Re: [Leica] R8 lens advice requested.

[Jim Hemenway <jim@hemenway.com>]

Hi Dan, Wilber, Pascal, Greg and Jay:

Many thanks for the 19mm/21mm advice.  I apologize for thanking you so
late... medical emergency the last several days.

Jim

Dan States wrote:
> 
> >From all I have read the current 19mm is far superior to either the first
> version 19 or any of the old 21mm R lenses.  If you can spring for the 19
> you can't loose.
> 
> Best wishes
> Dan States
> >

Margaret Jeffcoat wrote:
> 
> Jim, Hi! I'm Wilber Jeffcoat- I use the "R" system and use the 21mm. I
> really like the lens- only thing I don't like is the speed of the lens f4.
> Have shot some with the 19 and it too is a great lens. I think in that I
> have the 21 I will wait and get a 15mm as 2mm is not enough difference for
> the money. I think you will be happy with either. BTW the 21 stays on my R8
> most of the time.
> Cheers Wilber

Pascal wrote:
> 
> On 12-04-2001 03:37, Jim Hemenway wrote:
> 
> >Does anyone have any thoughts as to which is the better and/or most
> >useful lens, the 19mm or the 21mm?
> 
> As the Super Angulon 21/4 is no longer being manufactured and sold, it
> should be an easy choice if you want to buy new ;-)
> 
> I use the current (second version) Elmarit 19/2.8, an excellent lens.
> >From what I hear/read from others, the SA 21/4 was a fine lens but has
> found a worthy and even better successor in the Elmarit 19, especially
> the current version. Plus you have a wider view and more luminosity with
> the latter. So, unless you can find a SA 21/4 real cheap, I wouldn't
> bother.
> 
> Pascal


> Greg Bicket wrote:
> 
> Jim,
> 
> I think it's more a question of the "look" you like and will use to
> photograph most often.  I have the 19 and it's a terrific lens.
> Faster than the 21, too.  I have the 24 and like it, too, although the
> 19 is more dramatic.  The 24 can be had at great prices.
> 
> Enjoy the light.
> 
> Greg Bicket


InfinityDT@aol.com wrote:
> 
> I had the older 19, it was huge and heavy and even though it had 82mm
> threads
> no filter could be mounted that didn't either rub the front element or
> 
> vignette the image.  I had the chance to try out a 21/4 that my local
> dealer
> got in.  It had a very tiny blemish (smudge, not scratch) in the
> coating at
> the very center of the front element, probably the result of someone
> using a
> filter with too little recess in the mount.  I shot the two lenses
> side-by-side in every kind of light including sun-in-frame, backlit,
> high
> contrast, near and far.  In otherwords, I tried to push them to
> extremes.
> There was virtually no difference between them, so I traded the 19.
> Eventually I picked up another 21/4, this one with a perfect front
> element,
> and did the same comparison test, with emphasis on high-contrast and
> point
> light sources in the shot.  Again, virtually no difference, i.e. the
> "blemished" one did not flare or lose contrast at all.  So now I've
> got 2 of
> them, which I guess is good since they're discontinued.  I recently
> read
> Irwin's trashing of both these lenses, especially the 21, which runs
> contrary
> to what anyone else has ever said about it, and against my own
> experience.
> Perhaps the latest 19 is the best of all, but it has no filter threads
> at all
> in front so for me it is useless (unless I taped or glued them on!)
> and I
> can't imagine how much better it could possibly be than the 21 to make
> it
> worth over twice the price (used!).
> If you are seriously a wide-angle afficionado, I will make another
> recommendation, which is to carry an M body with the 21/ASPH.  That
> lens is a
> clear winner over just about any other (save for the 38 Biogon on the
> Hasselblad 903 SWC).
> 
> Jay