade off in correction of aberrations. And as Puts says in his reviews - closing down one stop (don't hold me 100% accurate here but you'll get the idea) to f4 sees the performance optimal and virtually unchanged as it closes down further; again until diffraction occurs.

Then as you move towards "quite" fast lenses of f2 the Summicron designs, selection of glass, lens element shapes and spacing etc become quite complex as they try to correct aberrations with minimal trade-off. Leica's current Summicrons are lauded because so much has been achieved to produce high resolution; sharpness, edge-to-edge performance; resistance of flare ........ So the current Summicron-m ASPH 35mm achieved great optical improvements (although some say the bokeh is not as pretty as the earlier version). The current Summicron-M 50mm is lauded as possibly the best ever 50mm (or at least until the new ASPH Summilux version was released recently). Generally their best performance is achieved around 2 stops down but wide open the performance is excellent and in normal shooting of little consequence.

BUT, when the designers move to a one stop faster design the very hard work begins - Summilux f1.4. This 100% increase in light transmission offers huge challenges which saw less modern designs achieve relatively low resolution and contrast and significant image change from axis to the edges, etc but a fair and necessary trade off in aberration corrections - necessary evils according to the parameters set for the designers. This is why the new current Summilux-M ASPH 35mm and 50mm are so well regarded. The 35mm version made enormous improvements because wider angle lenses offer even greater challenges. The new 50mm is considered by some as the best ever 50mm by any maker of any fastest aperture - as good as the current Summicron wide open and becomes possibly better from f2 / f 2.8 down!

So possibly until some of the current Summilux and Summicron lenses (50mm Lux; 75mm Cron, 90mm Cron) it was fair to say that most fast f1.4 lenses often never achieved the same overall optical performance as their f2 or f2.8 cousins of the same generation. For example until the new Summilux-M ASPH 50mm, the Lux 50mm never 100% matched the performance of the Summicron-M 50mm at any aperture.

So today the differing lens names are not the same in attributes nor performance, although all range from very good to superb; optical design is not an exact or perfect science and the parameters (cost and size etc) make that even harder. These difference are primarily driven by the challenges of the widest f stop and how that sets design limitations that impact all the way down the line to the smallest aperture. However they have one factor in common - Leica seems to push for optimal performance at the closest possible aperture to wide open.

A long story while doing my best to set the scene for a better context for your question to be answered. I hope it helps and when my way of explaining how these lens names and lenses actually differ, forgive me where I'm not perfectly accurate - but the points stand.

let me know that do think guys about it cheers!

 

[otumay]

Thank you Mohammad, this is very informative reading.
Osman

 

[mAlKhamis]

Thank you Mohammad, this is very informative reading.
Osman

you are welcomed my friend

 

[Hacker]

There is an article in the July LFI 2009 issue comparing 7 ASPH WA lenses on the M7 and the M8: WATE, 18mm, 21mm Lux and 21mm Elmarit, 24mm Lux, 24mm Elmarit and 24mm Elmar. I often see vignetting, especially on the Lux lenses. One possiblity I've toyed with is to use the lenses on film (trying very hard to keep everything digital).

The Nikon WAs are really good, no issues with the 14-24, 16-35 and even the 24 f/1.4.

 

[glenerrolrd]

In Turkish the word for art is "Sanat" and the word for craft is "Zanaat"; hence similar, but not the same. I understand that a craftsman aiming to satisfy the customers may not tolerate distortions, whereas it may be unimportant or even pleasing for an artist. I wish I was an artist, but anyhow I feel very close to your viewpoint.

Osman[/QUOTE]

I have found this insight to be invaluable in understand different perspectives on photographs. I have used it with a number of professional PJ in discussions of images. It seems to universally resonate.

Thank you Osman

 

[otumay]

I'm much obliged Roger, thank you kindly.

 

[michaelbrenner]

Many thanks for the detailed and insightful response. I'm in the market for a wide angle and have been researching the 21 lux v WATE and found your observations very helpful.

Currently I don't have an M9, only film bodies and M8's, but I've shot with the WATE and 21 Summilux as well as the Elmarit on the M9. I have tried the 18 on the M9.

When the 21 Elmarit ASPH came out, I got one of the first ones and have used it a lot; it largely replaced my Super Angulon. As my 'bonus' lens with the M8 I got the WATE which has served me well in that capacity, and after I saw the 21 Summilux at last Photokina I ordered one the day I came home.

I do architectural photography and wideangles are what I use most of the time. 21mm is an importan focal length for me. 24 on M's is of no interest.

In practice, the Elmarit is extremely close to the Summilux stopped down, and while the weight is more the size difference isn't that great, at least in my use. Stop it down one more stop and you have the performance of the WATE. Yes, there are slight differences, as in the Elmarit having more vignetting at f/2.8 than the Summilux, but overall the only differences are weight, size (to a lesser degree) and cost. And versatility and speed.

As far as the usage goes, I really only use the WATE at 16 or 21. The 18 has a very slight advantage in performance over the WATE, but it is slight, and the versatility of the WATE makes it much more appealing.

As others have mentioned, you should only get the 21 Summilux if you are really sure you need the speed, because once you stop down to f/2.8, or even more so f/4 you'll have a hard time noticing the difference in a print.

At the moment I still have the S-A, the CV 21 and the three lenses mentioned. I'll be selling the Elmarit and probably the CV, because even though it's tiny that's not enough to entice me to take it along most days as it's just not as good. The S-A has a special look that I have gotten used to and I will continue to use it on film bodies with Tri-X. Of the WATE and the Summilux, the 'lux gets the most use but the WATE comes along when there's more light. Sometimes I take both.

Henning

 

[julianf73]

Many thanks for the detailed and insightful response. I'm in the market for a wide angle and have been researching the 21 lux v WATE and found your observations very helpful.

I have owned the 21mm Summilux and the 21mm Elmarit in the past, but strangely, I find the 21mm Super-Elmar-M (f/3.4) to be the best 21mm Leica ever made.

 

[Paratom]

I once tried the 21/1.4 but was not totally convinced by the sharpness/corners.
I am very satisfied with the 21/3.4 which have used for quite some time now.
I also tried 2 wates, they were fine but not up to the 21/3.4
So I rather added a 18/3.4 additionally to my 21 instead of getting a wate.
The 21 SEM is my favorite choice.

 

[rayt]

I wouldn’t say one is better than the other. The 21MM SEM is a high contrast lens with heightened edged sharpness. The 21MM Summilux has lower contrast and a gentler old school look. And the 21mm Elmarit Asph is somewhere in the middle. I used to own all three and now only have the Summilux and SEM. I am not a lens reviewer with the right adjectives but I have photos. I also have a Voigtlander 21mm f1.4 and it’s also a great lens for what it can do.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Canyon View

Leica M9 + Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH. (at 16mm) @ 16 mm, f/4, 1/1000 s, ISO 160, DxO PL6.