21 sem/ 24 3.8 over 21/24 lux for daytime

[gooomz]

i know in low light evenings no question, but is there any image quality to gain by shooting with the 21 sem or 24 3.8 over the 21 1.4 apsh or the 24 lux shooting between f4--f8?

i am thinking the only real benefit at these f stops (f4 to f8) would be smaller, lighter, and more discreet but wasn't sure if there would be an image quality benefit going from the 21/24 lux to the 21 sem/24 3.8.

anything noticeable on prints or only on test charts/ pixel peeping?

thanks

 

[NB23]

Pixel peeping.

The only advantage is size.

 

[gooomz]

not even on the monochrom?

no image quality benefit on a 13x19 or 17x22 print?

 

[glenerrolrd]

Primary advantage is size . The slower lenses have less distortion and are at or near optimum wide open . I tend to use the 21SEM as part of my daily kit when street shooting. The 21 Lux by comparison is quite large ..wonderful in available light in the mornings or evening . Generally the elmar s have better edge sharpness and less distortion .

Erwin Puts has nice writeups on these lenses . No lens is a must have in the Leica M line because they are all excellent ..but the 21SEM is one of my favorites .

 

[Ario Arioldi]

The real plus of the Summilux is the possibility to play with the shallow DOF, not so easy to have with similar wides.

 

[gooomz]

is the distortion easily corrected in LR?

so size seems to be the key.

the only thing is having (2) 21mm is bigger then just one 21 lux, and not having to worry about which 21 to bring is nice. just bring the lux and your covered.

 

[StephenPatterson]

Another reason I like the 21SEM in my kit is that it takes E46 filters, the same as the 35 Summilux FLE, 50 Summilux ASPH and many other Leica lenses.

 

[gooomz]

i guess the image quality bump going from the 21 lux to 21 sem isn't really there in a finished print.

but going from the 50 lux apsh to a 50 apo judging from the last thread it seems there is something to be gained on a finished Print. (not test chart or pixel peeping).

 

[Kokoshawnuff]

is the distortion easily corrected in LR?

Yes but that would decrease the IQ of your overall image when viewed in a large print.

The Summilux is more than capable of stopped down shooting, but (as others mentioned) the SEM is better in terms of distortion, vignetting, and resolution around the edges...not to mention the huge size differences.

 

[innerimager]

If you are looking for a smaller 21 that really delivers, especially on the MM, the zeiss 21/2.8 is hard to beat and saves a few bucks.....Peter

 

[gooomz]

by using auto Lens Correction in LR what aspect of image IQ suffers?

 

[Kokoshawnuff]

With corrections, pixels are shifted, removed, added, condensed and expanded. Often with distortion corrections, you will loose part of the frame. With vignetting corrections you will loose resolution in the corners.

If you have Lightroom, try using the lens correction tool. Then look at the before and after while zoomed into a corner or edge. Yes this is pixel peeping, but there are very few instances when the corrections wouldn't be apparent on a large print. But the degradation might be so minor, one would only notice it if they had an uncorrected print to compare it to. Therefore the benefit of lens correction might often outweigh the potential pixel damage it does to the image.

 

[gooomz]

are the ill effects of lens correction also visible in the center of the frame or only corners?

is a 13x19 print large enough to notice these ill effects of lens correction?

 

[seakayaker]

The 24/3.8 Elmar is a lens that I have been quite happy with every time I have used it.

I can not speak of the differences between the lux and the elmar except for price, $3,000 difference for the 21mm and $3,400 difference for the 24mm. As others have stated the Elmar 21 and 24 are top quality.

If you have a need for the low light and shallow dof capability then you know you need the lux. If you do not need them then you can buy the elmar and have the funds for another lenses or camera.

Having a 50 & 35 Lux, has met my needs for low light.

Good luck with your decision.

 

[John Black]

I have both the 21 SE and 21 Lux. For day-time use I'd choose the 21 Super Elmar ASPH - assuming landscapes, travel, part of a lens kit. It is brilliantly sharp, great contrast, etc. It's pretty compact too. Optically I'd consider it among one of Leica's best lenses.

The 21 Lux is sharp, but it has more of the usual wide angle smear. For me, it is a low light lens where F1.4 is needed and I want to capture some atmosphere. Admittedly, I do not use this lens much, but I think (hope) I will find more reasons to use the 21 Lux with the M-240 (live view for focusing, better ISO for file quality, etc).

If wanting the 21mm lens for landscapes, travel, etc., the 21 SE would be my recommendation.

 

[Paratom]

funny. Just this morning I shot some shots with 21/1.4, 21/2.8asph and 21/3.4 on the M9 and MM.
These were only few test shots but at f3.4 the 21/3.4 was visible sharper than the Summilux, and the same was true even at f8.0.
The difference was bigger than I had expected.
The 21/2.8asph was in between at f2.8 and pretty good at f8.0.
For some reason I have the feeling my 24/1.4 is better than the 21/1.4.
The 21/3.4 blew me away, the images were so sharp and the size/handling is so nice that I think it will be the 21mm of my choice for the future even though I believe f1.4 of the Summilux allows a special look.

 

[gooomz]

does any here choose not to lens correct these 21/24 lenses in LR due to IQ loss?

 

[Paratom]

does any here choose not to lens correct these 21/24 lenses in LR due to IQ loss?

I dont see much IQ loss but distortion wise I sometimes feel that in "corrected" images faces near corners look worse (more distored) than in uncorrected images.
Maybe it makes sense for architecture but for landscape and portrait I feel I dont need any correction for Leica lenses.
For m4/3 zooms its a different story.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

I've had the 21 Summilux for a few years. Even wide open, it captures a scene in depth, as in this example:

and it can certainly be used in good light, stopped down to f/5.6:

Looking at the full resolution jpeg, I can see some loss of sharpness out at the edges of the frame, and in other shots there was chromatic fringing when I was foolish enough to shoot rebar forests against a bright sky. Note that this example doesn't show that problem, since the light was from behind. The curving strips of rebar are not due to distortion.

About half a year ago, I shifted this project over to the 21/3.4 Super Elmar. The rebar is pretty much covered now, so I don't have a comparable shot, but here's a sample from the newer, smaller lens, also at f/5.6:

Less drama, but absolute edge to edge sharpness. Appropriate to the finishing stages of the construction.

scott

 

[gooomz]

lots of good words about the 21 sem, but i never hear high praise for the 24mm 3.8.