Re: 21 asph experiences anyoe?

["Henning J. Wulff" <henningw@archiphoto.com>]

>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