Is the current production 19mm Elmarit R (w/built-in filters) equal in performance comparatively with the 21mm Elmarit M Asph version? Aside from the cost factor, reflex and M rangefinder debate (comparing apples with oranges, so to speak), are these 2 lenses equal in terms of resolution, color rendition and overall sharpness? If you have both the R and M bodies with these 2 fine lenses, which would you prefer to use?

-- Paul Chan (janpo@tm.net.my), August 16, 2001

Answers

Paul

I doubt you will find many (any?)people who have both lenses to be honest, but we can live in hope. Of course 19mm is quite a bit wider than 21mm...

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 16, 2001.

Paul, I haven't used either, but the reputation of the ASPH lenses is such that there's little doubt in my mind that the 21mm Elmarit-M ASPH is the one I'd go for. The 19, being a retrofocus, will be higher in distortion, for one thing. It will also be much bulkier, if that's a consideration.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), August 16, 2001.

A couple of advantages of the 19mm are that (1) it has built-in filters and that (2) it can be used on both an R or M camera, the latter via a lens-mount adapter. So you could use the 19mm on your R if you need exact framing or TTL metering, and then if you have to travel light(ish) then clip it onto a M and focus via the distance scale.

These are the main reasons why I am saving up for the 19mm rather than the 21mm APSH.

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), August 16, 2001.

Another example of myth masquerading for fact: the 21 Elmarits (non- ASPH and ASPH) *are* retrofocus designs. Otherwise they would block the metering cell in the M6. I personally do not like the R-19 because there are no front filter threads. Before I got hold of a nice 21/4 S/A-R, I used a 17/3.5 Tamron SP, which I still use on occasion. A very nice lens for the money--excellent optics, 82mm filter screws into the shade, and well-made metal barrel. Anyone who wouldn't object to paying for and using the Minolta-bred 24/2.8-R shouldn't reject this one, either, on the basis of it not being a Leica lens.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 16, 2001.

Jay, did you mean that it's a myth that the 21 is a retro, or that it actually is a retro? I think your wording confused me a bit.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), August 16, 2001.

The 21 Elmarits (and any other Leica wide-angles which don't block the meter cell of an M6)are retrofocus design. There is no such thing as a "semi-retrofocus" design, BTW, that's like being slightly pregnant. If the physical length of the lens (focal point to front element, lens focused at infinity)is longer than the focal length, it's retrofocus (just as if the physical length is shorter than the focal length, it's telephoto...in fact retrofocus lenses are sometimes referred to as 'reverse telephoto'). Of course, certain camera designs require more back focus than others, such being the case with SLR mirrors vs the M6 meter cell, so expect the M wides to deviate less from "true wide angle" status than their R equivalents.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 16, 2001.

>If the physical length of the lens (focal point to front element, lens focused at infinity)is longer than the focal length, it's retrofocus (just as if the physical length is shorter than the focal length, it's telephoto...in fact retrofocus lenses are sometimes referred to as 'reverse telephoto')<.

Jay:

I seem to remember reading somewhere that what makes a lens retro- focus is its OPTICAL CENTER being shifted rearward from its PHYSICAL CENTER, whereas with telephotos the optical center is forward of the physical center. I also remeber reading somewhere that optical problems increase geometrically with distance between the optical center and physical center once the optical center is beyond any lens element, and that Nikon and Canon (and I imagine Leica) designers keep the optical centers within the lens elements on their high-end super-telephoto designs for this reason. (However it is impossible with the wideangles due to the SLR flange-to-film distance.) The do- it-all zooms are obvious examples of designs where this is not a consideration. Hence with Leica M wide angles (and Mamiya 7), you do get sort of a retrofocus-lite, as the optical center is still contained within the glass on the 21 (and Mamiya's 43), as opposed to designs for SLRs that must move the optical center outside the lens; hence generating superior performance.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), August 16, 2001.

I am interested in Andrew's comment that the R 19 could be used on an M6 body. Where can I find that adaptor and how would the focusing work on an M body? Are there any other R lenses which can be used this way? Thanks.

-- David (yeo_d@hotmail.com), August 17, 2001.

Paul, I use the 21mm Asph, and also use the R system.

The 21mm Asph is a fantastic lens, excellent at f2.8, and stellar between f4 and f8. It is handy, relatively light and compact, and precise focusing is extremely easy through the M's rangefinder (DoF scale prefocusing being sometimes a little "gross" at f2.8).

However, if separate viewfinder framing is OK for fast and dirty shooting (when you crop later at scanning or printing stage) or for distant subjects, it can be a REAL nuisance for precise near/far compositions. This is a major handicap when shooting landscapes for example. It has also turned into a professional nightmare when I was required to shoot the staging of modern art work for a gallery.

This is the reason why I would today certainly choose the 19mm R. Following most of the reference tests, its performances are comparable to the 21mm Asph, even at f2.8. But it allows you to focus VERY near (an important asset for a superwide), and it is as WYSIWYG as it gets. It is heavier and bigger though, and a R8+19mm is certainly not as much fun to hike with as a M+21...

The conclusion is yours...

Alan

The M is better left with 28/35/50/75 lenses. Wider or longer are MUCH more comfortable with a SLR.

-- Alan ball (alan.ball@yucom.be), August 17, 2001.

Jack

Hmm - sounds a bit like special pleading to me - what matters in the end is how well the lens is corrected, there seems no reason to assume a priori (as many M users do I find) that just because the camera body is thinner the lenses are better automatically. It might mean it is cheaper and easier to do so, but is the 21mm ASPH being very much cheaper than the 19mm? Also 19mm is wider than a 21mm. I also happen to subscribe to Alan's view about a superwide being nore useful on a reflex.

Still it would be intriguing to know if anyone has directly compared the two lenses- both represent the new generation of Leica lenses.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 17, 2001.

For David... a couple of posts up,

Here is a thread featuring an adaptor that allow you to mount the wider SLR lenses to your Leica M. Physically, you could mount any lens, but since it won't be rangefinder coupled, it would be easier to use the wider lenses and zone focus. Since the RF camera lacks a mirror box, the adaptor moves the SLR lens out to the proper spacing from the film plane, allowing focus to infinity.

Of course, you will need a viewfinder that matches the lens. I guess you could make due with a 21mm Leica finder for the 19mm R lens, allowing a little more space.

check it out at:

http://www.cameraquest.com/adaptnew.htm

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), August 17, 2001.

Robin:

No special pleadings here, just a question on optical physics as I understand it (which is quite likely not very well!). Anyway, I too happen to agree with Al (and you) that superwides are more EASILY used on an SLR (or a view camera) than they are on any indirect viewfinder arrangement. But this does not mean they are better optically. My own personal experiences have shown me that the aforementioned rf lenses (and most superwide LF lenses) have been superior performers to their SLR-designed bretheren - It is one of the reasons I migrated to the M. Admittedly though, I have not tested any of the R series lenses, as I do not own an R.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), August 17, 2001.

Jack

I don't necessarily disagree with you on the w/a issue, really, but the trouble is that no one here seems to have used both 21mm ASPH or the 19mm-R, so it is all hand waving in the end. We know the 21mm ASPH is superior to the 21mm SA-R, but then we would anticipate this as the SA-R appeared back in 1969 or therabouts and of course was a Schneider design anyway. The 21mm ASPH is bang up to date - it might indeed be better than the 19mm-R which dates (I think) from 1994, but who knows? In the end many things are possible optically - it usually a question of cost and size and useful return.

On a different but related point I still maintain that it is somewhat ironic that the M has such a great reputation for WA lenses, when in my opinion any lens wider than 28mm is a pain to use on an M camera....

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 17, 2001.

>On a different but related point I still maintain that it is somewhat ironic that the M has such a great reputation for WA lenses, when in my opinion any lens wider than 28mm is a pain to use on an M camera....<

Robin:

I agree with your statements re the 19 to 21 comparison. Rer the above, no doubt a reputation gained based on quality of result, not ease of use! Hence the irony you see may be due simply to design limitations imposed by the laws of physics...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), August 17, 2001.