New Tri-Elmar or Compact 21

[Captain]

This may sound like an odd choice between 2 lenses at first but Ive just been pondering which would round a kit off better. Both have their merits and would like to hear other opinions maybe there is something I hadn't considered.

So if you were using a CLE and CL and also had 28mm Elmarit ASPH, 40mm Summicron, 90mm Macro Elmar and 135mm Tele-Elmar (note all take 39mm filters, also in a pinch on the 40 with a couple of threads) and wanted wider what would you consider? I know someone will say have both but I want to bring out the pros and cons for me to consider.

A new Voigtlander P 21mm is a more compact size better suited to the CL/CLE. It also takes 39mm filters. Negatives Good build quality but not quite Leica sturdiness. Different character compared to others in the kit?

16-18-21 Tri-Elmar is a really handy ultra wide combo, I like character continuity between lenses and one would assume it would be similar to the other Leica lenses in the kit. Its negatives are lens size but more importantly the new finder size is a concern.

The first tri-elmar was a good lens at all focal lengths but didn't quite match the last generation of fixed focal length lenses. If the same applies to this tri-elmar then at 21mm both lenses may well be as good as each other with distortion flare and light falloff possibly? Maybe if anyone does own both they could answer that?

Friendly discussion please. Is size more important to you or the multi-focal length concept? Thanks

 

[MCTuomey]

guy mancuso posted one of his recent M8 + new tri-elmar images over at fredmiranda.com. pretty damn exquisite. i can't find the link at the moment but if you do a search on *WATE* on the alternative gear forum on the miranda site, you should be able to locate the thread and pic.

 

[Doug]

Well, I dunno, Captain... with my CLE I was willing to put up with larger lens size to get more speed. So I went with the 21 Elmarit f2.8 to keep the 28 Summicron and 40 Nokton company. I have the 15mm Voigtlander for those rare occasions...

The speed issue comes up because even if I'm out in the landscapes or urban-scapes where I'd be happy with f4, I'm as likely to dive into an antique shop or diner and then wish I had two more stops. One's mileage may vary of course... 🙂

 

[FX trading]

Tri-elmar without a doubt- I just sold my 21mm asph to purchase one, and have been very happy with the results. The finder i actually (surprisingly) quite pleasant to use, and has a very practical case as well.

 

[Captain]

with my CLE I was willing to put up with larger lens size to get more speed.

For those that need extra speed I can appreciate the sacrifice of size but in this instance both are the same speed. Since your an avid CLE user if the speed is the same which would you go for?

 

[saxshooter]

I would love to see what a CL or CLE with a WATE and that huge finder looks like! Personally, I'd go with the CV 21mm and save the remainding funds for something else another day...

 

[BillBingham2]

The new CV 21 P without a doubt. While the three-way is a cool lens, she and her finder are BIG. The CL/CLE is such a nice small package I just think this would change that too much.

B2 (;->

 

[Captain]

I would love to see what a CL or CLE with a WATE and that huge finder looks like!

Yes I agree! Does the Wide Angle Tri-Elmar even fit these cameras?

 

[HenningW]

I don't have a CL or CLE, but I do have the 21/4 CV, Leica 21 ASPH and WATE. I haven't had the WATE that long (about a month), but I've compared it to the other lenses, as well as to the 21/4.5 Biogon which I borrowed, and my old f/3.4 SA.

Optically, the WATE is better overall than the 21 CV. Not in the center, but in the corners. The WATE is very close to the 21 ASPH, and a bit behind the 21/4.5 Biogon, which is the best 21 I've tried. I'm keeping the 21 CV for it's compactness, and I might get the Biogon for its ultimate performance, but the ASPH is likely to go, as there might finally be other higher speed options in the not so distant future. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

The finder is big and ugly, but it works very well. Those times when I'm going to be using the WATE a lot, the finder will do just fine. On the M8 it also works really well if you are carrying the 12 along. If I'm going to use just the WATE at 16 and 21, I'll use separate finders; I'm considering getting the Zeiss as they are wonderful.

If I had a CL, I'd probably go for the 21 CV and use the CV finder. The difference in performance is of lesser concern than the size, and I wouldn't get or use the CL or CLE if size wasn't an issue.

The performance of the 21 CV is really quite excellent, and the search for ultimate performance is, in my view, often overrated as the handling and ready availability of a lens will often allow you to take pictures you couldn't otherwise get, but ultimate performance only matters if you've already got the image and now you start looking at it with a loupe or pixel-peeping. It doesn't make any difference as to whether the picture is good or not. Having it with you does make a difference, and if I had a CL sized camera, I'd always have the 21 CV with me, while the WATE with finder is a whole other matter.

Henning

 

[Palaeoboy]

Interesting view Henning. I would be keen to hear more about the WATE and the Voigtlander 21 but dont want to hijack this thread so may start a new one!

 

[boilerdoc2]

The WATE/finder combo is not really that big! Especially if you realize it replaces 3 lenses (6 if you use film and M8). And the quality of those files/negatives....wow! It is superb and it is expensive. Only reason to denigrate it is the cost. i got it with the 30% discount with the M8. Otherwise, I would have stuck it out with the CV 15 and a CV 21.
Steve