Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/01/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I've had both the Leica M 21 3.4 and the 2.8. They seemed to me about equal, with perhaps a tiny bit more color saturation with the 2.8 (I don't shoot BW, so I cannot say about that). Their reputation, too, is that they are about equal. One might assume that the later lens would be better (the 2.8), but my understanding is that in order to make the 21 usable with the M5-6 meters, the lens is a more extreme retrofocus design, thereby having to give away one of the RF advantages. I've never had the Nikon, but I've used other SLR wide angles a good deal, and have to say I prefer using SLR's with these lenses. Before buying either of the Leicas, I would spend some time outdoors with the special viewfinder the lens requires. I find the frameline hard to see in bright light. Perhaps it's because I wear glasses, but it seems to be you've got to be very careful about centering your eye. The framing accuracy is inferior on the RF's too. Charlie At 12:11 PM 1/4/97 -0500, you wrote: > >Hi Group - > >I want to buy a lens whose field of view is between my >360-deg panorama and my 84-deg, 24mm Nikkor. I am looking at >either the 21mm (Super Angulon or Elmarit) for my M6 or the >20mm/f2.8D for my Nikon. I'm prompted to post this here >because of the number of persons who have experience with a >super-wide lens on their M-cameras. > >My applications: > Close-in (1 to 3 meters away) action photography, > typically black & white. Flash will likely NOT be used. > A secondary application, sweeping landscape photographs. > >One being a SLR-system and the other a rangefinder, here's >my list of comparison features. Can users of the 21 Leica >lenses please comment. Thanks. > >The lenses: >^^^^^^^^^^ > 21 mm/f3.4 Super Angulon; 21mm/f2.8 Elmarit; 20mm/f2.8D Nikon > >1. From all the information that I can gather, all three of > the above lenses are optically excellent. > >2. The use of these lenses and their associated cameras are > of course different. The Leica system has the short-delay > shutter and quiet operation; the SLR has all that whirring, > clunking and winding going on. But OK, I can live with that. > >3. The Leica lenses require the use of an external viewfinder > though focusing is through the built-in M6 viewfinder. > SLR viewing and focusing is through the lens. > >4. The Leica optics are mechanical focusing and aperture settings > the Nikon can be used in autofocus and aperture mode. But > to me this will probably not be a handicap or problem. It > might be for some users/applications. > > Focusing with the Leica lenses would probably be easiest > to achieve by setting the focus on the lens and just > shooting. The Nikon has fast autofocus capability. > >5. When I began checking into the difference between the two > leica optics, a dealer told me that the Super Angulon > was a bit better for black & white photography and > the Elmarit a better choice for color. Is this true? > >6. The use of filters (polarizing) on the Leica lenses is a bit > problematical. No problem with the SLR. > >7. The Leica lenses cost about 3+ times that of the Nikon lens. > >8. The Super Angulon is a bit slower (f3.4 maximum aperture) > compared to the other two lenses (f2.8 maximum aperture). > >9. Because of its construction, the Super Angulon does not permit > the use of the TTL exposure system of the M6; the Elmarit > does. > >10. More...? > >I would be delighted to hear from other users of wide-angle >optics wtheir experiences/opinions/thoughts/anything >regarding any of the above lenes. Many thanks. > >Best wishes, > >-- Wolfgang > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > Wolfgang Sachse Cornell University > sachse@msc.cornell.edu http://www.msc.cornell.edu/~sachse >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > Charles E. Love, Jr. CEL14@CORNELL.EDU