Hello all Does anyone have any images on line taken with this lens? I saw a 'very well used' one going for a decent price today. I take it this would still be better than the current offerings by Voightlander? (Im also aware that you cant use the meter on the camera)

Thanks

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), April 26, 2002

Answers

A few issues ago the LHSA Viewfinder compared four 21mm lens. The order of best to last was: Leica 21/2.8, Voigthlander 21/4.0, Konica 21, Leica 21/3.4 was last.

-- Steve LeHuray (steve@icommag.com), April 26, 2002.

I own the 21/3.4 and 21/2.8ASPH. For landscape work at f/5.6 or slower they are equal and the size of the S/A more than compensates for having to use an alternate metering method (in fact it's hard to get accurate metering with chromes using any 21 on an M6 outdoors, hard to separate tones in the huge meter area).

For interiors or architecture, on a tripod, the S/A wins hands-down, as it's distortion is minimal if any.

For an in-your-face PJ lens, I suppose the Leica 21ASPH would be the best, since it couples with the TTL meter.

All in all, I believe that neither of these lenses is the best choice unless 21 is an often-used focal length, due to the cost. For the occasional ultrawide user, a set of the 15 *and* 21 Voigtlander lenses would cost about half of the used price of either Leica lens and both of them deliver extraordinary performance. The only place they fall well short of the Leica lenses is built quality, but again, if they're for occasional use, that's not paramount.

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

Few weeks ago there was a comparison in this forum, betwem the 21/3.4 SA ans 21/2.8 Elmarit non-asph, results were favorable to SA on distortion topic, on resolution there was quite not diference, the post contains pictures, can be very interesting.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 26, 2002.

which issue of the viewfinder is the comparison in?

sorting through all of the memory hog pdf's is quite time consuming.

thanks in advance

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 26, 2002.

Karl:

Try the stuff in this folder.

Taken with 21 3.4 - except for the B&W comparisons, which are half taken with the preASPH Elmarit 21.

As mentioned, the 21 V'lander is supposed to be a notch sharper than the 3.4, but with more distortion than any of the Leica versions.

Actually the 3.4 is plenty sharp but a little low in contrast - although that is good, IMO, for slide work. It also runs very slightly blue compared to newer lenses. I suspect the Schneider/Leitz transmits a little more UV than most Leica glass, because a UV Haze-1 filter cleaned up the blue - way more chnage than I've ever seen a Haze filter contribute before.

And it's extrememly compact - not much bigger on the camera than a 35 f/2.

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

...a couple of additional 21 3.4 points - click through to the "Large" versions of the images to see best resolution - especially for the comparison shots...

...and the 21 3.4 will focus down to 16 inches (see Ferret close up) although the rangefinder quits at the usual 28 inches - you have to scale-focus below that.

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

This is it, thank´s Andy.

By the way, have you read about a small painting work that can be done to the 21/3.4 SA in order to help prevent flare wide open?

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.

Roberto - the painting fix is for the earlier f/4 version of the lens, I believe - but maybe both.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 28, 2002.