Leica wide angles

What is the future for Leica prime wide angle lenses?

 

I have a need for a fairly wide angle lens for my R8, and my first

choice would normally be the 24mm Elmarit,but I have been put off my

the many negative remarks made about this lens, especially those

reviewing the lens for their books.Not so much outright

condemnation,but by their only really describing it by noting its

specifications-no glowing terms! Maybe it doesn't deserve any?

 

I think we have to assume the 21mm prime lens for Leica is a thing of

the past, as their 19mm is firmly entrenched, as well as being

very,very good. The 28mm is small, very good and has its built in

lens hood, and therefore I would assume will stay.

 

With the introduction of the 21mm-35mm zoom the future for a

replacement 24mm made and designed by Leica seems not very good,

unless, in my opinion, they bring out an aspheric, floating element

f/2 summicron version that has oustanding performance and no or very

little distortion.

 

My question is: Erwin Putts in his test states that this zoom has

very little distortion at 21mm and 24mm and what there is has gone by

28mm,

 

whereas Leica in their brochure for this lens states that it has

around 1% distortion at 35mm around 2% at 25mm and around 3% at 21mm

 

I respect Irwin Putts words and obviously he has put a lot of work

into reaching his conclusions, but I respect Leica even more and they

would hardly describe a lens of theirs as if it was worse than it

really is! Who is right?

 

 

Does anyone have any real experience with this zoom with regard to its

distortion ?

 

 

Thanks

 

BM

Bruno: I have used the 19mm F/2.8 for the past three years and

have found it to be an excellent lens with great contrast/

resolution and minimal distortion. My only complaint is the

inablity to mount a UV filter up front to protect that very expensive

front optic. As to the 21-35mm zoomlens, my question to you is

do the distortion numbers really matter? Is this significant or just

a difference in the interpretation of data? What do our colleagues

think? (:>)))

Putts may mean that for a 21mm lens 3% distortion is better than most 21's but he expects a 35mm lens to have less than 1%.

The Leica 21-35 is a stellar performer when compared to the

Canon 16-35 and Nikon 17-35, both of which I used and sold at

my earliest opportunity. The 17-35 Canon I once owned was a

sow of a lens. IMO, I think this zoom outperforms the Leica

24/2.8 prime that I once owned. If you really want stellar

performance from a 24mm prime, switch to the M version.

I think Al Kaplan nailed it pretty well. For practical photography, 1% or 2% is probably very respectable in a retrofocus lens. As Marc Williams answer suggests, most of us would probably be very satisfied with the actual performance of this lens.

I would have to say that I doubt if Leica will introduce a new R lens between 19mm and 28mm. The 21-35mm zoom is your best bet, IMHO, if you need those intermediate focal lengths for the R. It's about the same price as the 24mm Elmarit and seems like much better value.

Thanks for your replies.

 

My concern is that the lens is to be used for recording the interiors and exteriors of old buildings/churches on a Greek island.

 

The P.C. lens would be an answer,but is not really much good for normal use as well,and is not really wide enough.

 

I suppose I'll have to wait and see what Photokina brings?

 

Thanks

 

BM

Bruno

 

I haven't much to add, but by all accounts the new zoom is excellent and if you are not concerned by speed this is a good bet. But, if you want state of the art performance from a Leica R wide you will just have to go for a current 28mm or the 19mm (also the new 15mm). The current 24mm is probably pretty good, but does not match the M version nor I think will it really match the 28mm R at wider apertures. But it probably depends what apertures you want to shoot at. If you are in the f5.6 range then I suspect that you will find the 24mm R good. The 24mm is a fine lens but not any more top of the line performance. I am not really all that impressed with the 21mm-R f4s. To my mind they were fine for 1972, but no longer. My VC21mm for the M is a lot better. The 21mm is fine stopped down to f6.3 or f8, but above that it is not so good in the field and in the corners. If you are doing interiors this may worry you. On the other hand if you are on a tripod then you can stop down. I have some good shots with the 21mm Super-Angulon, but it is not in the same league as current Leica wide angles.

 

It would seem to me that a new 24mm ASPH R lens would be a natural fit, but I would not hold your breath. We have had two new R lenses over the last year which is pretty good going considering the way the R line sells these days.