Hi All,

I am a new vintage lens Leicalohic, and am considering a 21mm super angulon. Which version is better in terms of contrast and color saturation. I have seen images from SA21 and E21, and believe that the older lenses has more "feel" to it, I guess due to lower contrast, thus, more details from shadow areas.

Can anyone provide more advice and rough cost to me before my purchase.

Many Thanks.

-- Jeff Yiu (jeffyiu@quamnet.com), March 14, 2002

Answers

Jeff. I assume you're talking about the M versions (there were 21/3.4 and 21/4.0 R lenses also). Unlike the 21E and 21E-ASPH (which are both retrofocus lenses), both 21/3.4 and 21/4 are non-retrofocus lenses, which have protruding rear elements. These lenses cannot be used on the M5 (or CL or CLE), since the rear of the lens will damage the swinging photocell). They can be used on the M6/TTL/M7, but they block the path to the lightmeter, so you cannot meter properly. [And both lenses were designed by Schneider, hence the name SA.]

As far as performance, the 21/3.4 is a significantly improved lens compared to the 21/4.0. Both lenses vignette, but the 21/4.0 to a much greater extent. The 21/3.4 SA will cost more, but will give better results. Make sure the lens you buy has clean glass elements, since lenses of this vintage frequently show internal haze (fog).

I use the 21/3.4 SA, and its performance never ceases to astound me. It is definitely one of those "legendary" Leitz lenses. The craftsmanship and build quality is unbelievable. I have never been tempted to obtain a 21 ASPH because of the superb results this lens delivers. But I may have a particularly good example. There may be some lens to lens variability.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 14, 2002.

eliot and i can't seem to agree today!! i hope it's a temporary condition. i have owned a number of both the 3.4 and 4 versions. eliot is qwite rite to say that the 3.4 is better than the 4, but both lenses are really quite poor by modern standards, mostly in terms of falloff and contrast performance. the 21 asph is so much better in these respects (as well as in terms of resolution), that i am qwite shocked that anyone would suggest the optics are comparable. i won't dispute that the older lenses have a unique look, and the build quality is amazing (although i've never been exactly sure who built what on the super angulons), it's just that between the modern coatings (crucial for good performance with a superwide), modern glasses, and asph. elements, the new lenses are leaps and bounds ahead of the old. but don't take my word (or eliot's word) for it -- go out and shoot some test frames with the various lenses. also include the new voigtlander 21mm. i have one in the nikon rf mount and it is a very fine lens indeed. maybe the best yet from voigtlander/cosina. good luck!

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 14, 2002.

Have you checked Erwin Puts' review of the 21 family?...

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/m21.html

For a good 21/3.4 example with good glass you can probably expect to pay around $1,200 US. For a 21/4 maybe around $800. But prices move around a lot on these, so check recent result on eBay or some such. (Hove shows prices $400 to $600 higher than this, but I don't think those prices are realistic).

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), March 14, 2002.

Jeff,

The above posts that indicate that the f/3.4 SA is better than the f/4.0 SA are correct. Likewise that the new 21 in ASPH is head and shoulders above them both are also correct.

The drawbacks of the SAs are not being able to use the metering system in the M5/M6 (although the rear element shroud can be modified for M5 use) and price, particularly for the F/3.4 in chrome. The collectors love them.

If you're patient, you should be able to find a 21 ASPH for not too much of a price premium over the f/3.4 SA. They are a much bigger lens though.

Happy hunting.

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), March 14, 2002.

The statement the the 21/2.8 Asph is head and shoulders above the 21/3.4 would seem to imply that the 21/3.4 is a poor lens. This is certainly not so. It is a great lens at f/4 and under but it is prone to flare at f/3.4. It is virtually completely distorsion free unlike the 21/2.8A which suffers, albeit mildly, from the standard retrofocus wave patterned distion when focused close. The same retrofocus design does give very even illumination while the 21/3.4 has more vignetting due to its symetrical design.

The real sleeper in the Leica 21 world is the new 21/4 from Cosina/Voigtlander. Now there is a lens that combines the modern crispness of the 21/2.8A with almost the same lack of distorsion as the 21/3.4. And it is cheap!

If you do not need f/2.8 or absolutely no distorsion, the Voigtina lens is the way to go. If you need f/2.8 then the Asph is the best as at f2.8 it is excellent not just usuable. If you need absolutely no distorsion then the 21/3.4 is still the only game in town at f/4 and under.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), March 15, 2002.

IMO the 21/3.4SA is the 35mm equivalent to the 38 Biogon on the Hasselblad SWC and I have often carried the M4+21/3.4 along with my Hassy kit. I also use my 21/3.4 as a backpacking lens because the ASPH is way too big and heavy. From f/5.6 the SA is unbeatable. On a tripod for interior shots it outclasses the ASPH due to the non- distortion. The 21ASPH is, IMO, a reportage lens. Shoot it wide open, up close, with a people subject, and it's great. It will probably be the next lens I sell.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 15, 2002.

I've been feeling pretty inadequate since I found out that my 21 pre aspheric elmarit is an orphan and not as highly regarded as lenses before or after. Actually I always thought it was a great lens until I read some of the pundits here and elsewhere. I always liked the results it gave me, even wide open it seems to give very crisp fine detail. But then what do I know. I even use the 28 elmarit 4th vers and not the summicron. I sold my first version 28 because it wouldn't meter with my, new to me, M6 and got enough for it to almost pay for both the 21 and the 28. Good luck.

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), March 15, 2002.

Hi Don,

The 21/2.8 non-asph is an excellent lens. It is far better than 99.9% of super wides for SLR cameras. Keep it and use it would be my advice. If I needed a 21/2.8 and could not afford the Asph, the Elmarit would be my first choice. The fourth version of the 28/2.8 is also a best in class lens. The Summicron may be very slightly better on a heavy, weighted tripod with iso 40 film but in any practical situation they are virtually identical.

When I buy a new lens, I run a few rolls with it. If I am happy, that is it. No need to read other's reports to see if I am right :-)

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), March 15, 2002.

John,

Not to imply at all that the SAs were "poor" lenses at all. They were probably the finest super wides of their time.

Only to indicate that their "time" was 4+ decades ago, and things have come aways in that time. Particularly regarding distortion in the 24 and 21 ASPHs. While I don't have a 21 of any vintage, I marvel at the lack of distortion in my 24.

Leitz/Leica seems to have had a habit over the years of producing and introducing lenses only when there is the ability to make optical improvements over past production.

And then only when, given their low volumes, there is an economic viability in going so. Hence it doesn't happen that often.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), March 15, 2002.

Hello Jeff.I have owned and used both f/4 and f/3.4 SA's and currently use the f3.4.The f/4 vignettes strongly wider open whilst vignetting with the f/3.4 is not so disturbing.I echo John Coller's comments on the lense"s performance characteristics. In regards to aesthetics the SA's sit very compactly on an M body in contrast to the "bloated" look of the Elmarit's lens and hood.A real advantage of the SA's over the others are their close focus ability ..15" versus 28". Regards.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), March 15, 2002.