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!

Leica 21mm Elmarit or 21mm Super Elmar

doctorfab

New member
Hi all!
Does any one here use Leica 21mm Elmarit f/2.8 ASPH lens on Leica M (240)? How does it perform compared to the 21mm Super Elmar f/3.4?
Thank you in advance!
 

topoxforddoc

New member
No, but I have a Voigtlander 21/1.8, which I have used an a M9. Very pleased with it - it's a bargain.

All the wide shots in this gallery were shot with the 21/1.8 CV last week.
Charlie Chan | Wilko Johnson - Still Kickin' - Cambridge Junction

There's a comprehensive review by Steve Huff here on the Voigt 21 1.8 and by Ron Scheffler on all the 21s from Voigt, Leica and Zeiss 21 lenses.
The Voigtlander 21 1.8 Lens Review by Steve Huff | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS
http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?page_id=130
 

turtle

New member
The 21mm f3.4 will be smaller, lighter and most likely sharper across the frame at f3.4.

I do not own either of these, so I will stand corrected, but every review I have read on the 21mm f2.8 asph suggests that it is a relatively weak performer a f2.8 and off centre compared to other asph designs, such as the 24mm f2.8 Elmarit asph. It seems to need a solid one stop down to f4, where performance is dramatically improved. In contrast, I understand the 21mm f3.4 is remarkable from that aperture onwards.

Super Elmar may have a touch more contrast too.

With that large hood in place the f2.8 may also intrude into the hotshoe finder a little more, if you intend to use one.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
I've never used the Elmarit but what I can say is for me the deciding factor for buying into the M system was based on the performance of the Super-Elmar.

Terrific lens!
 

doctorfab

New member
Thanks! I am also interested in color differences, as well as distortion and drawing character between the two. Let's exclude the 21mm Elmarit pre-ASPH.
 

aDam007

New member
IMHO the 21SEM is a much better lens. I don't only mean technically. It also has a good amount of color realism and pop. Almost like a Zeiss lens with Leica refinements and a Leica color palette. The ergonomics of the lens are also good.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I own both.
Used the 21/2.8asph on the M6, M8 and M9...I never saw any problem with the 21/2.8.
Lately I have used the 21 SEM a lot, I really like the size.
I don't have direct comparisons but overall my impression is the following:
21/3.4 is very sharp over the frame even wide open, and quite contrasty.
The 21/2.8asph draws a little ore organic with a little less contrast and slightly softer corners. (I don't mean soft but less sharp)
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Thank you very much! So when do you think the corners become comparable? f4 or beyond?
I can try to shoot some images at the weekend with the M.
I never was missing anything with the 21/2.8, however the 21/3.4 is impressing me all the time, it has the smaller size and weight, and the price for the 21/3.4 is OK IMO.

Do you allready own one of the lenses or you try to decide between them?
 

doctorfab

New member
Wow, if you could shoot comparison images would be amazing!
I decided for the 21mm, but still not sure about the Elmarit or the Elmar.
Also the Elmarit is available in silver, and I love chromed lenses :D
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Wow, if you could shoot comparison images would be amazing!
I decided for the 21mm, but still not sure about the Elmarit or the Elmar.
Also the Elmarit is available in silver, and I love chromed lenses :D
I will try to find the time. Can you pm me your email address?
 

MCTuomey

New member
The 18 SEM, 21 SEM, and 24 Elmar-M are incredibly good optics, and the form factor of the 21 and 24 is nearly perfect (for me anyway). Due, I guess, to their relatively slow apertures, they're also relative bargains compared to their faster counterparts. Can't imagine not choosing one of them. If you don't like clarity and pop, well that's what the Clarity slider is meant for ...
 

seakayaker

Active member
I do have the Elmar-M 24/3.8 ASPH and can highly recommend that lens. It is a great little lens that I have used with my M9 and M film cameras. Great resolution and clarity across the whole frame. Just love this lens. I do know a couple of photographers who have the 21 SEM and they love that lens.

Good luck with your decision.
 
Last edited:

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
I shot a long project (a building that took five years to complete construction) with an M9 and the 21 Summilux, switching to the 21 SEM when it became available in the last year of the project. Although the SEM has a reputation for being incredibly sharp across the frame starting at its maximum aperture, I found that I was using it at f/4 or f/5.6 to ensure the maximum crispness. The 21SX is huge and unbalanced, very sharp in the center and a bit prone to purple fringing around thin objects at the edges of the frame, but wonderful in low light. I've also been shooting lately on an M[240] with the 18 SEM, which is a slightly older, bulkier design than the 21 and 24SEMs. Here are some examples -- first the 21 SX:



then the 21 SEM:



and here's an example of what the 18 SEM can do:



I also have a Zeiss 21/2.8, which I used as an effective 28 mm lens on my M8. Haven't tried it for a while, but it is preferred by some to the 21 Elmarit.

scott
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I will post some images next week but I did shoot some comparisons today.
To me it looks like up to f4.0 the difference in corners is quite obvious, the 21/2.8 being more mushy and the 21 SEM being quite sharp.
At 5.6 the 21/2.8asph seems nearly as good as the SEM at getting good corners.
I didnt think the difference at wider f-stops to be that obvious.
 
Top