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
V

Viktor Sebastian

~
Local time
11:48 PM
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
328
Which would you prefer & why?

The viewing angles are very similar, but instinctively different.

Photographic evidence to support statements is most welcome :D
 
I'd personally take the 21. It's faster and I think I like 21 more than 24. 21 goes better with 28 in my mind.

I shoot a lot of 28. It's a great focal length and my M's have frame lines built in for them. When I want something wider, I reach for 21. The real question in my mind is could I kill two birds with one stone, i.e. sell my 21 and 28s and just buy a 24 and be done with it.
 
Tim Gray said:
The real question in my mind is could I kill two birds with one stone, i.e. sell my 21 and 28s and just buy a 24 and be done with it.
Click to expand...

I am also considering the 28mm Summicron (If I ignore the price) because it has framelines in both the M8 & M9 so it makes it the most practical wideangle, however it is also close to the 35mm focal length which can do what a 28mm can do with a few steps backwards in most cases.

The 24mm is very tempting as a partner for a 35mm in this scenario.
 
I agree with you that 35 and 28 are close. I sold my 35mm to fund my 28mm and haven't regretted it one second :)

I mean, ultimately, any lens can do what any neighboring focal length can do with a few steps forward/back. 28 works for me. If 35 works for you, I'd skip the 28 and look at 24 or 21, depending what works best for you.

I really dig 21. Since I got my 21, I kind of stopped using my 15. 21 is pretty much as wide as I need to go 95% of the time when I need ultra wide. I should use my 15 more though... it's fun.
 
If you ever want to convince yourself how minimal the differences are between 21 and 24mm, then look through a CV 21/25 finder. The lines are separated by only a thin rim. I've used 21 in preference to 24 since my Nikon days. I've got both focal lengths in Nikon, but I almost never use the 24. If you're going to go wide, go wide!

I also have the CV 15, but that one takes getting used to!
 
There is a very big gap between 35mm and 28mm, more a perspective difference than how much fits within the frame. I use both with very different purposes, or same depending on the desired perspective not just framing. 21-24mm is slightly less of a difference but I suggest doing more than just looking through a viewfinder.

Lastly, I think if you're shooting people 24mm is the limit, especially if framing them towards the edges of the frame, and thats if you're very careful not to tilt. 21mm becomes much more problematic.
 
Last edited:
I expect that the several recent new slow wides from Leica have been designed with the M9 in mind. Like JSU, having the 21 Elmarit ASPH, I'd also like to see a 21 vs 21 shootout! And for that matter, let's let the 24's go toe-to-toe also! Is it a matter of performance, economy, or both?
 
JSU said:
Still, I have to ask, why develop and produce the 21mm Super Elmar when the 21mm Elmarit-ASPH was already a reality? Is it much better corrected both optically and digitally, or is it just so much cheaper to produce? Or was the 21mm Elmarit-ASPH effecting sales of the 21mm Summilux and a different, perhaps lesser, lens was called-for in the catalog.

Or simply the bottom line may be, "why ask why?"
Click to expand...

I think they wanted something smaller? The E55 21 & 24 ASPH lenses are gorgeous but they're a bit large on the M body. The newer f/3.4 & f/3.8 lenses handle a bit better.
 
Yes, the f/2.8 21 and 24 do flare out at the front to take 55mm filters... but are their replacements really usefully smaller? I've been thinking it's mainly a matter of M9 optimization.
 
I can't imagine the differences between theses lenses are all that significant, but thats speculation of course. One is a 21 and the other a 24 and that would surely be the main reason for choosing one over the other. As for one being considered more favourably because it is faster than the other (as commented above) was that serious?

PS IMHO there is a fairly large difference between 21 and 24mm in terms of use and image characteristics.
 
I would love to see the difference in image characteristics, for me they both look wide. Maybe the 24 is perhaps a little less distorted at the edges of the frame. But, I haven’t used either on fullframe so I don’t from experience. Images would be nice.
 
I have the elmar 24 mounted on an M8 and really quite enjoy the 32mm equiv FL. Having said that the only other lens I have used is a 50mm so I don't have any wider experience to compare it to. It and the 50 were my original purchases when entering the RF world a few months back and I have not had reason yet (apart from the slow max aperture) to regret my purchase.

I'll post some pics from it soon.

Sam
 
At 24mm or more it feels like I'm looking at a box with things arranged inside it.

At 21mm I'm looking through a portal into a world, possibly my own, often with an unusual perspective.

I'm rocking 21, 28, 35, and 50 personally. If I'm not feeling the super wide then I'll use the 28 with the bonus that it has more speed than you'll easily get in a 24mm.

I could see doing 24 though if being really close with a 21 isn't your thing but you still wanted something with a wider look than 28.
 
Have you looked at the MTFs for these lenses? The 3.8 is very very good, but no better than the 21/2.8 Biogon (also very very good). But the Super-Elmar is unbelievably good, from full aperture, right out to the corners. On an M9 I expect that there would be a visible difference, although that difference might only be really evident with exacting technique (a heavy well-damped tripod, for starters). It should also be substantially better than the Summilux at all apertures (except apertures wider than f/3.4 :p ).
 
To me it looks like overall the 24mm is better, but feel free to explain MTFs to me. Since I’m not the most experienced in the matter.

And the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 for interests sake
New on top, old contax g on bottom
original.jpg
 
Last edited:
I voted for the Elmar 24. It's a lens for which I am patiently waiting (sigh). Could well be the ultimate WA in M mount for landscape.

But it is silly to compare; the 21 hasn't been out long enough, has it?
 
Sebben said:
To me it looks like overall the 24mm is better, but feel free to explain MTFs to me.
Click to expand...

I misread the question a bit, thinking that this was a comparison between different Leica 21's. At that FL, the Super-Elmar is almost certainly the best lens Leica (or anyone else) has ever shipped.

Both are staggeringly good lenses, apparently delivering diffraction-limited performance by f/5.6. Which one is "better" comes down to other issues: FOV, geometric distortion, susceptibility to flare.

I'd personally choose the 21 because my standard is a 35 and the 25 is still a hair to close to it, IMO (I have the 35 and 21 Biogon-C's, in fact). If my standard was a 50, I'd probably go with the 24.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom