21 Super-Elmar-M 3,4 vs 24 Elmar-M f3.8

21 Super-Elmar-M 3,4 vs 24 Elmar-M f3.8

  • 21 Super-Elmar-M f3,4 ASPH $2,995

    Votes: 96 49.0%

  • 24 Elmar-M f3.8 ASPH (E46) $2,495

    Votes: 60 30.6%

  • I would recommend something else

    Votes: 40 20.4%
  • Total voters
    196
I'd rather buy the 21mm Biogon, great lens at half the price and a half stop faster; another option would be a used Angulon again a great lens at a lower price.
If it absolutely has to be a new Leica lens I'd choose the 21mm lens simply because it's a very wide lens and offers a very different perspective than the 24mm those 3mm definitely do matter.

Dominik
 
Where can you find another set of wides with the kind of performance indicated by the mtf graphs kindly posted above? The elmar-m 24 and super-elmar 21 are fully equal to the very best of the small format wides, the contax distagon 21, without the latter's "wave" distortion. The zm biogon 21 is very very close to the mark as well, a touch less corner performance judging from the charts, at under 1/2 the price and half a stop more speed. All of these lenses are remarkable. What a feast of choice!!
 
Last edited:
6163202416_2e7057dd61_z.jpg


The Troika of 21's. Zeiss C Biogon, Leica Super Elmar 21f3.4 and the grand old man, the 21f3.4 Super Angulon.
I have had the Super Elmar now for about 6 weeks. The MTF curves dont lie! Wide-open it is amazingly even across. It is right up there with the C Biogon 21f4.5 as "as good as it gets" type of lens. The Super Angulon still holds its own as the "drama queen" of 21's - never have to edge burn a print with that lens!
I tried the 24f3.8 and was very impressed with it - but I have the Zeiss 25f2.8 and the 24/25 mm is more of an "occasional" focal length for me - while the 21 is a standard ( I have had 21 Super Angulon's since 1964!). I knew early on that the 'slow" 21 was in the works so I decided to wait for it - and no regrets.
 
I have both. The performance and characters of these two lenses are very similar, as they share the similar optical formula. On MTF, the 21 is better, not to mention it is f/3.4. But for me, I use the 24 more as I prefer the focal length of 24.
 
I have the Super Elmar and found it just spectacular for my trip to Hawaii. My next step is the 35 lux Pre-Asph as I just traded off my 28 Elmarit for lack of use. The Super Elmar is so tiny for a WA and fits good in a travel kit.
Pete
 
Both Leica-Wideangles are top-notch, if a single Lens has to do, the 24 is certainly more versatile,
the 21 takes much more care in composition.

I'm using the combination of 2.8/21 ZM and 2/35 ZM which are both excellent, for the price of a single Leica lens.


Kind regards

Ronald
 
I own a 28 Cron, and I voted for the 21/3.4 Super Elmar because it is the better fit. I also own a Plaubel 69W with a 47/5.6 Super Augulon (21mm FOV except 6X9), and I want to exploit the 21mm FOV but to do that extensively in 120 with only 8 shots per roll it gets too expensive.

I'm currently building out an ultrawide M-body: Black 1980 MD-2; Zeiss 21mm VF'er; TA Rapidwinder; TA Rapidgrip.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
I own a 28 Cron, and I voted for the 21/3.4 Super Elmar because it is the better fit. I also own a Plaubel 69W with a 47/5.6 Super Augulon (21mm FOV except 6X9), and I want to exploit the 21mm FOV but to do that extensively in 120 with only 8 shots per roll it gets too expensive.

I'm currently building out an ultrawide M-body: Black 1980 MD-2; Zeiss 21mm VF'er; TA Rapidwinder; TA Rapidgrip.

Cal
Click to expand...

UPDATE: I bought a used 21 SEM at a great price after borrowing a friend's 24/3.8. The 21 SEM seems to be a magic lens.

Cal
 
I own the 24 Elmar and I'm knocked out by how sharp it is corner to corner even wide open. It's without a doubt in the same class as the 35 summilux FLE. I think the 24/25 FL is the best super wide for my kind of photography. I previously had a Super Angulon and then later an Elmarit and just didn't get much use out of them.

I have to admit that as great as this lens is I rarely use it and think I'm going to sell it. I've become a mid range FL user (35 & 75) in recent years.
 
I love the perspective of a 21mm or wider lens, but when it comes down to usability and how frequently I can make use of it, the 24mm wins hands down. So I chose the Elmar-M 24.

I tend to carry lenses in pairs. Most often with the 24, I pair it to the 50.

G
 
I have both 24 and 28mm lenses - at the wider end of the spectrum, those few mm's make a huge difference. I find 24mm an extremely challenging focal length to use, but I can use it in the same way that I use a 50,35 or 28mm lens, that is, without the obvious viewing interference of an ultra-wide field of view. 21mm is different in that respect and more of a specialist lens to my mind.
 
Why 24? I used one before and it was first class. I have a 21 I don`t use much. 24 is a good match for my 35 for two lens wide set.

Last but not least, KEH had a LN- one for 1750 and 30% off black Friday sale. $1219 including shipping. Arrived an hour ago.
 
kemal_mumcu said:
I agree that 21 is too wide for people shots. For this reason I'd like to try a 24 next I think. Apparently the recalled 21 SE 3.4 are starting to return to stores with a new housing and inner workings. I'd like to see more pictures from this new lens.
Click to expand...

I have not found that to be the case. You just have to get closer, that's all. With the 28mm focal length, you can get a good composition at about 4-5 feet from your subject. With the 21mm, you need to get closer, as in 2-3 feet.

The 21/3.4 SE is very well corrected, so egghead distortion is not as much of a problem as you would expect if you place your main subject(s) at around 1/3 the distance from the frame edge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom