Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/11/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ok, here is my opinion; Erwin's will probably be different because he is much more of a scientist in his outlook. I am more concerned with a lens' performance in my own style of use. I nearly always shoot with a camera support, even if only a Leitz table-pod. With Leica-M focal lengths I am nearly always stopped down to the mid-to-smaller apertures for DOF. I nearly always use Velvia with the Leica. I rarely enlarge 35mm to more than 14x11. For "large" prints I choose 6x7 or 5x4 formats. Given *my* preferences, *perhaps* I would appreciate the improvements of the 135 APO over the TE, but I won't know that until I actually shoot it even though I do not doubt Erwin's results in the least. Given that my mint late-model TE is worth only about 1/2 the price of a new APO it would take *quite* an eye-popping difference to persuade me to sell one for the other. OTOH, the 21 SA must be used either with a handheld meter or else metering must be done with another lens and then swtiched. There was a reason to suffer with this whilst the earlier 21 was the only other choice, because it had more distortion than the SA. Now, especially given that a mint, late black SA is worth nearly 75% of a new ASPH (more, if compared to a mint ASPH) I would not hesitate to make the switch. Regards, Nigel As to the SA vs 21-ASPH, On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 19:00:59 -0500 "A S Jordan" <andrewsjordan@worldnet.att.net> writes: > >Nigel, Erwin et al.: > >Thanks for the outstanding test reports and the ensuing enlightening >discussions with respect to the new Leica optics. I have been using a >21f3.4 >SA and less frequently a 135f4 TE for about 15 years. Both old test >reports >and my own experience indicate that these are outstanding lenses. >I accept the general conclusion confirmed by Erwin's studies that the >21 >asph and the 135 apo are superior to their predecessors. Some >questions: > >1. Will the improvements show up if the camera is hand held? >2. Does one need the finest emulsion film (Kodachrome 25 and 64 or >Fuji >equivalents) to see the advantage of the new designs? >Depending on the answer to these questions and one's individual >photographic style, upgrading to the latest may not make much sense >even >if funds to do so are readily available. >3. Is there any activity in Solms to incorporate a multifocal finder >in the >M line? Neither of these lenses is useable without an external finder. >The >21 is self-evident. But the frameline for the 135 mm lens in the >M4,5,6 is >almost useless. I have no experience with the M3 or M6HM but I doubt >that a >20% increase in finder dimensions is sufficient for accurate framing. >With >the 1970s version of the TE, I solve this problem either by using a >135mm >brightline finder or mounting the lenshead on a R body via the >16464(focusing mount) and 14167(M-to-R adapter). Both are clumsy >approaches. >Clearly the design and incorporation of a multifocal finder in the >"M7" is >more urgently needed by the M user than the ultimate performance >permitted >by the latest asph or apo lenses. > >Regards, Andrew Jordan > > > > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]