It would be kinda strange for sony to use the M mount as it is a range finder mount. Its build for range finder coupling to selects the correct framelines and place for a extra ring inside to adjust the rangefinder when focussing.
Besides it has no digital coupling.
I think it is a expensive mount to use when you are not using the range finder.
p.2 #2 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
Had a MATE, and liked the idea, but not its size and f4. Just seemed clunky. The main advantage was never having to change the lens on the camera (no dust), but it seemed like a really nice solution in search of a problem. Rather have one good smaller lens at f2.
p.2 #3 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
I think all Sony has to do is take more care in designing the sensor and its toppings and we shouldn't have any problems, because IMO they didn't pay close attention to the 7's sensor.
p.2 #4 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
I've been thinking about an UW for a long time (I currently have the 28 cron and 50 Lux) but can't decide between the 21SEM and 18. I know the TriE is also an option, but it is quite large, and from reading quite a few users experience with the lens, most admit to simply using it as a 16mm most of the time...
The 21SEM is obviously stunning, and small (except the hood negates this...) and shares the same filter size as my current lenses, but I am tempted by the 18SEM, just to really maximise the perspective distortion at UW angles.
p.2 #6 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
Ash, except fot the difference in focal length, the 18 isn't quite as remarkably good as the 21. So if your choice is to prioritize IQ, the 21 is it IMHO.
p.2 #7 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
RustyBug wrote:
I like it.
Now I understand Thanks
AshNZ wrote:
I've been thinking about an UW for a long time (I currently have the 28 cron and 50 Lux) but can't decide between the 21SEM and 18. I know the TriE is also an option, but it is quite large, and from reading quite a few users experience with the lens, most admit to simply using it as a 16mm most of the time...
The 21SEM is obviously stunning, and small (except the hood negates this...) and shares the same filter size as my current lenses, but I am tempted by the 18SEM, just to really maximise the perspective distortion at UW angles.
The pictures above are made with the 18 and can give u an idea on how the lens performs. The first shot is wide open with the M8, the second one is f/5.6 or f/8 on a M9.
I also shot the 21 and sure its really nice, but I didn't found it to be that much better as some suggest.
Nevertheless the 21 has some real big advantages over the 18.
1: Price of the lens. The 18 is more expensive
2: Price of the finder. There is no older 18mm finder out there, so you have to buy a new one. With the M8 that is no problem, I bought the plastic leica 24mm and it worked great. Now I have the 18mm finder from leica (700 euro) and I prefer the 24mm plastic one.
3: Filter, 77mm filter is huge.
4: Filter adapter. 80 euro for a extra ring u need to use filters
5: With the M8, leica UV/IR filter. Costs a whopping 225 euro and u need it because no other filter will fit.
6: Selling your UV/IR 18mm filter. I still have mine because the change u find someone needing one is very small.
U see, after the UV/IR filter, filter adapter and the lens itself the price is significant higher than the 21 SEM.
But the FOV of 18mm, or 24mm on the M8, makes it all okey
If u really want that wide view I definitely would take the 18mm.
p.2 #8 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
philber wrote:
Ash, except fot the difference in focal length, the 18 isn't quite as remarkably good as the 21. So if your choice is to prioritize IQ, the 21 is it IMHO.
Indeed - the 21 gets rave reviews for IQ, and it's size.
I want the 18mm FOV and the 21mm IQ
I haven't had a chance to work with both and understand the difference in FOV and perspective distortion. If it really isn't all that different, I'll go the 21mm SEM.
p.2 #9 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
I have the 18 and used it both on M8 and M9.
The pictures above are made with the 18 and can give u an idea on how the lens performs. The first shot is wide open with the M8, the second one is f/5.6 or f/8 on a M9.
I also shot the 21 and sure its really nice, but I didn't found it to be that much better as some suggest.
Nevertheless the 21 has some real big advantages over the 18.
1: Price of the lens. The 18 is more expensive
2: Price of the finder. There is no older 18mm finder out there, so you have to buy a new one. With the M8 that is no problem, I bought the plastic leica 24mm and it worked great. Now I have the 18mm finder from leica (700 euro) and I prefer the 24mm plastic one.
3: Filter, 77mm filter is huge.
4: Filter adapter. 80 euro for a extra ring u need to use filters
5: With the M8, leica UV/IR filter. Costs a whopping 225 euro and u need it because no other filter will fit.
6: Selling your UV/IR 18mm filter. I still have mine because the change u find someone needing one is very small.
U see, after the UV/IR filter, filter adapter and the lens itself the price is significant higher than the 21 SEM.
But the FOV of 18mm, or 24mm on the M8, makes it all okey
If u really want that wide view I definitely would take the 18mm. ...Show more →
Good points. And even with these 'downsides', you're still enjoying the 18mm over the 21mm? I feel this is where I may end up - typically, went I want UW, I want really UW. And it's not like the 18SEM is a bad lens...
p.2 #10 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
Don't get me wrong, the SEM 18 is very, very far from a bad lens. But when you compare 24 Elmar, 21 SEM, 18 SEM and WATE, there are differences. MY friend Bobu, well known on the alt forum, and until recently a M9 shooter always preferred the 21, but got more shots out of the 18 because he liked the focal length better. Even though he could use filters on the 21 and not on the 18.
p.2 #11 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
AshNZ wrote:
Good points. And even with these 'downsides', you're still enjoying the 18mm over the 21mm? I feel this is where I may end up - typically, went I want UW, I want really UW. And it's not like the 18SEM is a bad lens...
Here you can see for yourself. My pictures are also here.
I haven't seen any bad thing about the 18 SEM. Bobu, a FM user, who owned both told he found the 21mm to be the better lens between the two. This doesn't mean the 18 is bad.
Besides, in the series bobu placed here on the FM forum I found the 18mm pictures to be the better ones. Not in exact sharpness in the corners because its impossible to tell from internet. But somehow the 18mm pictures had better compositions, or more impact. At least to me.
I bought the 18mm before the 21 was available so I never had to choose. Still I am really glad I took the 18mm. I love the extreme FOV.
Actually I sold my 18 one time to fund the 28 cron. But after a week I bought the same lens back . Luckily it was possible to buy it back.
Im not really a filter user so the 77mm filters don't really hurt me.
p.2 #13 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
Biltje, I never said that the 18 is bad. Only not quite as good as the very remarkable 21. And I did say that bobu preferred his 21 but got more shots from his 18. No issue with me on that score.
p.2 #14 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
If I had to choose between the two, I would clearly take the 21mm. Mainly for the ability to use 46mm filters (and also to use filters together with a mounted hood).
Stopped down to f/11 the difference between the two lenses is very small (although still visible at 100%). But the 21mm is perfectly sharp up to the corners wide open, while you have to stop down the 18mm to at least f/8 (better f/11) to get sharp corners. This means that the 21mm is for example much better for night shots of stars or aurora and for isolating close objects due to less DOF wide open.
If you shoot mainly stopped down landscapes the 18mm is a great lens, it is just not as flexible as the 21mm.
p.2 #15 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
philber wrote:
Biltje, I never said that the 18 is bad. Only not quite as good as the very remarkable 21. And I did say that bobu preferred his 21 but got more shots from his 18. No issue with me on that score.
No no, don't get me wrong. I know you didn't
Only thing I tried to say is trough the 21 is the better lens, I find the difference to be quite small, and I like the extra wide view of the 18mm.
For me it was the reason to keep the 18 instead of the 21.
