xiaubauu
Member
Advice needed for getting a wide angle lens. I am currently deciding over a Lux 21mm ASPH or a Tri-Elmar 16-18-21mm
They are selling for about the same price here but I am torn between the fast aperture of the lux and the versatility (actually VALUE as well) of the WATE.
I don't shoot landscape that much, but I do shoot quite abit of interior/architecture shots as I am trained in that profession. I do like to take streets photography hence I like the speed.
I don't get much WATE review online. and actually not that much of the lux 21 ASPH too...
Can anyone with experience of both lens please advice? Thank you so much. I am using Monochrom
They are selling for about the same price here but I am torn between the fast aperture of the lux and the versatility (actually VALUE as well) of the WATE.
I don't shoot landscape that much, but I do shoot quite abit of interior/architecture shots as I am trained in that profession. I do like to take streets photography hence I like the speed.
I don't get much WATE review online. and actually not that much of the lux 21 ASPH too...
Can anyone with experience of both lens please advice? Thank you so much. I am using Monochrom
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Don't forget the CV 15mm! Great lens. Doesn't break the bank.
oftheherd
Veteran
Seems like I remember Mr. Hicks doing a review of the 16-18-21, but I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong. It sounds like a good selection for architecture, where you need not worry about subtle differences in focal length not being optimum.
Whatever lens you choose, I don't think speed is a problem for architecture, since I would expect you would be using a tripod anyway, or should.
The lux at 21 would seem limiting. My widest in SLRs is 18mm. That takes care of the most of what I want to do, and I tend to "see" wide. But there were times when I wished I had had something wider, like a 15mm. Only you can decide what fits your eye and pocketbook, but if I could justify another lens, I would probably go for a 15 in Contax mount.
Whatever lens you choose, I don't think speed is a problem for architecture, since I would expect you would be using a tripod anyway, or should.
The lux at 21 would seem limiting. My widest in SLRs is 18mm. That takes care of the most of what I want to do, and I tend to "see" wide. But there were times when I wished I had had something wider, like a 15mm. Only you can decide what fits your eye and pocketbook, but if I could justify another lens, I would probably go for a 15 in Contax mount.
xiaubauu
Member
I have a 12mm VM and it's plenty wide, or abit too wide to be a pleasant interior lens usage. I think Tri-Elmar is more versatile... I will go to the store and have a test out.
oftheherd
Veteran
Well, a 12mm huh? That's interesting. Perhaps the 16-18-21 would be a better choice for you after all. The Zeiss 15mm I have seen, like my 18mm, is rectilinear with very little distortion. How is your 12mm?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes and I loved it: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews wate.html. But then I loved the 4/18 Distagon too, and it's what we ended up with (more affordable): http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews 18 zeiss.html
Cheers,
R.
xiaubauu
Member
Thanks a bunch. I am going to try out the WATE and also the 21mm 1.8 Ultron, for the money saved, I could easily get a 18mm Distagon + a 15mm VM hahahah
Richard G
Veteran
I have neither. The 21 Summilux would be wonderful, but I am more than happy with the ZM 21 C Biogon f4.5, notwithstanding the colour fringing. It is very straight for architecture. And the 18 Distagon is great and has less colour fringing. Also great for architecture.
I am curious about JSU's views on the Super Angulon on the M9. I am inclined to distrust his view, except for the alternative evidence, that marvellous quote in his signature.
I am curious about JSU's views on the Super Angulon on the M9. I am inclined to distrust his view, except for the alternative evidence, that marvellous quote in his signature.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
being a 21mm fan - having used them in one form or another since my first 21f4.5 Biogon and 21f3.4 Super Angulon since the early 60's - I think I have used them all at one time.
21mm f1.4 Summilux: Kudo's to Leica for pushing the optical envelope (and price point!!). Very good lens - but significant edge fall off (2 stops+). Some edge distorison. For architectural work both the fall-off (needs a center filter) and the edge distorison could be problematic. Also large!!!!
21f1.8 Ultron: Much less edge fall off (you really dont need a center filter). Edge sharpness at f1.8 slightly less than with the Summilux 21f1.4 @ 1.4 or 1.8 - but not really significant. By the time you hit f2.8 - I cant see any difference. Best bang for the bucks.
Biogon 21f4.5 (new version): The straightest rendition of any 21 - bar none! With the M9 you can get a slight color cast at the edges - should not be a problem with the Monochrome though.
Super Angulon 21f3.4: Classic design and lens. Significant edge fall off - but astounding center sharpness.
Super Elmar 21f3.4: Very good lens - sharp at f3.4, not too much edge fall off (no need for a center filter) - but some edge distorsion, which, according to leica, can be fixed with in camera compensation!!!
Wate 16/18/21: Tried it and did not like it. At f16 significant edge fall off and at the 21f4 setting - you are using a slow 21 - not better than a VC 21f4.0 at less than 10% of the price.
Zeiss Biogon 21mm f2.8: Good lens, better handling than 21f2.8 Asph. Sharp even at 2.8 - but you can see edge distorsion. Even illumination though.
Elmarit 21f2.8 Asph: Sharp, high contrast - but not spectacular. Distorsion wise the minute VC 21f4 is actually better!
A lot of it comes down to what you like and now it fits the hand.
I would go for the 21f1.8 and a ZM Biogon 21f4.5 ( the latter for specific shots when absolute linearity is needed).
Add a ZM Distagon 18f4 and finder for a bit more coverage (and a bit more distorsion) and the
VC 15f4.5 M-mount and it's compact finder.
You would still have money left over from not getting a 21f1.4 - and not loose out in quality of image!
21mm f1.4 Summilux: Kudo's to Leica for pushing the optical envelope (and price point!!). Very good lens - but significant edge fall off (2 stops+). Some edge distorison. For architectural work both the fall-off (needs a center filter) and the edge distorison could be problematic. Also large!!!!
21f1.8 Ultron: Much less edge fall off (you really dont need a center filter). Edge sharpness at f1.8 slightly less than with the Summilux 21f1.4 @ 1.4 or 1.8 - but not really significant. By the time you hit f2.8 - I cant see any difference. Best bang for the bucks.
Biogon 21f4.5 (new version): The straightest rendition of any 21 - bar none! With the M9 you can get a slight color cast at the edges - should not be a problem with the Monochrome though.
Super Angulon 21f3.4: Classic design and lens. Significant edge fall off - but astounding center sharpness.
Super Elmar 21f3.4: Very good lens - sharp at f3.4, not too much edge fall off (no need for a center filter) - but some edge distorsion, which, according to leica, can be fixed with in camera compensation!!!
Wate 16/18/21: Tried it and did not like it. At f16 significant edge fall off and at the 21f4 setting - you are using a slow 21 - not better than a VC 21f4.0 at less than 10% of the price.
Zeiss Biogon 21mm f2.8: Good lens, better handling than 21f2.8 Asph. Sharp even at 2.8 - but you can see edge distorsion. Even illumination though.
Elmarit 21f2.8 Asph: Sharp, high contrast - but not spectacular. Distorsion wise the minute VC 21f4 is actually better!
A lot of it comes down to what you like and now it fits the hand.
I would go for the 21f1.8 and a ZM Biogon 21f4.5 ( the latter for specific shots when absolute linearity is needed).
Add a ZM Distagon 18f4 and finder for a bit more coverage (and a bit more distorsion) and the
VC 15f4.5 M-mount and it's compact finder.
You would still have money left over from not getting a 21f1.4 - and not loose out in quality of image!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I use the Voigtländer Color Skopar 21mm f/4 in M-mount. It performs beautifully, for my purposes, on film and on the GXR. On the M9, it works well but for more critical color accuracy the raw files should be processed with CornerFix. That's fine for my purposes, and its a heck of a lot less expensive than any of the Leica or Zeiss options, as well as being a lot smaller and lighter.
If I were to upgrade, I'd likely go for the Biogon 25/2.8 ZM (21 is a bit wider than I use often with full frame 35mm format) or the Voigtländer Ultron 21/1.8.
Both the WATE and the 'Lux 21 are too expensive for my needs.
G
If I were to upgrade, I'd likely go for the Biogon 25/2.8 ZM (21 is a bit wider than I use often with full frame 35mm format) or the Voigtländer Ultron 21/1.8.
Both the WATE and the 'Lux 21 are too expensive for my needs.
G
flyalf
Well-known
Wate
Wate
The WATE is a great all-round wide. The big advantage is negligible color shift problems, so no need for Cornerfix. For architecture there are other wides with less distortion.
Wate
The WATE is a great all-round wide. The big advantage is negligible color shift problems, so no need for Cornerfix. For architecture there are other wides with less distortion.
xiaubauu
Member
Thank you all for your valuable advices. I have bought a second hand 18mm ZM and i will get the 21mm ULTRON in the future.
IEDEI
Well-known
you're better off with a 21mm Elmarit, IMO.....the best combination of speed, quality, and enjoyment to use. Definitely my favourite lens! It is big, but wonderful. The pre-ASPH or the ASPH.