Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/11/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]From my experience the 3.4/21 (1) balances contrasts far better with the result of more rich and more pleasant b/w half/middle (?) tone rendition, (2) more pleasant out-of-focus rendition, (3) more rich and pronounced rendition of highlights (a) in low light, (b) in opposite (?) light (sun directly into the lens), (4) more fine rendition of shawdow details (a) in low light (e.g. f 4, 1/60 400 ASA), (b) in opposite (?) light. And, it's shape is more nice :) Did I mention, that my SAs were more sharp also than the 2.8/21 Elmarit (of a friend of a friend :) )? Alf - -------------------------------------------------------------------- At 06:30 29.11.1997 -0500, you wrote: >Alfred Breull writes: > ><<If you are happy with it, the better. No problem. But, do yourself >a favor: Never touch a 3.4/21 M Super Angulon. > >Alf>> > >Alf; > >Own and use them both brother. Are you suggesting the 21mm S/A is superior >to the 21 Elmarit? If so, could you be specific about that? > >Michael >