Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree that the 21 ASPH is a magnificent lens. It was a hard sell since I have 2 S/A 3,4's which I've used over the past 30 years and they are a hard act to follow. I am not sorry I skipped over the 21 non-ASPH. Admittedly, sometimes I still take the black S/A out in preference to the ASPH because it is so much smaller and lighter. Shot at the mid-apertures they are virtually equals...but at f5.6 and wider the ASPH is clearly superior, especially in less vignetting. As to the Nikon 20's (or any SLR 20, for that matter) there is a distinct advantage of closer focussing combined with no parallax, which makes them the better choice for certain shots. I happen to own the 20/3.5 AIS Nikkor (the tiny one, not the early 72mm "UD" model). This lens is fairly uncommon, was between the f/4 and f/2.8. It takes the same 52mm filter as all the rest of my Nikkor manual focus "kit", and when I first bought my 21 ASPH I shot side-by-side comparisons and found that the Nikkor (from f/5.6-f/11) is amazingly hard to tell apart (sharpness at least equal to the S/A)...including, oddly enough, the colour rendition which is uncharacteristicly (for Nikon) Leica-like. Regards, Nigel On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:42:07 +0100 Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com> writes: >This is the lens that makes me believe some of the rap regarding the >'superiority' of Leica designs: compared to the 20mm Nikkor I used >previously, there is a real, obvious, quality leap in the final >images. ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]