I bougth this lens almost a year ago and I haven´t had the time to use it, just a few shots in 5x7, I would like your comments on any experience in this lens, and the difference you can see in using a 21 and a 24, not in quality, that I guess the new 24 asph is superb, but as visual angle of view, 21 vs. 24. I used a 21(4.0)/35 combo, now a 28/35 is my main companion, feel much comfortable with it, and less distracted. What do you think?

-- R. Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), March 08, 2001

Answers

Hi Roberto,

I have heard from Leica photographers that the super angulon is a wonderful lens. It is the smallest 21 made and if I'm not mistaken it focuses closer than the elmarits. I have the 24 mm and think its a great performer but if I needed a 21 mm I would want the super angulon 3.4.

Regards, Tom G.

-- Tom G. (tgallagher10@yahoo.com), March 08, 2001.

I plan to do a side-by-side comparison some time, but just not a high priority right now. Beware that the Super Angulon was made for the meterless M versions (up to M4) and its rear extension partially blocks the M6 meter, throwing it off by a couple of stops.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), March 08, 2001.

I had one and just recently replaced it with the 21/2.8 Asph. The 21/3.4 is a great lens and the ability to focus closer can be very useful. It is really only a f/4 lens though as it is significantly more flare prone when you open up to f/3.4. The 21/2.8 Asph is stunning wide-open, just all the asph lenses are, and it meters with my TTL which is nice. If I mostly still photographed with my M2, I would have stuck with the 21/3.4. On the angle of view issue, it is a matter of personal preference. I like the way the 21 opens up crowded situations and reduces the influence of the background.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), March 08, 2001.

21 vs 24: If you plan on replacing the 28mm, the 24 might be a better choice. If you will continue to carry the 28mm, 21mm is a more useful companion.

21/3.4 S-A: I had 2 of these, sold the chrome one when collector prices got to where I was nervous about getting marks on it. I still use the black one when hiking for landscapes. Stopped down to f/8 the vignetting is gone and the exceptional sharpness and clarity remain. The M6 meter is a bit too wide-coverage with a 21, so using a handheld spotmeter (or the 135mm lens) is not really something I could avoid by using an Elmarit. I do own a 21 ASPH, it's a magnificent lens, but it's also a huge lens (compared to the S/A)and I confess it was sheer lens lust that made me buy it, and it is only the prospect of my black S/A becoming a high-priced collector's item that inspires me to hang onto the ASPH.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 08, 2001.

Watson, like yourself, I bought one of these a year ago and have had too little time to spend with it. As already noted, it does vignette at wider apertures. I also have the impression that it transmits less light than the marked f stop would indicate. Using it on the M2, and tranferring readings from the M^ or using the Minolta digital Autometer, chromes look about 1/3 to 1/2 stop under. I shot a bracketed test roll of K-64 recently to explore this further, but haven't seen the results yet. I suspect that the calculated f stops may not reflect the true transmission (f/8 may not be t/8 with this lens), so I may wind up adjusting my film speeds downward by 1/3 stop or so to compensate. The lens is, of course, very sharp, as others have reported. I understand the 2.8 non-ASPH Elmarit is less so. I will report on my exposure test results when I have them.

Best Wishes,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 08, 2001.

I tried a Super Angulon 21/f3.4 once, but returned it. This was in the pre-ASPH days. It's essentially a scaled-down large format design, it vignettes significantly (particularly noticable with slide film) so as to make it (in my opinion) virtually unusable wide open. Since my idea of Leica functionality is principally for hand-held work, this was not my idea of the ideal lens. I have since bought a 24mm Elmarit ASPH, with which I am far happier. The 21 is smaller, though, but it is not a particularly light lens, from what I remember.

-- Daniel Kreithen (dkreithen@mindspring.com), March 09, 2001.

This is just to thank you for your postings on my question, i´m encourage to use my angulon more now, so I have my own criteria, nice shooting to all.And thank´s again.

-- R Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), March 12, 2001.

Hi Roberto,

You may think I'm crazy but I just traded my 24mm ASPH for the 21mm 3.4 Super Angulon and although I haven't had the chance to use it yet I am very happy with the size and angle of view. I would also mention that vignetteing wide open, from what fellow users tell me, is negligible. After using the 24mm for over a year I find that I can not get used to the focal length. I loved it on SLR cameras but found it confusing and difficult on the range finder. I rarely use M lenses wider than the 35mm and will keep the 21 SA on an M4 for when it's needed. I am happy I made the change and again I find the size is much more manageable than the ASPH wide angles.

T. Gallagher

-- Tom Gallagher (tgallagher10@yahoo.com), June 25, 2001.

Dear Tom; it going to be my very pleasure to relearn to use that lens through you; mine has been in the closet for a wile, but tell me what you´ve got, let me guess, is it a black one in mint condition?; for certain it was a good trade for your 24.

Hope you two can come to MZT soon, I´m burning to spend a hundred rolls in our planed trip into Mexico; well my friend nice to read from you, my best wishes, Roberto

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), June 26, 2001.

Just a quick followup on my earlier reply. After another roll (K- 64), I am still seeing slight underexposure, suggesting that the lens transmits a bit less light than average for the marked f-stops. The resulting exposures are still acceptable, but just a bit dark for projection. Of course, that does enhance the color saturation. I'll probably set the handheld meter to the next lower ISO as a general rulw with this lens. This slight underexposure is no doubt contibuting to my impression of vignetting in this lens, even when closed down to f/5.6 or so. The vignetting is however only noticeable when the blue sky appears all the way across the frame. Then there is obvious darkening at the edges. When the sky contains some clouds, breaking up the uniform tone, or the sky does not appear in the frame, I do not notice vignetting.

The fact that different lenses can transmit different amounts of light at a given aperture, explains why some lenses, such as those used in Hollywood for motion picture filming, are calibrated in t- stops rather than f-stops. "t" stands for transmission. If you read the American Cinematographer, the directors of photography talk about shooting at t/4, rather than f/4, in many articles. I think that if the 21mm SA f/3.4 were calibrated in t-stops, t/4 would not coincide with f/4 in this lens. Probably the result of many elements and many glass-to-air surfaces.

I'll have some conclusions pretty soon about its edge vs. center sharpness, but I'm not finished evaluating that yet.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 01, 2001.

Hi Roberto,

You know me to well Roberto. I was able to get a black version in mint- condition. The barrel shows minimal wear but the glass is perfect. I did a little research and learned that Leitz upgraded this lens when they discontinued the chrome version for black. I'm not sure what changes were made. Maybe someone on the list knows.

T. Gallagher

-- Tom Gallagher (tgallagher10@yahoo.com), July 04, 2001.

I belive I´ve just read, there were some coating improvement, did you get the shade for it?

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), July 04, 2001.

Hi Roberto,

The lens came with the shade and the hard to find rear cap as well as the plastic front cap. I found a plastic finder virtually new for a great price on e-bay which I think will stays on better than the metal one.

Best T. Gallagher

-- T. Gallagher (tgallagher10@yahoo.com), July 05, 2001.

Yes I guess plastic ones are stronger, not so crack prone, maybe because are ligther, metel ones are very sensitive to knoks.Then it was I nice change, although the 24 amazed me, to be honest, far away of my 24/2.8 from Nikkor.You should post that picture here, is a good example of what that kind of lens can do.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), July 06, 2001.

Continued examination of my test slides on K-64 are convincing me that any slight underexposure exaggerates the vignetting. Vignetting is seen at f/5.6 if the exposure is cut to the bone; but is much less obvious with a slightly fuller exposure, say 1/2 stop. Since an exposure reading cannot be taken through this lens, the meter can't compensate for its lower transmission. Opening 1/2 stop from my meter reading (not necessary with my other lenses) seems to improve my results.

BTW, the lens gives me good freedom from flare when shooting backlit shots with the sun just outside the frame. I don't get a row of purple diaphragm spots, like I do with Nikon 24mm f/2.8. I don't get any marks or spots at all. The shots do look infused with an overall golden glow, probably evidence of lowered contrast under these conditions. The result is pretty, though.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 07, 2001.

After taking time to check out the images with my 12x loupe, the delicate steelwork in a bridge photo holds up with very satisfying sharpness right out to the edges even at f/4. It does clean up a bit more at f/5.6 and f/8, but I was pleased with how sharp it looked even at f/4. I think I can tell a bit more about the edge sharpness with the 12x than with projection. One of these days I'm going to get one of those Octoscope jobs and go crazy checking everything . . .

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 11, 2001.