Re: [Leica] 's 21 mm lenses (was: Saving Leica ...)

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

At 20:48 17.02.1998 -0600, you wrote:

>>Besides-2, the color rendition of blue-green and blue is different
>>in both lenses (in my perception). It is somehow flat from the 2.8/21 

>Interesting, considering that blue/green (more like cyan actually) that
>gives a greater sense of sharpness. One of the things that makes Zeiss
>lenses look sharp. They tend to be blue.

I only know MF lenses from Zeiss (Oberkochen and Jena). In my gear,
the 4.5/38 and 3.5/75 with the old coating from the 60ies or 70ies
have a blue tendency, while the multicoated 4/50, 2.8/80, 2.8/120 
or 2.8/180 show a neutral color rendition.

Further, in my perception, it's similar with the M lenses also. You 
could rely on Leitz, that the "old" Summicrons (35 to 90) were cold 
lenses, while the "old" Summiluxes (Summiluxs ?) were warm lenses. 
The modern Leica glass does not show those characteristics anymore, 
meaning, that you need to use slight color filters to get a similar
effect.

>And I got the impression from Erwin's web site that the 21 ASPH is clearly
>superior to the previous models (all of them). Am I wrong?

Yes and no. It depends on both, your attitude and how you use your
tools. Similar to Ted Grant's (and other LUGs) enthusiastic reports
on the Noctilux's fingerprint, specially at wide open, you can also
judge or see the 3.4/21 SA's characteristcs (at wide open) in 
comparison to the 2.8/21 asph Elmarit: 

You may either say, that the SA's very slight vigneting increases 
the impression of  motion in your picture (you have the impression 
to be right in the middle of action), or you can say, it's an "error" 
in the optical parameters. 

You may say, that the SA is slightly unsharp in the far corners at 
wide open in comparison to the asph Elmarit, or you can say, that 
the SA directs the observers attention right to the center of 
interest - just like the Noctilux at wide open. 

Usually in super wide angles, it's not so easy to avoid the direct 
sun in your picture. Since you know this in general, you may either
complain of the flare or you may use it as an vivid element in the 
construction of your picture. If you decide for the 2nd way, you
may be more "universal" and less limited by optical parameters.

It really depends on how you use your tools. And, at f 8, exclusively
the (slightly) different color or grey tone rendition of both lenses
counts. Here, I feel the SA's rendition as more pleasant (more "rich").

>some lenses prove they are clearly superior. The 100 Apo macro has no peer.
>The 280 f/4 Apo Telyt is another. As is the 70-180 2.8 and the 180 f/2.
>All lenses I wish I could afford. <G> Some day.

I feel with you. <G>. In the SL or R system, I love the R 2/90 at 
f 4 or 8 (depending on the subject) at close distance, and the R 4/21 SA 
as "standard lens". <G>

>today with modern lenses is different. Modern lenses, films, scanners,
>printers, and computer screens. It's a different world.

Yup. I saw your description of the equipment that you are allowed to use. 
I'm jealous.

Alf