Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/07/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > > On the M21 being a big lens. > > Not the case with the M21 which when it came into an ASPH version was made > slim and gorgeous. And lighter weight. Nope. The pre-asph is 290 grams the asph is 317 grams The asph is .5 mm longer (Mine is the second version) I'll reiterate that all this is subjective; that a lens is good for what it is good for. I really don't like a 21 on a full frame 35, it was only when I started using the M8 that I pulled out my CV 21 and started shooting with it a lot that I found out how hard it was for me to handle. That's when I went looking for the Pre-asph. You see, this is not my first one. I owned one before, and sold it to Gee Bee, and I always regretted it, but I thought that for what little use I was gonna get from a 21, the CV 21 would suffice. I told Swanny that already, because I wanted him to have some advice from someone who actually had used the lens rather than someone who had read a technical report written a decade ago, before software was developed to overcome some of the faults of the lens. You make a good point about Gallery shooting. If I made big prints, If I was EVER in galleries, I might take a different attitude. Instead, I shoot for magazines and the web, and so far, my lenses have been adequate to garner several covers. Someday when I get this last guy out of college, I may turn to buying lenses again, and depending on what camera I am shooting, I may revisit the 21 situation. Right now, I plan to dance with the one I'm with. -- Regards, Sonny http://sonc.com/look/ Natchitoches, Louisiana USA