Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/05/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 12:02 PM 9/5/97 -0700, you wrote: >Lucien wrote, to Mike: >> >>> >> Better a 24/2,8, really impressive !! 28/2,8 superb but close to 35mm and >> 21/2,8 not so impressive. >> > > >Ah, but Lucien, the 21mm f/3.5 Super Angulon! Most impressive M >performer. > >(I'm greatly enjoying reading the philosophical conversations and believe >they are definitely ON topic for the group. But there's room for the >techno too.) > >Bill Welch > I cannot agree more. I have used the current 21 Elmarit (hood was a tad loose and the lens was big and bulky), the 21 Avenon (the sharpness was acceptable but this lens was prone to flare and the colour reproduction just isn't like Leitz) and finally the 21/3.4 Super Angulon. I was most relieved to have traded in the Avenon for the SA. I liked the Super Angulon ever since. Small and compact and full of punch. I could capture the clouds and blue sky as well as the darker shadow details in the trees and bush all at the same time. Some of the shots have that "Bokeh" which we have been hearing about. I set to f8 or f11 and I just shoot all the way to infinity. With a 21mm and 35mm I can skip the 24 for the time being. I get the "Bokeh" with the 35mm/2 as well. Any feedback about the 24mm lens in actual field use? Dan Khong