The GetDPI Photography Forum

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

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

mAlKhamis

New member
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 ?
 

otumay

New member
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
 

markowich

New member
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
 

markowich

New member
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,
yes, you are right. the lens goes back to leica.
peter
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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 :deadhorse:

-Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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. :rolleyes:

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 :cool:

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

-Marc
 

jonoslack

Active member
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.
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).

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
 

mAlKhamis

New member
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. :rolleyes:

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 :cool:

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
 

jonoslack

Active member
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.
 

mAlKhamis

New member
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 :D

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

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 :thumbs:
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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
 

jonoslack

Active member
"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
 

mAlKhamis

New member
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 :D 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 :thumbs:

cheers! to you, Jono and the masters :D

M
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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 :ROTFL:

-Marc
 

jonoslack

Active member
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
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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 :eek:
 

jonoslack

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

D&A

Well-known member
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:
Top