Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/11/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 06:30 AM 11/29/97 -0500, Michael Hintlian wrote: > >So, to the original question, I find it hard to understand just what is >meant when you say the Elmarit was not a happy lens for Leica. Could I >trouble you to be specific? > >The very earliest 21 Elmarits were different than the current...is that the >reformulation "twiddle" you speak of? Michael I am not "bored" per se, it's just that I don't particularly like super-wide-angle lenses. When I need one, I use either a 5.6/20 Russar or shoot it with my Contarex and a 4.5/21 Biogon. But I may shoot five frames a year, at most, wider than 35mm. I am in the middle of being separated from my wife, and a lot of my references are, of course, at my estranged spouse's residence, so this is from memory. Leica has never been happy with any of their 21mm formulae and have been considering for some years replacing the current lens. However, this is not a particularly high-demand lens, so the redesign of the 90mm Elmarit and the 35mm lenses took priority. In the past two years, you are the first fervent advocate of the 2.8/21 to have posted such on the LUG. The general consensus in the past is that the Super-Angulon is a more satisfactory lens, although it has the drawback that it will not meter with the M6. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!