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,

hope every one is enjoying his M9 ;)

Well, I'm kind of hovering around, exploring my options and so on :confused:

So i decided to include a rangefinder in my future new camera system.

I'm gonna get the 50mm 1.4 for sure

but i'm confused regarding the wide angle option for landscapes

so my question is about the performance of the tri-elmar vs lenses with single focal length, is it same as the 35mm systems where fixed prime wide angle lenses are mostly better than zoom ones ?

how is the 18mm 3.8 ?? is it sharper than the tri-elmar @ 18mm ?

if you were to choose between the tri-elmar and 21mm 1.4, what would be you first option ?

your input will be really appreciated

cheers!

M
 

Mike Hatam

Senior Subscriber Member
In terms of sharpness and image quality, all three options are excellent. The WATE (wide angle tri-elmar) is not like a typical SLR zoome lens that suffers compared to fixed-focal length options. The Leica WATE lens is a remarkable lens with fantastic image quality that blends excellently with the M9.

The main trade-offs here are price and speed. The 21 f1.4 (summilux) is a special lens, and priced accordingly. That one will run around $5,000 (used), while the WATE will run around $3,500 (used). The 18 f3.8 is also a good performer - and significantly cheaper than the other two lenses. But it's not as "special" - it lacks the versatility of the WATE and the speed of the 21 summilux.

Start by asking yourself how important it is to have the versatility of the WATE (16-18-21). If you are fine with a single focal length in that range, then move on to the other options.

Do you really need f1.4 speed? If so, and you can afford it, then your decision is made. If not, and budget is a concern, then the 18 f3.8 may be a good choice.

You didn't list the Leica 21 Elmarit (f2.8). That would be another good option to consider. Less expensive than the WATE, a stop faster, and excellent image quality.

Mike
 

mAlKhamis

New member
In terms of sharpness and image quality, all three options are excellent. The WATE (wide angle tri-elmar) is not like a typical SLR zoome lens that suffers compared to fixed-focal length options. The Leica WATE lens is a remarkable lens with fantastic image quality that blends excellently with the M9.

The main trade-offs here are price and speed. The 21 f1.4 (summilux) is a special lens, and priced accordingly. That one will run around $5,000 (used), while the WATE will run around $3,500 (used). The 18 f3.8 is also a good performer - and significantly cheaper than the other two lenses. But it's not as "special" - it lacks the versatility of the WATE and the speed of the 21 summilux.

Start by asking yourself how important it is to have the versatility of the WATE (16-18-21). If you are fine with a single focal length in that range, then move on to the other options.

Do you really need f1.4 speed? If so, and you can afford it, then your decision is made. If not, and budget is a concern, then the 18 f3.8 may be a good choice.

You didn't list the Leica 21 Elmarit (f2.8). That would be another good option to consider. Less expensive than the WATE, a stop faster, and excellent image quality.

Mike

Thank you so much Mike, i really appreciate your valuable input, it was very enlightening for me :thumbup:cheers!
 
M

Mango

Guest
Hi Mohammad,

(1) If you are using a full frame camera, a digital M9, or any of the film options, then you might find the WATE 16-18-21 to be too wide for most uses. On the M8, with the 1.33 crop factor, the 16-18-21 becomes an effective 21-24-28 lens, which is more versatile. So your choice of body should be a factor in making your decision.

(2) The WATE is a f4.0 lens, vs. the 21mm f1.4 lens. For indoor shooting, the f1.4 can be used in all sorts of lighting conditions, including near darkness; but the f4.0 of the WATE would limit its use to outdoor daylight shooting for the most part. Anyone who has used Leicas for some time will realize that there is a need for a f1.4 lens in the stable, as that way you don't need a flash for indoor photography, and also, some would say more importantly, the out-of-focus renderings (bokeh) of the f1.4 lens, when shot at f1.4, is creamy smooth, and gives a painterly look to photographs. With f4.0, everything is in focus, and you cannot get that look, even though the lens might be superb.

(3) Are you a wide angle shooter? I have the 21mm f2.8 Asph, but don't use it as often as the 35mm or 50mm options.

(4) A lot of people are currently mesmerized by the 21mm f1.4, but once the novelty wears off, they will start to consider the size of the lens, and might regret carrying such a bulky piece of glass. Leica was originally renowned for producing the best lenses in the SMALLEST package. Lately, the lenses have become larger and larger, and the pocketability and discreetness of the original Leica intent seems to have disappeared. The need for f1.4 or faster speed seems to be the dominant mantra for today's lenses. Most of the classic Leica photographs were produced during the era when f2.0 was the fastest lens. There is something to be said about lenses with a filter size of 39mm. The 60mm filter size, though small by DSLR standards, is huge for a Leica, but seems to have been embraced by the converted. Leica photography has changed.

(5) Examine your own photography, and what and where (subjects and lighting conditions) you mostly shoot. If it's mostly in daylight, then a f1.4 might be overkill. As Mike suggested, the 21mm f2.8 might be fine, and it's a slightly smaller lens.

- - - - - - - -

A compulsion to try every lens that's out there sometimes manifests, for each lens has a unique characteristic, and chasing the best look becomes an overriding neurosis. There are some people who have dozens of 50mm lenses (yes, just one focal length). For example, the older lenses, designed by Walter Mandler, have a more artistic and dreamy look about them. The modern lenses are more clinical in their rendering. You can see the list of Mandler designed lenses here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mandler

My apologies if I have digressed and added confusion to your thinking process.

Best wishes,
Mango
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I havent done direct comparison but own tri-elmar and 21/2.8 and 24/1.4
I would say all are plenty sharp and great IQ and that choice comes down to a) f-stop, focal length, flexibility, size weight.
Of the three lenses mentioned above my most used right now is the 24/1.4, I believe that f1.4 vs f2.8 really makes a difference in look, much more than the difference between f2.8 and f4.0
I dont use the WATE much one the M9 because for 99% 21mm is as wide as I would go.
The 21 and 24 Summilux are bigger than the 21/24 Elmarit BUT these are not big lenses compare to any DSLR lens. Frankly I dont see any size problem with the 24/1.4.
The 21 and 24 Lux are really expensive, but IMO they offer another style of images which re not possible with the Elmarits or the f4 lenses.
If shallow DOF is not important for you I am pretty sure all modern Leica wide angle offer superb IQ, so choose the focal length you like most.
If you want flexibility and like shooting real wide the WATE is interesting.
My personal foavorti is the 24 Lux and I do not believe that this will change after a few months.
 

mAlKhamis

New member
Hi Mohammad,

(1) If you are using a full frame camera, a digital M9, or any of the film options, then you might find the WATE 16-18-21 to be too wide for most uses. On the M8, with the 1.33 crop factor, the 16-18-21 becomes an effective 21-24-28 lens, which is more versatile. So your choice of body should be a factor in making your decision.

(2) The WATE is a f4.0 lens, vs. the 21mm f1.4 lens. For indoor shooting, the f1.4 can be used in all sorts of lighting conditions, including near darkness; but the f4.0 of the WATE would limit its use to outdoor daylight shooting for the most part. Anyone who has used Leicas for some time will realize that there is a need for a f1.4 lens in the stable, as that way you don't need a flash for indoor photography, and also, some would say more importantly, the out-of-focus renderings (bokeh) of the f1.4 lens, when shot at f1.4, is creamy smooth, and gives a painterly look to photographs. With f4.0, everything is in focus, and you cannot get that look, even though the lens might be superb.

(3) Are you a wide angle shooter? I have the 21mm f2.8 Asph, but don't use it as often as the 35mm or 50mm options.

(4) A lot of people are currently mesmerized by the 21mm f1.4, but once the novelty wears off, they will start to consider the size of the lens, and might regret carrying such a bulky piece of glass. Leica was originally renowned for producing the best lenses in the SMALLEST package. Lately, the lenses have become larger and larger, and the pocketability and discreetness of the original Leica intent seems to have disappeared. The need for f1.4 or faster speed seems to be the dominant mantra for today's lenses. Most of the classic Leica photographs were produced during the era when f2.0 was the fastest lens. There is something to be said about lenses with a filter size of 39mm. The 60mm filter size, though small by DSLR standards, is huge for a Leica, but seems to have been embraced by the converted. Leica photography has changed.

(5) Examine your own photography, and what and where (subjects and lighting conditions) you mostly shoot. If it's mostly in daylight, then a f1.4 might be overkill. As Mike suggested, the 21mm f2.8 might be fine, and it's a slightly smaller lens.

- - - - - - - -

A compulsion to try every lens that's out there sometimes manifests, for each lens has a unique characteristic, and chasing the best look becomes an overriding neurosis. There are some people who have dozens of 50mm lenses (yes, just one focal length). For example, the older lenses, designed by Walter Mandler, have a more artistic and dreamy look about them. The modern lenses are more clinical in their rendering. You can see the list of Mandler designed lenses here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mandler

My apologies if I have digressed and added confusion to your thinking process.

Best wishes,
Mango
Thank you so much Mango, i really appreciate your enlightening insight :)

yes I'm a wide angle shooter, i like shooting Landscapes, Architecture, and Street.

and i think i should be between 24 , 35 and 50mm range :)
the tri-elmar is not for me

now ! I'm stuck between faster vs smaller lighter lenses :confused:

so my question is : is speed the only advantage of the lux lenses or there are other technical aspects that makes them superior over other lenses issues like CA or Flare etc... ??
 

mAlKhamis

New member
I havent done direct comparison but own tri-elmar and 21/2.8 and 24/1.4
I would say all are plenty sharp and great IQ and that choice comes down to a) f-stop, focal length, flexibility, size weight.
Of the three lenses mentioned above my most used right now is the 24/1.4, I believe that f1.4 vs f2.8 really makes a difference in look, much more than the difference between f2.8 and f4.0
I dont use the WATE much one the M9 because for 99% 21mm is as wide as I would go.
The 21 and 24 Summilux are bigger than the 21/24 Elmarit BUT these are not big lenses compare to any DSLR lens. Frankly I dont see any size problem with the 24/1.4.
The 21 and 24 Lux are really expensive, but IMO they offer another style of images which re not possible with the Elmarits or the f4 lenses.
If shallow DOF is not important for you I am pretty sure all modern Leica wide angle offer superb IQ, so choose the focal length you like most.
If you want flexibility and like shooting real wide the WATE is interesting.
My personal foavorti is the 24 Lux and I do not believe that this will change after a few months.
Streng,

thank you so much for the tips, i agree, so far based on the results of many photographers, i find the lux 24 is just amazing :thumbs:

my initial thought is to buy the M9+24 lux , then maybe proceed for more later on !!

cheers!

M
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Streng,

thank you so much for the tips, i agree, so far based on the results of many photographers, i find the lux 24 is just amazing :thumbs:

my initial thought is to buy the M9+24 lux , then maybe proceed for more later on !!

cheers!

M
I have to add one thing:
Due to shallow DOF it is not easy to shoot the 24/1.4 wide open for anything but static subjects. The fact that one needs an external viewfinder for accurate framing doesnt help. Hyperfocal shooting doesnt work at shorter distances when shooting wide open.

What I try to say the effect on e can generate wide open is great for my taste, but it is not easy to achieve with a manual focus camera for anything that is moving.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
so my question is : is speed the only advantage of the lux lenses or there are other technical aspects that makes them superior over other lenses issues like CA or Flare etc... ??
I would assume that speed is the main advantage of the Luxes, and maybe a different rendering.
I would think corner to corner sharpness and CA etc. the Luxes have maybe a small disadvantage, however nothing I am worried about.
 

mAlKhamis

New member
I would assume that speed is the main advantage of the Luxes, and maybe a different rendering.
I would think corner to corner sharpness and CA etc. the Luxes have maybe a small disadvantage, however nothing I am worried about.
Thank you so much Streng, but what's the small disadvantage ?

are you implying that the elmerit are better in some way, but with unnoticeable or substantial difference??

cheers!
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
If you are looking for an excellent 24mm then I'd highly recommend the 24/2.8 Elmarit. A very sharp and easy to use lens.

The 21/24 'luxes are special lenses but you probably have to ask yourself what you are looking for in a super wide. As mentioned, the f/1.4 does provide a special look and that's what attracted me to the 21 'lux but at the expense of my Noctilux and 24/2.8.

I used to shoot the WATE with my M8 and I was very close to buying another for my M9. In the end I came to the conclusion that the 16-21 range was too wide for the use I wanted it for and so decided to go with the 24 or 21 Summilux. I initially chose the 24 'lux but quickly decided that the 21 had more utility for me. I'd love to have both - who wouldn't?
 

jonoslack

Active member
As a WATE lover, I will have to stick up for it here - I liked it on the M8, but I like it more on the M9 - I've always felt that 24mm is a bit of a 'blah' focal length on full frame anyway, so that the combination of the WATE and the 28 cron is (for me) a perfect couple.

The 24 'lux is clearly a wonderful lens . . . if you want to shoot it wide open . . if you don't then it's expensive and heavy (IMHO of course).

Incidentally - kudos to everyone, so many good responses here.

all the best
 

tom in mpls

Active member
Never mentioned in the discussion of wide lenses that I have read, is the bubble level visible through the frankenfinder. Although intended for use with the excellent WATE lens, one might also use the monster with other WA lenses. BTW I love the WATE but hate the frankenfinder's size.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Hi Tom . . . . it's big, but not as big as the 24 1.4!
Yes, but much uglier than the 24/1.4 and gives the camera a strange size IMO.
I have the Frankenfinder but allways when I talk myself into using it I take it off the camera after 10 minutes.

The other thing is distorsion, where I dont find the Frankenfinder great.
The great thing is the flexibility it delievers, but thats about it IMO.

I dont know why but in my case I dont see any problem with the 24/1.4 size.
It dont think it feels much different than a fast 50mm or a 75 or 90mm lens on the M9.
 

henningw

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henning
 

mAlKhamis

New member
Graham, Jono, Tom, Streng, brad, and henning, thank you so much

i really appreciate your responsiveness, your thoughts and opinions , they were really helping in my decision.

with regard to the 50mm i think i will need the 1.4 lux

with regard to wide angles, i think the elmerit will do just fine, i never use wide angles at larger aperture, even at 2.8, my usual apertures is from 3.5 up to 16, thus the lux 1.4 wide angles will not add any thing to my work.

now if wanna stitch for panoramas, think the 24 will do a better job than 21, am i right !! and the 35mm will even do better !! but i still need a wide angle for single shots !!

cheers!

M
 

mAlKhamis

New member
Another question !

does the 6bit digit coded lenses makes a difference with the M9 ?

for example 50 cron vs 50 lux 6bit coded lets say at F/2.8 , will be there any noticeable differences ?

thank you so much

cheers!

M
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI M
With respect to coding - just do it, it may not always be necessary, but life gets very confusing and error-prone if you have some coded lenses and some which aren't . . . on the other hand, you can easily use a coding kit to code lenses manually - it needs refreshing every few weeks, but if you get into the habit of keeping a sharpie and checking it really isn't a bother.

I quite agree about the 50 f1.4 - I often carry just that and the WATE with me.

as for Panoramas - 24 is (IMHO of course) too wide for stitching - I usually use a 35mm (or a 28), often held vertically for landscapes - here is one taken a week or so back using 35mm on the MATE (28,35,50 tri-elmar) - 5 shot (I think) no tripod, I was on skis:



all the best
 
Top