I am not a purist but down-to-earth passionate Leica user (just like many of us in this forum). I do not wish to split hair over center v. edge resolution nor examine my negatives or transparencies with an 8X loupe. While my 21mm Elmarit-M (pre-Asph version, Code 11134) was reported not to have carried 'the Leica badge of honor', is it sufficiently acceptable for 20" X 30" print enlargement (2:3 non-cropping 35mm format)? Given that the current 21mm Asph version is THE lens in this focal length (cost factor aside) should I shoulder an inferiority complex when I mount it on my M6 for a day's shoot? Then again the 24mm and 35mm Asph lenses are all reputed excellent lenses. Is my 21mm Elmarit-M so much inferior in general performance and does not earn a deserving place in the same league?

-- Paul Chan (janpo@tm.net.my), May 06, 2002

Answers

Duke Ellington is reputed to have said "If it sounds good, it is good." I might turn that into "If it looks good, it is good." The improvement of the ASPH lenses is generally regarded to be apparent only when shooting fine grain film, with the camera on a tripod. (Although wide open with fine grain film and high shutter speed might be another test.)There are further discussions about the quality of the out of focus areas (bokah), with consensus that the older lens are better. Your lens has its own qualities, and if it works for you, I wouldn't worry.

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), May 06, 2002.

The improvement of the new asphs is very evident even handheld at 1/15th, IMO. That said, I'm not familiar with the pre-asph elmarit in personal use.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 06, 2002.

Paul:

I had the pre-asph and bought up to the asph because the pre did not carry "the Leica badge of honor"... What did I find after the costly swap? The asph is a little bit -- and only a little bit -- better at f4 and up, and the pre was actually better than the asph at f2.8(!) IMO, the biggest advantage of the asph is that it uses E55 filters instead of the E60's the pre uses. As for a 20x30 print, why not make one up and see how it looks? And as stated earlier, if it looks good enough then it is...

Cheers,

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 06, 2002.

And the 21 asph is not anywhere near in the same league as the 24 asph, 28 asph or 35 asph...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 06, 2002.

On the other hand, Lee Friedlander in his book of desert photographs states that he swtched to the Hasselblad SWC because he never got what he wanted with the Leica 21mm lens. And I am sure that he knew what he was talking about. Unfortunately, he did't define what was wrong with the Leica lens, but whatever it was, he found the Zeiss 35mm Biogon on the Hasselblad SWC to be better. I wonder whether he would be happy with Leica 21mm ASPH.

-- Mitch Alland/Paris (malland@mac.com), May 06, 2002.

Hey Jack!

I know you've gottem all (except maybe not the 24 anymore) but could you enlarge a little on that here?

Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), May 06, 2002.

Mike:

My earlier post on same...

>Since the question of “Which wideangle for my M?” had come up several times in our forum, and since there did not seem to be any clear-cut answers, I decided to compare these three lenses for myself. I have read and re-read Erwin’s reviews of the 21’s and the 24, but had difficulty integrating his results. In my mind, his review makes any 21 prior the to Asph version seem like it is not worth having – they "didn’t bear the Leica badge with full honor". He boasts on the performance of the 24A, but makes no comparison between it and the 21A. The problem for me was that my 21 Pre-asph seemed like a pretty decent performer. Not as sharp as my 24, but certainly not horrible, and notably better than any of my Nikon 20mm counterparts. In actual use however, I found myself continually choosing the 24 over the 21 to go into my bag because of its superior performance, yet I found myself more than once wishing I had brought the 21 for that little bit extra spread. So, curiosity got the better of me. Could the 21 Asph be as good as the 24? It was difficult to imagine it could, as the 24 is such a stellar performer, but I wanted to know the answer for myself. Here is what I found out for those of you interested – But please note that I offer this with all of the usual disclaimers about my tests not being the end-all for everybody else, my giving subjective comments about objective results, non- perfect scientific testing criteria, etc:

First, a small note on ergonomics: The 21P has a quicker focus throw of about 90* from .7M to infinity, and has a slightly larger aperture ring than the 21A. The 21A matches the 24 in a longer focus throw of about 105*, and both the 21A and the 24 have similar aperture rings that are smaller than the 21P.

Test-target results:

F2.8: Here I got a surprise. When comparing the centers for the 21A and 21P, I found the 21P to be sharper(!) Not by much, but definitely a visible difference. I double-checked my notes to insure that I had not inadvertently swapped the slides. Indeed, I hadn’t. At the corner I received another surprise. The 21P is notably better than the 21A (!!). The 24 is the overall winner at f2.8, being sharper in the center, yet it essentially only equaling the 21P at the corner. It is worth noting that the 21P is performing significantly better at the corner than at its center. Perhaps an issue with under-corrected spherical aberrations or even a curvature-plus-focus issue? Yes, I was beginning to regret my 21A purchase as it looked like the 21P wasn’t all that bad… as I had originally thought.

F4: An interesting phenomenon here. The 21A takes a quantum leap in image quality at the center, now almost equaling the 24, which also takes a fairly significant jump in quality. Both are clearly better than the 21P in the center whose performance here is actually a bit lower than it was at f2.8. At the corner, the 21A improves a lot, but the 21P also improves a little, and in fact just edges out the 21A here; and even very slightly edges out the 24(!) So, the 21P loses the center, but hangs on to the corner by a tiny margin.

F5.6: Here the lenses all come into their own and behave much as we might expect. The 21A is very sharp in the center, but not quite up to the 24. The 21P lags behind notably. In the corners, the 21A is now notably better than the 21P, and for all intents and purposes the 24 and the 21A are equal here. The 21P is still performing better in the corner than the center, but not by much, and is showing essentially even results across the image.

F8: The results are essentially the same as above, with the 21A losing a little bit more ground to the 24 in the center and the corners.

F11 and 16: The 21A and 24 fall off here, but interestingly the 21P actually improves to the point where it is almost as good as the other lenses. So, for all intents and purposes in general picture taking situations, one can consider all three lenses to be equal performers at these stops.

For the field test, I shot the same image with each lens, keeping the exposure and focus-point identical for each lens. All shots were hand- held. For some of the shots I also altered my shooting position with the 24 relative to the 21 in an effort keep the main subject of uniform size for comparisons in the final image.

Field test results and my “IMO” Conclusions: Do I get (or in my case keep) the 21A or 21P? Based on the test-targets, if I was looking to have the sharpest image possible with a 21, and cost was no object, the 21A would be the answer. However in actual shooting situations, these differences became very slight, and almost unnoticeable in many images. In the sweet-spot stops – f4, f5.6, and f8 – the 21A is clearly superior to the 21P on the test-targets. In the field these differences are mitigated to a significant degree, and while the differences are still noticeable, I’m having a tough time convincing myself they are significant enough to justify the extra cost of the 21A. Furthermore, if you generally use your non-aspheric 21 at f11 or f16 for maximum DOF in the typical sweeping WA shot, there is probably no reason to upgrade to the 21A, as I doubt you will notice any differences at all. In a few of the field tests images I did detect some crispness in the 21A and 24 images that wasn’t present in the 21P images, but to be truthful it was a slight difference and probably wouldn’t bother me in most cases. So, I would not recommend one upgrade to the 21A unless they actually see softness in their images that bothers them. While the E55 filter size on the 21A presents another plus for me, as I don’t have to carry any E60 filters for the 21P and have other E55 lenses, it is certainly not a compelling enough reason alone to justify the additional cost of the 21A. As for size/weight, all three lenses are essentially the same profile so the differences in my mind are not significant either. While the 21A is a superior performer to the 21P, I have to be truthful and regretfully admit that I feel I’ve wasted my money on its purchase for the limited gain I am detecting. :-(

Between the 24 and 21A, I’d have to say we are comparing an f2.8 lens in the 24 to an f4 lens in the 21A, which could become an issue while shooting in low light or building interiors – however hand-held shots at slow speeds probably have bigger limitations than the difference in optical performance here. In the field tests, most of the shots between these two lenses appeared almost identical in resolution, with the occasional edge given to the 24. Based on the test-target results, if you need the sharpest super-wide period, the 24 is the superior performer. However, from f4 on these two lenses are pretty darn close – close enough that most of the differences will not be noticed when using these lenses hand-held, so perspective will probably become the dominant criteria for lens choice.

Some final comments: Flare appears very well controlled in all three lenses, and none was detected. Color-cast is Leica-neutral in all three lenses, and contrast appears identical in all three lenses. For those of you interested, I will state that IMO (totally subjective) the bokeh on the 21A and the 24 is smoother than that of the 21P.

In answer to the original question, knowing what I now know, I will probably sell both 21’s and keep my 24… Anybody want a 21A or 21P? :-)<

And as you know, I recently sold the 24, opting for the little extra breadth from the 21.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 06, 2002.

Jack, how couldn´t you included thr 21/3.4 in you´r test, you leave all SA owners out in the freeze ;)

Mitch; SWC lens is a 38 biogon, and besides what Mr Freelander has to say, the 38 Biogon has a look very much as symetric lens lens that it is, mayor diference shall be format.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002.

"is it sufficiently acceptable for 20" X 30" print enlargement (2:3 non-cropping 35mm format)? Given that the current 21mm Asph version is THE lens in this focal length (cost factor aside) should I shoulder an inferiority complex when I mount it on my M6 for a day's shoot?"

It sounds as if you need affirmation that your lens is okay, but only you can answer that.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), May 06, 2002.

Good enough 20" x 30" enlargement - there is no such thing in 35mm; if you need that use medium format or better still 5x4 most of us on the Medium format forum question 66 and 645 at those sizes (from a technical standpoint.)

35mm stops at 10 x 8 maybe 14 x 11 - but if the shot has enough content then it will not matter anyway.

Tapas

-- Tapas Maiti (tapas.maiti@ntlworld.com), May 06, 2002.

Good enough 20" x 30" enlargement - there is no such thing in 35mm; if you need that use medium format or better still 5x4 most of us on the Medium format forum question 66 and 645 at those sizes (from a technical standpoint.)

35mm stops at 10 x 8 maybe 14 x 11 - but if the shot has enough content then it will not matter anyway.

Tapas

Tapas

-- Tapas Maiti (tapas.maiti@ntlworld.com), May 06, 2002.

Jack:

Your comparison is very informative, and a lot more so than that in the Puts book. Indeed, I'll take your subjective judgment any day over what Puts has to say about the lenses. It's a shame, really, because Puts has done a lot of work in testing so many lenses, but has ended up writing a pretty poor book in which, despite what he states in the introduction, he presents one-dimensional judgments which exaggerate the improvement in quality of most of the newest lenses, of which the statement that started this thread, that the 21P "does not carry the Leica badge of honor" is a prime example. Unfortunately, _faute_de_mieux_, the Puts book has become a bible: as soon as someone asks about a particular lens, another forum participants quotes the judgment in the Puts book. Well, the Puts judgments often have to be taken with very large grains of salt. On the other hand, I do enjoy leafing through the book when I have nothing better to do because there is a lot of information on a lot of lenses. But just think how good this book could have been.

r watson:

Sorry 38, not 35 Biogon. However, I just don't understand what you have written about the Biogon being symmetric. Please elucidate.

-- Mitch Alland/Paris (malland@mac.com), May 06, 2002.

There is no way that 35mm stops at 8x10 or 11x14. My standard print is 12x18 inches; and if a print is good at that size it will work at 20x30 inches because those large prints are viewed from further away.

-- Mitch Alland/Paris (malland@mac.com), May 06, 2002.

Speaking of 21mm lens performance, anyone have a chance to compare the 21mm Voigtlander version? (Yes I've seen Tom Abrahamsson's remarks on cameraquest.com - anyone else?)

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), May 06, 2002.

Andrew, I originally purchase the Voigtlander in Nikon Rangefinder mount and was so impressed I sold my pre ASPH Leica 21 2.8 and got anonther to fit M mount (with Adapter). It is brilliant for CL/CLE owners, I rarely use my M3 these days and stick with all the compact stuff. Definatly sharper and less falloff the the pre asph 21's. I dare say the ASPH 21 is sharper but at 6 times the cost and its large size, i crossed the fence to Voigtlander on this one.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002.

"There is no way that 35mm stops at 8x10 or 11x14. My standard print is 12x18 inches; and if a print is good at that size it will work at 20x30 inches because those large prints are viewed from further away."

---Absolutely correct. a 20x30 viewed at 30" will look just as sharp as an 8x10 viewed at 10". Then again, the 20x30 viewed at 10" won't look as sharp. But who is going to view it at that distance? You wouldn't even be able to take in the whole picture at once. Presumably the larger print is meant for viewing at a greater distance, as when displayed on the wall, rather than held in the hand.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), May 06, 2002.

Speaking of 21mm lens performance, anyone have a chance to compare the 21mm Voigtlander version?

Andrew: Well, as it just so happens... I had an opportunity to try out one of these little gems. Simply stated, in terms of resolution it performed at least as well as the 21P if not a bit better, and as such is not really very far behind the 21A. Its big faults were more significant falloff in the corners (maybe 2 1/2 stops?), more visible distortion in the corners, and the fact it is more flare-prone than either Leica 21.

BUT, then again, we are talking sub $400 for the lens INCLUDING a finder -- a finder that puts Leica's BL finder to shame! (FWIW, the VC 21 finder appears to be their 15 finder with framelines.) So, for somebody who only needs a 21 occasionally, or someone who wants a really tiny compact ultra-wide lens for their M, I think this one is the buy of the century!

And by the way, thank you for the flatering comment Mitch!

Cheers again,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 06, 2002.

I must agree with Jack. The 21mm VC is that good. Much better than my expensive vastly overrated mint late 21SA. The idea that such an inexpensive lens with finder included can be this good sickens me.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), May 07, 2002.

Jack, wow! That's what I call a good review. Thanks. Good thing I bought my 21P and 21A both before you wrote this and then dropped your 24. You're the only one here I know who had all three. Maybe Erwin will read your statement too and try and buy it off you. Then you can buy all the lenses you don't already have (in black and in chrome or a couple of M7s etc).

Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), May 07, 2002.

Paul - just to put things in perspective - your 21 preASPH is visibly better than: either the Leica R 19 f/2.8 (early version) or the R 21 f/ 4, at most apertures; and slightly better than the Nikon 20 f/2.8 manual focus - which means it beats just about everything out there except the Contax-G 21, which has about 3x the resolution in the corners at 2.8, but is about indentical in the center, and PERHAPS the ASPH Leica.

I posted comparisons with the f3.4 Super-Angulon here about a month ago (under the Leica-M links). The 2.8P has about the same sharpness in the center, but more contrast, and more smearing in the corners, but a little less fall-off.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 07, 2002.