21 f/3.4 vs. 21 2.8 preASPH

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

I have a 21 Elmarit-M preASPH. It's nice - it's also large (for an M lens). I have meterless M4-x bodies. So I am considering the possibility of adding/switching to the classic 21 3.4 Super-Angulon.

What I know is this - the 21 SA is compact, won't meter, and has somewhat more light fall-off due to the glass being so close to the film. It also needs a dedicated rear cap for the deep back element, and has less linear distortion.

The 21 preASPH is big, allows light metering, has a little less fall-off, but some 'wavy-edge' distortion. Uses regular M-mount caps.

What about plain old resolution? - I've seen conflicting opinions about which lens is sharper (and where). Some reviewers say the SA is CLEARLY sharper - others (e.g. Erwin) say the ELM is sharper.

Does anyone here have good objective information on which of these lenses is sharper? Head-to-head comparison. Center-image, edges, corners, etc...

...and is there any difference in image color? (My 21 EM runs slightly yellow-warm compared to - say - the average 35/50 'crons I've seen.)

Finally - what should the SA 3.4 run for excellent +- condition? I've seen a couple for $1500-plus - at which price I can get a used ASPH (although the ASPH is still not quite as compact.)

I've played around with the SLR version of the 3.4 (mirror-up) but shot only B&W so I couldn't judge color - and the B&W results seemed very mixed and inconclusive - so I could use some other data sets..

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 25, 2002

Answers

Andy, I have read from Puts of the sligthly superior performace of Elmarit, but I have as well read oposite conclusions on tests, some put the 21/4 superior to 31/3.4 and 21/2.8 on flare resistance.

I have had a 21/4 and few years ago I change it for a 21/3.4, it is very good to the edge resolution, but medium contrast wide open and flare prone wide open. Mine´s so beat up but mechanics and glasses are very fine, and I wouldn´t mind selling it.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002.


Andy,

I had an 21/3.4 which I bought off eBay for under $1000, used for a while and then traded straight across in New York for the 21 pre-asph which was priced at $1000. I wanted the convenience of being able to meter through the lens with my M6. The 21/3.4 had some cleaning marks on the outer surface and some of the black paint on the interior was coming off, so it was really a user. None of its flaws appeared to affect its pictures, though.

The pre-asph 21 was and is in mint condition. I performed no special tests to compare the two lenses. Both were very sharp and color rendition was pleasing. I tend to think that the newer lens is sharper and the color is truer or more neutral. One thing I do notice about the 21 pre-asph that I did not notice with the 21/3.4 (though I may not have used the 21/3.4 enough to experience this) is that occasionally the 21 pre-asph will cause distortion by stretching of images that are closer to the periphery than the center of the frame. This happens unexpectedly and can be especially annoying when it distorts faces. On the other hand, I've shot some portraits with the lens by moving in close, and the images tend to be indistinguishable from those shot with the 50mm. I don't know if this is an aberration of my lens, or something common to all 21mm, or only those that are pre-asph.

Otherwise, I find the 21 pre-asph to incredibly sharp, almost as sharp as my 50 summicron, and I like the field of view. There's really a trade off between the convenience of the smaller size of the older lens and the ability to meter through the newer one. One thing I find is that when you focus through the rangefinder and then have to look through the auxiliary finder to frame your image, you tend not to want to have to also check light readings with a handheld meter. Just too many steps that ultimately make the lens inconvenient to use. On the the other hand, the 21mm does lends itself well to pre-setting focus and aperture, so if you're used to operating without a light meter, you might decide that the small size of the 21/3.4 outweighs any increased sharpness in the 21 pre-asph. Sorry -- no clear answer here.

-- Peter B. Goldstein (peter.goldstein@us.cgeyc.com), March 25, 2002.


At one time I owned the 21/3.4 and the 21pre-ASPH. At my first opportunity to purchase the 21ASPH I gleefully sold the pre-ASPH (another example, like the 135TE vs APO-Telyt, where the added expenditure is worthwhile only if Erwin Puts is a judge at your local camera club) but continue to this day to own and use the 3.4S/A as my hiking/backpacking ultrawide. In fact until I got a great deal on a 40CFE for my Hasselblad, it was the 21/3.4 on an M4 that served as my ultrawide even when using the MF outfit. The non-metering on the M6 isn't as bad as it sounds, because in reality the meter circle on the M6 covers such a large proportion of the scene with a 21 that I almost always use a longer lens to take a narrower reading anyway. The biggest problem with the 3.4 today is the inflated cost due to the collector market. Let your ultimate use determine which lens you buy. If you are shooting landscapes or interiors on a tripod, and can afford to stop down to f/5.6, then the 21/3.4 is a superb option. If you are intending to do in-your-face reportage then one of the Elmarits is a better choice. The ASPH vignettes a bit less wide open but for that kind of photography is it really that serious an issue? Think of the Noctilux, the vignette-king of Leicadom...the pre-ASPH Elmarit is nothing like that.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 26, 2002.

So does anyone care to give a comparison along these lines which include the VC 21/4? I am in the the market for a 21, but price is an issue. I don't care all that much about metering through the camera- my big issues are, in this order: 1) image quality-esp. neutral color rendition, and minimal distortion 1a) price 2) size/weight.

I know the VC lenses aren't Leica, but how well do they compare? I've checked the archives, but am curious, seeing the good thoughts in this thread.

-- Andrew Dailinger (adailinger@yahoo.com), March 26, 2002.


Thanks for the answers so far!

RE the VC 21 - Wish I could try one of those, too! The 25 is very much in the ballpark of the preASPH 21 2.8 at mid-apertures, so perhaps the 21 is also that good. The Leica was better at f/2.8-4 than the VC at f/ 4 at the center.

The Leica Hist. Soc. magazine recently had a review of all the 21's EXCEPT the preASPH (sigh!). They basically rated the 21 VC as better than either SA EXCEPT in the area of distortion: less fall-off, sharper, etc. The 21 ASPH still came out on top.

For the record, all super-wides will produce the occasional football (or rugby-ball, for the Commonwealth folks) -shaped head near the corners. But that's not the same as classic distortion (think fisheye lens.) Classic or linear distortion shows up in photographing, say, a brick wall (always one of MY favorite subjects!) straight-on - where the rows of bricks near the edges may curve in or out of the frame if a lens has distortion, but remain exactly parallel to the frame edges if the lens is distortion-free.

All retrofocus lenses, including all the 21's that will meter on Ms, may have barrel distortion - some have over-corrected barrel distortion - where the bricks curve in and then out again (think 'handle-bar mustache') The 21 preASPH has just enough to be perceptible. The old 60s Nikkor 24 has the most handle-bar-type I've ever seen.

It's only really an issue if it's severe - or if you're photographing things with straight lines exactly head-on (architecture, 2D artwork, etc.). As soon as you tilt the camera at all the strong perspective effects of converging lines immediately mask most distortion.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 26, 2002.



Andy. I have the 21/3.4 SA (an old chrome version), that is so good that I am not tempted to buy a 21 ASPH. There is some individual variation I believe, and some units flare more than others at largoid apertures. As far as prices, the problem is they are all over the place, and depend not only on cosmetic and optical condition, but also on what is provided with the lens.

For example, a nice optically excellent 21 chrome (or black metal) finder (sometimes offered with the lens) by itself is worth about $ 400 (plus or minus). The lenshood is sometimes hard to come by, and if it is not provided with the lens could run another $ 75-100. The deep rear lenscap (chrome or black metal) is another tough item that is worth a good $ 75 or so. The original front cap (an inexpensive looking plastic thingy) these days is hard to come by.

A good estimate for a truly mint 21/3.4 black with caps but without the finder is on the order of $ 2000. This should be optically perfect and a real mint (SB mint, not eBay mint). A chrome lens in E++ (good glass) with both caps would be on the order of $ 1500 or so (the chrome lenses are rarely if ever found in mint, but I have seen a few mint in box black examples).

The "bargain" lenses ($ 1000) are that way for a reason. Beware of fog, cleaning marks, etc. that you will inevitably find in the lower priced versions. While it is occasionally possible to find a bargain, I would suggest you spend the extra money and buy from a relaible dealer like Jim Keuhl, Don Chatterton, Sam Shoshan, etc.

This lens in addition to its optical prowess is quite compact once its mounted on the camera, since it is a nearly symmetrical 8-element rangefinder (ie., non-retrofocus) design. But I'm sure you know that the lens cannot be used on the M5 or CL (unless factory modified) and even so, will not meter with the M5, CL, M6, TTL, or M7. Those are the downsides. But the fact thta people are willing to put up with these negatives says a lot about the desirabllity of this lens.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 26, 2002.


Eliot - great neologism "largoid".

Andy -- I have the 21/4 VC, but have not shot with it enough to be able to give a real considered opinion, but so far it looks good and is a lot better than the 21mm SA for the R. Not that this is all that difficult! Strangely enough I seem to find 21mm more useful on the M than on the R. I am happy to chime in with some more thoughts at a later date when I actually get around to taking more photos with it. Using Sensia II, I have not noticed any color shift compared to my other Leica lenses so far. It is certainly a deal price wise - but it is not much of a deal if it is not satisfactory in the end. The thing that worries me about all the M ultrawides are their huge size.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.


Here's one of my 21 pre-asph images:

center>

Sorry I don't have a 21/3.4 image scanned in to post for comparison, but I can tell you I never noticed any vignetting or distortion with the 21/3/4 either.

-- Peter B. Goldstein (peter.goldstein@us.cgeyc.com), March 27, 2002.


Hi Andy,

I have a 21/3.4 and am very pleased with the color rendition and the sharpness and distortion although I can't compare it with one of the newer lenses. The lack of metering TTL is in my opinion not such a big deal if you use a additional finder, becuase you then have to switch back and forth between viewfinder and finder, other wise you quickly take a reading on a seperate meter. Concerning the M mount caps, I customized one myself with a old film container and a original M cap. You just cut out the center part of the M mount cap and glue or better "vulcanize" the plastic film container into the hole. Fits perfectly and is very funtional and rather cheap (original metallic caps are around 80$). After all I like this lens and will not change. Hope this helps Johannes

-- Johannes Fleischhauer (j.fleischhauer@vsao.ch), March 27, 2002.


Andy, I paid about $1200 to $1250 for my f/3.4 SA In excellent condition, without a finder, about two years ago. If anything, I would expect it to be lower just now, owing to the recent drop in Leica prices.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 27, 2002.


Thanks, all.

Actually I just found a SA 3.4 for $1100+. I bought it (as you knew I would eventually!).

I still have the preASPH 2.8.

So I WILL post a full, complete, and unassailable test that will once and for all (not!) answer the question I myself posed - within a few weeks. With pictures.

Shortly thereafter there MAY be a 21 for sale here - or not. We'll see. As with the 90 Tele-Elmarit/90 Summicron, both lenses may have their uses.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 30, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ