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

[johank]

The problem for the sensor edges to get the light in at low angle talks for the SLR version for the ultra wide lenses on DRFMs. Film and sensor are yet not really compatible even if progress is fast.
I stick with my CZ Biogon in 21 and 28 Distagon on the Contax G2.

 

[Daryl J.]

Maybe I'm an odd duck, but my use of the 3,8/24mm Elmar M and 3,4/21mm S-A are completely different.

 

[Ronald M]

21 28 35 is a nice set. 24 & 35 is also superb.

My take is the 24 3.8 is a fabulous lens. I checked out one someone bought for a M8 because he did not have a full frame camera. I later got one for myself. The two are absolutely top drawer lenses. If you do not need a faster lens, I can recommend it.

The current 24 viewfinder is to behold. for 75 feet use out side edge of lines, 10 feet inside of lines. Bright and sparkling view . Far better that all the other BL finders I own.

21 is not much wider. I have a 21 pre ASPH, 24 3.8, 28 2.8 ASPH. Usually carry the 24/35.

 

[WJJ3]

starting off by unoh7, on Flickr

I need to try it more 🙂

Schweitzer?

 

[Tom A]

[/url]F994 #9 Falling Water by T&T and Mr B Abrahamsson, on Flickr[/IMG]
Frank Lloyd Wright's "Falling Water" house. The S-E 21f3.4 is good, less fall off than a Super Angulon, but more distortion. MP. Arista 400 and Adox developer.

 

[Ronald M]

It depend on the wide kit you want to carry. 21 28 35 is what I had because there was no 24. I lean toward less now and the 24 35 meets my needs. I suppose one could make a case for 21 35.

 

[narsuitus]

I like both focal lengths.
I use a 24mm with a 35mm on my Nikon SLR.
I use a 21mm with a 45mm on my Contax G.
I use a 21mm with a 35mm on my Leica rangefinder.
For my Leica rangefinder, the 21 is my widest.
For my Nikon SLR, I have wider lenses (18mm and 14mm).
For landscapes, I tend to favor the 24.
For interior architectural shots, I tend to favor the 21.

In this old poll, I voted for something else because my 21, the f/1.4 version, fits my shooting style and subject matter better than the f/3.4 version.


21mm Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Interesting info in this thread. Magenta corners on Sony camera and Tom A saying how SA is better, at least to me. I had 24 mm and didn't get it, now looking at 21, but corner distortions bugs me, vigneting is not.

50, 35 and 21. It is called as even distribution.

 

[agoglanian]

21 / 35 / 50 is my preferred trio of lenses. I'd love to try the 21 SEM one day, I plan on buying one in a couple years time.

 

[mcfingon]

I bought the 24/3.8 Elmar-M as I don't use an external viewfinder on my M6. I just engage the 28mm framelines and then "think" a bit wider. It also works well on my Sony A7S as a general travel lens. The edge colouration is not usually noticeable, particularly if you change the colour jpg to monochrome 🙂 Below pic from Dubrovnik, 2017. John Mc

 

[IEDEI]

i don't understand the 'hype' behind these Elmars.

For years now people gravitate towards recommending the Super Elmars, but honestly the 21mm (pre-ASPH or ASPH) or 24mm Elmarits are far better lenses in every way. When i mean superior i mean in terms of build quality, rendering, and overall use.

If these Super Elmars are revered for their sharpness then sure, it's a slow lens which is focused on sharpness. For overall character and flexibility the Elmarits are so much better tools for the job IMO.

I've used the 18mm, 21, and 24 Super Elmar and was not particularly impressed by any of them. The images were more 'clinical' then characterful.

 

[james.liam]

All depends upon what you're looking for.
I bought the 21 SEM to accompany an M9M. It taps into the Monochrom's inherent higher effective resolution and if your taste is toward a higher contrast, very high resolving lens (like in landscape work), it can't be beaten for a near-absence of distortion and sharness across the frame. I suppose the Elmarits would provide more 'atmosphere' for close-in portraits, if that's what you seek.

 

[Gregm61]

I don’t really understand the hype behind using the term “characterful” vs what it really is which is, well, just “not as sharp”, and I’ll take my 35/1.4 FLE’s performance wide open over any lens that “glows” (LMAO) at f1.4.

Kinda like a coin collector calling a valuable coin he owns and is stained, “toned” instead, LOL...

 

[froyd]

Fortunately, there are M lenses for every taste, from the clinical to the the dramatic. I guess one could also describe modern/clinical rendering as a type of "character", but commonly, it is applied to lenses like the Super Angulon or the Summitar and lack of sharpness is not a perquisite for having character. It's more about having a distinctive signature.

 

[rgeorge911]

I only know that my friend had the 24mm, which I compared to my Zeiss Biogon 25. Now, I like my Biogon, but the Leica just outclassed it, at least in our examples. I’ve lusted for the 24 ever since. But, it’s not a focal length I use all that much.

Maybe the 21 is as good or better?