Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 95 of 95

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

  1. #51
    Member markowich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cambridge (UK) and Vienna
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    >>>PETER WROTE----> 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>>>

    Hi Peter,

    Like yourself I too analize files and optical performance of lenses in great depth. The WATE has a some compromises as does some of Leica's other wide angle offerings, but it's impressive overall, in my opinion. I completely concur that Leica's wide angle lenses fall short regarding distortion for certain applications. I've often felt that wide angles (wider than 24mm) we're Leica's weak point in terms of certain optical paramters, whereas Zeiss had a somehwat better handle on this. In the telephoto range, I personally think its just the reverse. Again it's very much "intent specific" and how a lens is going to be used, as to whether it's shortcomings is going to be an issue or not for the shooter. It's all relative. Thanks.

    Dave (D&A)
    dave,
    i couldn't agree more...
    of course WA performance is a weak point of many competitors, take canon for example. it seems however that their 17mm TS performs well. likewise the nikon 14-24mm is really nice (albeit big). i do prefer its performance over the WATE.
    peter
    ps: unfortunately the zeiss 15mm is not RF coupled, what a stupidity...

  2. #52
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,676
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Hi Peter,

    We're on the same wavelength here in regard to all you posted. Yes, I too found it extremely odd that Zeiss didn't rangefinder couple the 15mm f2.8, which I would have liked to see. After seeing what they did with their 18mm, in terms of most optical paramaters, I keep thinking that there must have been some logic or technical reason for this lack of coupling (in their 15mm), otherwise why would zeiss overlook the obvious. The only other thing I could come up with, is that they knew in advance that Voigtlander was redesigning their 15mm to be rangefinder coupled and because of the two companies association with one another (and possible agreeements), the 15mm f2.8 had to be released as non-rangefinder coupled.

    Also agree, the Canon's are (were) weak on ultra wideangles whereas Nikon had a better handle on corner performance. The Nikon 14-24 is a tremendous performer and agree its a lens not to be overlooked, except for it size/weight, which for most purposes, isn't generally used as a walk-around lens.

    Everything has tradeoffs and it all depends on what a lens intended use is going to be for an individual shooter.

    So what we all want is a 15-24mm "M" lens, compact, no distortion, as sharp as the best of them (right into the corners) inexpensive, built like a tank, rangefinder coupled and oh yea, under $700.00 . Did I leave anything out?

    Serious though, I have to give it to Leica for coming up with the WATE, interms of what its capable of doing and how good it does it....acknowledging that some optical compromises needed to be made, for it to be practical in use on a "M" body.

    Dave (D&A)

  3. #53
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by markowich View Post
    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
    Can you ... or someone else, please elaborate on what you folks specifically mean by "distortion?"

    I have all of the lenses in question, and have previously had most of the others. I also have owned and shot with most of the Zeiss M mount lenses (except the 15mm).

    I evaluate optics based on taking photographs ... which includes a fair amount of churchs while shooting weddings; exteriors of locations for corporate clients; and room interiors for both ... as well as travel jobs. I left Canon due to the horrible distortion of most their WA lenses ... including mustache distortion on some lenses which is very difficult to correct with software.

    My experience so far is that the Leica wides have very little distortion of straight verticals and horizontals near the edges of the frame. This is easy to evaluate in actual use when using perspective correction programs for off-kilter WA shots using either or both vertical or horizontal lens correction software solutions. Once properly aligned, the grid line overlay tells the story ... pretty straight edges: top, bottom and sides.

    Now there may be some "slight" compromises made just like Zeiss did when re-doing the 40IF. The 40CFE actually was better corrected for distortion but at the price of softer corners. The IF was sharper in the corners, but at the expense of some distortion. Regular distortion is a no brainer to correct ... variable soft image qualities are not.

    The aspect of Zeiss M mount optics verses Leica M is very subjective.

    Zeiss doesn't make a M mount Tri-elmar type lens. Their 15 isn't rangefinder coupled. Zeiss doesn't offer any f/1.4 SWA lenses.

    The remainder of the Zeiss options are indeed sharp, but IMO lack "pictorial character" found from many Leica M WA lenses including some of the newer ones being discussed.

    Having used both brands extensively, I personally prefer the art of making photographs every time. The Zeiss optics are great for the money, but lack the punch or something special that is visually apparent when compared side-by-side. Both employ "micro contrast," but it seems more apparent from the Leica glass ... at least when one makes a print. I noticed that the Leica prints are just as sharp, but lusher looking, the blacks are always nicer, and the color richer overall, given the same light at the same time. Plus, most of the Zeiss lenses are slow apertures and less suited for low ambient work ... one reason I use a rangefinder in the first place. Zeiss is fine if the ultimate goal is to have sharp images in good light.

    But that may just be me ... I also did not like the look of very much that I shot with my Contax G2 and all those Zeiss lenses ... so it's strictly subjectivity on the part of this user.

    IMO, too much science is just as bad as too much artistic subjectivity ... where a balance seems prudent. However, I do not make "science" as my end product, so I'll error on the side of art.

    -Marc

  4. #54
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post

    IMO, too much science is just as bad as too much artistic subjectivity ... where a balance seems prudent. However, I do not make "science" as my end product, so I'll error on the side of art.

    -Marc
    I Quite agree Marc. I've had the WATE since it first appeared, and I've always loved the results, and very rarely been disturbed by distortion or soft corners. I also had the Nikon 14-24, and whilst I recognise it as an excellent lens, the images it produced never floated my boat, added to which it's just slightly bigger than the WATE

    Just this guy you know

  5. #55
    Member markowich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cambridge (UK) and Vienna
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    hi marc,
    leica 18mm super elmar 18mm.

    http://www.pbase.com/markowich/image/121468358

    peter




    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Can you ... or someone else, please elaborate on what you folks specifically mean by "distortion?"

    I have all of the lenses in question, and have previously had most of the others. I also have owned and shot with most of the Zeiss M mount lenses (except the 15mm).

    I evaluate optics based on taking photographs ... which includes a fair amount of churchs while shooting weddings; exteriors of locations for corporate clients; and room interiors for both ... as well as travel jobs. I left Canon due to the horrible distortion of most their WA lenses ... including mustache distortion on some lenses which is very difficult to correct with software.

    My experience so far is that the Leica wides have very little distortion of straight verticals and horizontals near the edges of the frame. This is easy to evaluate in actual use when using perspective correction programs for off-kilter WA shots using either or both vertical or horizontal lens correction software solutions. Once properly aligned, the grid line overlay tells the story ... pretty straight edges: top, bottom and sides.

    Now there may be some "slight" compromises made just like Zeiss did when re-doing the 40IF. The 40CFE actually was better corrected for distortion but at the price of softer corners. The IF was sharper in the corners, but at the expense of some distortion. Regular distortion is a no brainer to correct ... variable soft image qualities are not.

    The aspect of Zeiss M mount optics verses Leica M is very subjective.

    Zeiss doesn't make a M mount Tri-elmar type lens. Their 15 isn't rangefinder coupled. Zeiss doesn't offer any f/1.4 SWA lenses.

    The remainder of the Zeiss options are indeed sharp, but IMO lack "pictorial character" found from many Leica M WA lenses including some of the newer ones being discussed.

    Having used both brands extensively, I personally prefer the art of making photographs every time. The Zeiss optics are great for the money, but lack the punch or something special that is visually apparent when compared side-by-side. Both employ "micro contrast," but it seems more apparent from the Leica glass ... at least when one makes a print. I noticed that the Leica prints are just as sharp, but lusher looking, the blacks are always nicer, and the color richer overall, given the same light at the same time. Plus, most of the Zeiss lenses are slow apertures and less suited for low ambient work ... one reason I use a rangefinder in the first place. Zeiss is fine if the ultimate goal is to have sharp images in good light.

    But that may just be me ... I also did not like the look of very much that I shot with my Contax G2 and all those Zeiss lenses ... so it's strictly subjectivity on the part of this user.

    IMO, too much science is just as bad as too much artistic subjectivity ... where a balance seems prudent. However, I do not make "science" as my end product, so I'll error on the side of art.

    -Marc

  6. #56
    Member markowich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cambridge (UK) and Vienna
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    I Quite agree Marc. I've had the WATE since it first appeared, and I've always loved the results, and very rarely been disturbed by distortion or soft corners. I also had the Nikon 14-24, and whilst I recognise it as an excellent lens, the images it produced never floated my boat, added to which it's just slightly bigger than the WATE
    jono,
    surely enough, in typical non discerning M-style street photography and in most landscape shootings (those which do not require a straight horizon) the WATE does rather well. maybe this is what it was made for. i do not want to reiterate my corner sharpness issue where we apparently have a different perception of what it should be.....
    anyway, if you do architecuture or at least try to get lines straight for whatever reason, you will start to appreciate the nikon 14-24 or the new nikon 24mm f1.4 which in every respect that i tested beats the LUX 24mm.
    peter

  7. #57
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by markowich View Post
    jono,
    surely enough, in typical non discerning M-style street photography and in most landscape shootings (those which do not require a straight horizon) the WATE does rather well. maybe this is what it was made for. i do not want to reiterate my corner sharpness issue where we apparently have a different perception of what it should be.....
    anyway, if you do architecuture or at least try to get lines straight for whatever reason, you will start to appreciate the nikon 14-24 or the new nikon 24mm f1.4 which in every respect that i tested beats the LUX 24mm.
    peter
    Hi Peter
    I already appreciate your points (except that I haven't used the new Nikon 24 f1.4). I think our difference in perception is more to do with what one wants from photographs than an absolute requirement for a straight horizon. Mind you, I would have thought that if you were doing architectural photography, then using a Nikon with whatever lens was the wrong answer (surely your Hasselblads are a better solution).
    My problem with Nikon's lenses/cameras was a complete failure to get 'satisfying' colour away from artificial lighting or basic daylight - something that the WATE seems to manage effortlessly with the M9.
    The trouble is that 'satisfying colour' really isn't something that one can quantify scientifically; 'accurate colour' is much easier . .
    My point is that if you use proper scientific method to analyse lenses and their results, then you will come to a proper decision as to which lens is better than which (as you've done). But photography is an art form, not a science, and (in my very humble opinion) a good lens has more connection with a good bottle of wine than a good scientific experiment.

    Then of course, a D3x with the 14-24 weighs 2240gms, and an M9 with a WATE weighs 930gms, it's not unrealistic to expect some compromises!
    Last edited by jonoslack; 5th April 2010 at 14:16.

    Just this guy you know

  8. #58
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by markowich View Post
    hi marc,
    leica 18mm super elmar 18mm.

    http://www.pbase.com/markowich/image/121468358

    peter
    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. 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.

    Eye of the beholder and all that.

    -Marc

  9. #59
    Senior Member Hacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cyberspace
    Posts
    383
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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.

  10. #60
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,676
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Marc,

    I've encountered the same kind of distortion that Peter illustrated in a couple of Lecia 18mm f3.8 lenses I tried. Thats why I went for the Zeiss 18mm instead and it was much better in this regard. I'm not sure if it's a one (or two) "off" or unfortunately part of the optical design of the Leica 18mm, hence, will be an issue in all Leica 18mm lenses. if so, sending it back to Leica wouldn't help. I've heard others wwho noticed the same thing in their Leica 18mm. As for the WAte, I fell it has a decent handle on distortion. As you, I and many others say...it all depends on use and what ones intent is, regarding use of a particular lens and it's aparent weaknesses. In additon, what emphasis one places on the artistic merrits of a lens vs. it's shear optical performance, will vary greatly...again according to personal preference and ones intended use of such lens.

    Dave (D&A)

  11. #61
    Senior Member mAlKhamis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Davis, California
    Posts
    373
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    hey guys this is quoted from Kenrockwell website:

    " Leica's newest 21mm f/1.4 is silly because it's too big, it weighs twice as much, it doesn't play well with filters (if you buy an adapter, it might take 82mm filters), it has 50% more distortion and is not generally as sharp as this 21mm f/2.8 Aspherical. At f/1.4, the 21mm f/1.4 has three stops of falloff in the corners, meaning that it's really only an f/4 lens in the corners. (source) "

    link:

    http://kenrockwell.com/leica/21mm-f28-asph.htm

    so it seems that the 21 elmarit will do much better ??!!

    what do you think guys ?
    Mohammad Al-Khamis

  12. #62
    Senior Member otumay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Posts
    1,690
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi Peter
    I already appreciate your points (except that I haven't used the new Nikon 24 f1.4). I think our difference in perception is more to do with what one wants from photographs than an absolute requirement for a straight horizon. Mind you, I would have thought that if you were doing architectural photography, then using a Nikon with whatever lens was the wrong answer (surely your Hasselblads are a better solution).
    My problem with Nikon's lenses/cameras was a complete failure to get 'satisfying' colour away from artificial lighting or basic daylight - something that the WATE seems to manage effortlessly with the M9.
    The trouble is that 'satisfying colour' really isn't something that one can quantify scientifically; 'accurate colour' is much easier . .
    My point is that if you use proper scientific method to analyse lenses and their results, then you will come to a proper decision as to which lens is better than which (as you've done). But photography is an art form, not a science, and (in my very humble opinion) a good lens has more connection with a good bottle of wine than a good scientific experiment.

    Then of course, a D3x with the 14-24 weighs 2240gms, and an M9 with a WATE weighs 930gms, it's not unrealistic to expect some compromises!
    Jonathan, I have both lenses and use them on my D700 and M8, respectively. I agree with you that IF one considers photography an art form, then what you write is undeniably true, but that is a big IF, I think.

    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.

    Best,

    Osman

  13. #63
    Member markowich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cambridge (UK) and Vienna
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi Peter
    I already appreciate your points (except that I haven't used the new Nikon 24 f1.4). I think our difference in perception is more to do with what one wants from photographs than an absolute requirement for a straight horizon. Mind you, I would have thought that if you were doing architectural photography, then using a Nikon with whatever lens was the wrong answer (surely your Hasselblads are a better solution).
    My problem with Nikon's lenses/cameras was a complete failure to get 'satisfying' colour away from artificial lighting or basic daylight - something that the WATE seems to manage effortlessly with the M9.
    The trouble is that 'satisfying colour' really isn't something that one can quantify scientifically; 'accurate colour' is much easier . .
    My point is that if you use proper scientific method to analyse lenses and their results, then you will come to a proper decision as to which lens is better than which (as you've done). But photography is an art form, not a science, and (in my very humble opinion) a good lens has more connection with a good bottle of wine than a good scientific experiment.

    Then of course, a D3x with the 14-24 weighs 2240gms, and an M9 with a WATE weighs 930gms, it's not unrealistic to expect some compromises!
    jono, clearly my mistake to try architecture with the M9 but due to the weight factor it is sooooo tempting.
    certainly you are right about the artistic aspects of photography but an s-shaped horizon might ruin the most beautiful piece of art. i feel that one needs a lot of science to design lenses which then make it possible for the photographer to create pieces of art.
    and overall, leica does well in this with their M line, there are just some aspects about their WA offerings which i dislike.
    peter

  14. #64
    Member markowich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cambridge (UK) and Vienna
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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. 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.

    Eye of the beholder and all that.

    -Marc
    marc,
    yes, you are right. the lens goes back to leica.
    peter

  15. #65
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    Marc,

    I've encountered the same kind of distortion that Peter illustrated in a couple of Lecia 18mm f3.8 lenses I tried. Thats why I went for the Zeiss 18mm instead and it was much better in this regard. I'm not sure if it's a one (or two) "off" or unfortunately part of the optical design of the Leica 18mm, hence, will be an issue in all Leica 18mm lenses. if so, sending it back to Leica wouldn't help. I've heard others wwho noticed the same thing in their Leica 18mm. As for the WAte, I fell it has a decent handle on distortion. As you, I and many others say...it all depends on use and what ones intent is, regarding use of a particular lens and it's aparent weaknesses. In additon, what emphasis one places on the artistic merrits of a lens vs. it's shear optical performance, will vary greatly...again according to personal preference and ones intended use of such lens.

    Dave (D&A)
    You misunderstood me Dave ... I meant "send back" as in: "get my money back from the Leica dealer". I'd find that level of distortion unacceptable for a slow aperture WA ... if it were f/2 maybe I accept it for pictorial applications. In that respect I'd go for the Zeiss also if I specifically had to have a 18mm. I didn't like the ZF 18mm, but that wasn't a M mount lens, and it was on a CMOS Nikon D3X, not a CCD M9.

    So, IMO you are right, intent is the driver of preference and priority.

    The priority for securing my WATE was 1) travel and size/convenience, 2) 16 to 21 coverage. 3) Leica color and character. Aperture speed and a high level of distortion correction are the sacrifices.

    IMO, the 21 and 24 luxes are artistic lenses not tech optics ... much as the Zeiss 110/2 was for me on a 203FE. Distortion is corrected enough on the 21/24 Lux without sacrificing the character ... and the rendering from these lenses is much preferred to that which I got from my Zeiss 21/2.8 or 28/2 on the Contax cameras (better for film than it was on a digital camera IMO), or any other 21 or 24mm prime or zoom that I've used to date.

    Conversely, clinical distortion correction and absolute resolving power are the prime drivers in selecting view camera optics for use on a precision tech camera sporting a CCD medium format digital back. Aperture speed or size are of little concern for a stationary platform.

    Other than that, and as always ... horses for courses

    -Marc

  16. #66
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mAlKhamis View Post
    hey guys this is quoted from Kenrockwell website:

    " Leica's newest 21mm f/1.4 is silly because it's too big, it weighs twice as much, it doesn't play well with filters (if you buy an adapter, it might take 82mm filters), it has 50% more distortion and is not generally as sharp as this 21mm f/2.8 Aspherical. At f/1.4, the 21mm f/1.4 has three stops of falloff in the corners, meaning that it's really only an f/4 lens in the corners. (source) "

    link:

    http://kenrockwell.com/leica/21mm-f28-asph.htm

    so it seems that the 21 elmarit will do much better ??!!

    what do you think guys ?
    It won't do "much better" if you need f/1.4 or f/1.8, or f/2, or f/2.2

    It won't do much better if you want focus fall off behind a close subject.

    As mentioned in the post above, these lenses are artistic choices for specific applications. They are used in low light where (IMO) a rangefinder comes into its own. The rendering is absolutely delicious. Stopped down they get more normal. Size is all relative, they are small next to a DSLR optic. They actually balance well on a M9 and look cool too

    BTW, 4 stops fall off is not my experience at all. Where did you get that information?

    -Marc

  17. #67
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by markowich View Post
    jono, clearly my mistake to try architecture with the M9 but due to the weight factor it is sooooo tempting.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by markowich View Post
    certainly you are right about the artistic aspects of photography but an s-shaped horizon might ruin the most beautiful piece of art.
    Well, it might ruin it - but looking through hundreds of WATE landscape shots with horizons (as a response to your post) I was shocked to find how many of mine aren't quite straight, but I failed to find any that were noticeably wavy (and I'm partial to horizons at the edge of pictures).

    Quote Originally Posted by markowich View Post
    i feel that one needs a lot of science to design lenses which then make it possible for the photographer to create pieces of art.
    and overall, leica does well in this with their M line, there are just some aspects about their WA offerings which i dislike.
    peter
    Well there always is scope for improvement (even if it's only in size), but I stick to my point, which was not to deny a scientific evaluation of a lens, but to put it in a context with respect to actual use in real situations.

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  18. #68
    Senior Member mAlKhamis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Davis, California
    Posts
    373
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    It won't do "much better" if you need f/1.4 or f/1.8, or f/2, or f/2.2

    It won't do much better if you want focus fall off behind a close subject.

    As mentioned in the post above, these lenses are artistic choices for specific applications. They are used in low light where (IMO) a rangefinder comes into its own. The rendering is absolutely delicious. Stopped down they get more normal. Size is all relative, they are small next to a DSLR optic. They actually balance well on a M9 and look cool too

    BTW, 4 stops fall off is not my experience at all. Where did you get that information?

    -Marc
    Hi thank you so much for responding, it's from Kenrockwell site:

    http://kenrockwell.com/leica/21mm-f28-asph.htm

    mmmm,, so the best choice for artistic work is the Lux lenses,,, is that the final conclusion here ?


    cheers!
    M
    Mohammad Al-Khamis

  19. #69
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mAlKhamis View Post
    mmmm,, so the best choice for artistic work is the Lux lenses,,, is that the final conclusion here ?


    cheers!
    M
    I would say that would depend on the 'art' wouldn't it?

    I think I'd put it the other way around, that if you get a wide angle Lux lens, then you'll do it for artistic reasons.

    Just this guy you know

  20. #70
    Senior Member mAlKhamis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Davis, California
    Posts
    373
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    I would say that would depend on the 'art' wouldn't it?

    I think I'd put it the other way around, that if you get a wide angle Lux lens, then you'll do it for artistic reasons.
    The soul reason for me, getting The m9 is for Artistic work, and nothing more

    so i guess my final conclusion would be the 50 and 21 lux

    thank you so much Jono and every body else, that was really an excellent enlightening discussion. hope you like my future work in the near future, when i get my new babies
    Mohammad Al-Khamis

  21. #71
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mAlKhamis View Post
    Hi thank you so much for responding, it's from Kenrockwell site:

    http://kenrockwell.com/leica/21mm-f28-asph.htm

    mmmm,, so the best choice for artistic work is the Lux lenses,,, is that the final conclusion here ?


    cheers!
    M
    4 stops fall off in the corners? Do you REALLY believe 4 stops? Do you realize how much 4 stops is? I looked through my library of 21 and 24 Lux images and ... well ... baloney! is all I can say.

    No, the Lux lenses aren't the "exclusive" choice for "creative or artistic" work ... no one said anything of the sort. That would be ridiculous.

    They are selected for their unique set of creative characteristics to achieve a specific artistic intent.

    Those applied characteristics are usually thought of as artistic in nature ... capturing low light images, keeping ISOs lower, isolating the subject from the background, gaining shutter speed for motion subjects. Creative choices one can better make with a Lux ... wether a WA or not. Same reason I prefer a 75/1.4 over a 75/2.5 ... or a 50 Noctilux or Lux over a Chron. Creative choices based on what, when and where I shoot ... and how I want my images to feel ... which may differ widely from someone else. But make no mistake, I choose these lenses for those set of creative options.

    For creative or pictorial reasons, some people prefer the pre-asph 35s over the newer asph versions. Leica glow and all that.

    Fortunately, there are a lot of choices to fit each need ... including some Zeiss alternatives.

    I think there is a dichotomy here. People looking for some sort of perfection in an imperfect world and obsessing about it. Who cares what Ken Rockwell says? Personally, I take anything he says with a large grain of salt based on other things he's said about other gear. Plus, subjectively, his work doesn't inspire me in the least. My friend Irakly Shandize's M work spurs me on. The classic Leica masters inspire me. KR isn't even on the list. To me, Jono isn't about words, he makes photos that inspire others engaged in the type of work he does.

    We don't take photos to rush home and scientifically measure and annal-ize them to death ... at least I don't. Did I get the shot? Does it move me? Is it worthy of keeping as representative of my creative intent?

    -Marc

  22. #72
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    To me, Jono isn't about words, he makes photos that inspire others engaged in the type of work he does.
    I'll try not to use so many words in future

    And I'll take that as a part compliment - thank you.

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  23. #73
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    I'll try not to use so many words in future

    And I'll take that as a part compliment - thank you.

    all the best
    "If not for your photos, your words would mean less" ... how's that for a full compliment?



    -Marc

  24. #74
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    "If not for your photos, your words would mean less" ... how's that for a full compliment?



    -Marc
    Thank you - but perhaps the first one was more accurate - my family all tell me that I talk rubbish all of the time!

    Hopefully we can all get a little inspiration from each other's better moments. I've certainly found your wedding work inspiring (and helpful) with respect to my attempts.


    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  25. #75
    Senior Member mAlKhamis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Davis, California
    Posts
    373
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    4 stops fall off in the corners? Do you REALLY believe 4 stops? Do you realize how much 4 stops is? I looked through my library of 21 and 24 Lux images and ... well ... baloney! is all I can say.

    No, the Lux lenses aren't the "exclusive" choice for "creative or artistic" work ... no one said anything of the sort. That would be ridiculous.

    They are selected for their unique set of creative characteristics to achieve a specific artistic intent.

    Those applied characteristics are usually thought of as artistic in nature ... capturing low light images, keeping ISOs lower, isolating the subject from the background, gaining shutter speed for motion subjects. Creative choices one can better make with a Lux ... wether a WA or not. Same reason I prefer a 75/1.4 over a 75/2.5 ... or a 50 Noctilux or Lux over a Chron. Creative choices based on what, when and where I shoot ... and how I want my images to feel ... which may differ widely from someone else. But make no mistake, I choose these lenses for those set of creative options.

    For creative or pictorial reasons, some people prefer the pre-asph 35s over the newer asph versions. Leica glow and all that.

    Fortunately, there are a lot of choices to fit each need ... including some Zeiss alternatives.

    I think there is a dichotomy here. People looking for some sort of perfection in an imperfect world and obsessing about it. Who cares what Ken Rockwell says? Personally, I take anything he says with a large grain of salt based on other things he's said about other gear. Plus, subjectively, his work doesn't inspire me in the least. My friend Irakly Shandize's M work spurs me on. The classic Leica masters inspire me. KR isn't even on the list. To me, Jono isn't about words, he makes photos that inspire others engaged in the type of work he does.

    We don't take photos to rush home and scientifically measure and annal-ize them to death ... at least I don't. Did I get the shot? Does it move me? Is it worthy of keeping as representative of my creative intent?

    -Marc
    I have to agree with you Marc yap his work is totally uninspiring for me too ,, and i must admit that he exaggerate in so many reviews.

    any way hope you like my future RF/MF work

    cheers! to you, Jono and the masters

    M
    Mohammad Al-Khamis

  26. #76
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Thank you - but perhaps the first one was more accurate - my family all tell me that I talk rubbish all of the time!

    Hopefully we can all get a little inspiration from each other's better moments. I've certainly found your wedding work inspiring (and helpful) with respect to my attempts.


    all the best
    Well thanks back, and may I invite you to view my brand new Wedding and Portrait website?

    www.fotografz.com

    I'm meeting with my web master today to make final tweaks, and allow her to try and improve my geek challenged abilities so I can add more shots without taking the whole host site down in flames

    -Marc

  27. #77
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Well thanks back, and may I invite you to view my brand new Wedding and Portrait website?

    -Marc
    Fantastic Marc - I really like 'Romantic Photojournalism', and so many great photos as well. I've just spent a happy hour looking through them. (will it work on an ipad?)

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  28. #78
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Fantastic Marc - I really like 'Romantic Photojournalism', and so many great photos as well. I've just spent a happy hour looking through them. (will it work on an ipad?)

    all the best
    Thanks, I think it'll work as we avoided using flash ... but there may be some sort of animation program being used ... not sure, so I'll ask today.

    Did the slide show on the home page work? Did it start relatively quickly?

    Also, when I enter "Weddings" it loads the thumbs and first pic, but the slide show doesn't start on its own ... did that happen to you?

    -Marc

    Sorry for hijacking the thread

  29. #79
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Thanks, I think it'll work as we avoided using flash ... but there may be some sort of animation program being used ... not sure, so I'll ask today.

    Did the slide show on the home page work? Did it start relatively quickly?

    Also, when I enter "Weddings" it loads the thumbs and first pic, but the slide show doesn't start on its own ... did that happen to you?

    -Marc

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

    Just this guy you know

  30. #80
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,676
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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)
    Last edited by D&A; 6th April 2010 at 05:17.

  31. #81
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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

  32. #82
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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!

    Just this guy you know

  33. #83
    Senior Member mAlKhamis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Davis, California
    Posts
    373
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    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.

    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
    Mohammad Al-Khamis

  34. #84
    Member markowich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cambridge (UK) and Vienna
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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. 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.

    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

  35. #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    525
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

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

    Grate thread in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by otumay View Post
    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.
    Last edited by gero; 12th April 2010 at 08:55.

  36. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    525
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

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

    wa=distortion, photography is a distortion (or a representation), an interpretation?
    Last edited by gero; 12th April 2010 at 09:05.

  37. #87
    Senior Member otumay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Posts
    1,690
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by gero View Post
    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

  38. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    525
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

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

    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:

  39. #89
    Senior Member otumay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Posts
    1,690
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

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

    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.

  40. #90
    Senior Member mAlKhamis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Davis, California
    Posts
    373
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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!
    Mohammad Al-Khamis

  41. #91
    Senior Member otumay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Posts
    1,690
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

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

    Thank you Mohammad, this is very informative reading.
    Osman

  42. #92
    Senior Member mAlKhamis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Davis, California
    Posts
    373
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by otumay View Post
    Thank you Mohammad, this is very informative reading.
    Osman
    you are welcomed my friend
    Mohammad Al-Khamis

  43. #93
    Senior Member Hacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cyberspace
    Posts
    383
    Post Thanks / Like

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



    Quote Originally Posted by Hacker View Post
    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.

  44. #94
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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

  45. #95
    Senior Member otumay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Posts
    1,690
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

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

    I'm much obliged Roger, thank you kindly.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •