Re: 21 asph experiences anyoe?

[Alfred Breull <puma@hannover.sgh-net.de>]

Lots of info, experience & comment, nice description. Thank you !
Alf

- ------------------------------------------------------------------
At 13:09 16.10.1997 -0700, you wrote:
>>Hey all you guys/gals with your shiny new 21 asph lenses.
>>How good is it?
>>Cpmared to 21 Elmarit?
>>Super-Angulon?
>>I'm really curious.
>
>I hate to post something that has so little to do with the major topic of
>real/bogus M/R Leicas, but here goes. Also, in light of the past few days
>of posts I have been happy that my work has (as is common) required the use
>of Medium Format stuff, and I didn't have to ruminate (no further cow jokes
>please!!) on whether I have to use my M stuff to the exclusion of SLR's to
>remain a member of this list.
>
>I have, however, had a chance to shoot with my new 21/2.8 aspheric
>alongside the older Elmarit and the much older (1974) 21/3.4 SA.
>
>I have always felt that the old Elmarit was a decent lens, with overall
>performance better than any lens in this range for SLR's, but not as good
>as the SA. The latter has the ultimate crispness and sharpness that goes
>into all the details. It might be better to describe this as 'acutance',
>even though that term does not generally apply to lenses, but to film. This
>performance of the SA is very close to optimal even at f/3.4, but maximum
>performance is already reached at f/5.6, and it starts rolling off
>noticeably from f/11, but only because of its very high performance level
>at the optimum stops. I use it at whatever stop is necessay, and appreciate
>it have stops to f/22. The lens has no distortion that I have ever seen in
>a picture. It is as much for this reason as any that I use it for my work
>(architectural photography) when slides are required as any other reason.
>
>The older 21 Elmarit is a very good lens, fully deserving of the Leica
>label. (On the other hand, maybe retrofocus designs are bogus Leica, as
>they certainly weren't used in any M lenses until the 70's, when that other
>deviation from the one true, the lightmeter, was introduced into the M's.)
>:-) In any case, good though it is, it doesn't measure up to the SA, and
>that is why I have had 2 21's for many years. The Elmarit has some falloff
>in sharpness in the corners wide open, it is never as crisp as the SA, and
>it has the compound distortion that is typical of all retrofocus lenses I
>have seen. That is, it has barrel distortion which is at its maximum at
>around 10mm from the center, and then it overcompensates somewhat as it
>goes to the corners, so that straight lines along the edges of the long
>dimension are straight for most of the length of the side, but then turn
>fairly sharply into the corners, giving a 'moustache' shaped distortion.
>Please note that this is relative. The Elmarit does have this distortion,
>but it is as good as any SLR lens I have seen, and far better than most.
>Other problems with the lens are that it needs 60mm filter, it sticks out
>quite far from the camera so that with the poor hood that comes with it, it
>obstructs the bottom of the view through the accessory viewfinder, it only
>has f/16, and it only focusses to .7m. The latter is of concern to me as I
>use the Leica to take pictures of architectural models from inside, and
>closer focussing (and a smaller f-stop) are necessary.
>
>The 21 asph. is very similar in size, and greater in weight, than the older
>Elmarit. The _only_ thing that is smaller is the filter size, down to 55mm.
>The (much better) hood still obstructs the view, and the f-stop and close
>focussing are the same. As far as optical performance is concerned, the
>lens is a lot closer to the SA in performance. It is very sharp, even wide
>open, and it is hard to see the improvements in performance by 5.6. Eveness
>of illumination seems to be very slightly better than the old Elmarit, and
>a lot better than the SA, which is handicapped in that regard by its
>symmetrical, non-retrofocus design. Distortion is still there if you look
>for it, but it is at about half the level of the old Elmarit.
>
>In conclusion, I'm selling my old Elmarit and keeping the SA. For general
>convenience with an M6, M5 or CL the new Elmarit asph. is hard to beat, but
>if you have a meterless body, your best bet is still to get a SA. Note that
>the optical performance of the new lens is extremely good, and one would be
>hard put to criticize it without having a SA next to it. They outperform
>all SLR lenses in this range that I have had the chance to use. The 1/2
>stop nominal difference between the SA and the Elmarit is less than that in
>practice in the center of the image, and more in the corners due to the
>greater light falloff of the SA.
>
>
>   *            Henning J. Wulff
>  /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
> /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
> |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
>
>
>