Michael Geschlecht Posted February 21, 2012 Share #41 Posted February 21, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello Everybody, The 1965 21mm F3.4 R lens shares the 1963 bright chrome 21mm F3.4 M lens's depth of field scale. Interestingly the 2 lenses, altho contemporary, are optically slightly different. The 21mm F4 retrofocus lens shares the depth of field scale w/ the 21mm black F3.4 M lens. The retrofocus 21mm F4 lens & the black 21mm F3.4 lens are both 1968 designs. Best Regards, Michael 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Hi Michael Geschlecht, Take a look here 21mm f/3.4 Super-Angulon information wanted. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
luigi bertolotti Posted February 21, 2012 Share #42 Posted February 21, 2012 Erwin has been naturalized as a German?? MYNHEER Puts, Pete !!! And Flying Dutchman, not Flying Deutschman... in case... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share #43 Posted February 21, 2012 Hello Everybody, The 1965 21mm F3.4 R lens shares the 1963 bright chrome 21mm F3.4 M lens's depth of field scale. Interestingly the 2 lenses, altho contemporary, are optically slightly different. The 21mm F4 retrofocus lens shares the depth of field scale w/ the 21mm black F3.4 M lens. The retrofocus 21mm F4 lens & the black 21mm F3.4 lens are both 1968 designs. Best Regards, Michael Are you sure that the later post '68 black SAs are optically different from the earlier ones ('64 & '67 see the forum Wiki)? I've come across this elsewhere I think, but have found nothing definitive about it. FWIW the 21/3.4R had an increased focus capability - mine went down to about 8" I think. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted February 21, 2012 Share #44 Posted February 21, 2012 Hello Paul, Sorry for the confusion in what I was saying. What I was trying to say was: The 1963 bright chrome 21mm 3.4 Super Angulon-M & the 1965 21mm 3.4 Super Angulon-R had somewhat different lens designs. Please look @ elements # 2, 4 & 5 of both in Roggliati's - Leica & Leicaflex Lenses - 2d Edition 1984. I was only comparing versions 1 & 2 of the 3.4 M lenses in terms of their marked depths of fields. Best Regards, Michael Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted February 21, 2012 Share #45 Posted February 21, 2012 Erwin has been naturalized as a German?? Umm ... oops. Pete. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maruaton Posted June 5, 2015 Share #46 Posted June 5, 2015 Sorry, about the problem of different engravings on SA 21 f4 or chrome SA 21 f3,4 and later black SA 21 f3,4: is it possible that first schneider calculations for DOF were due to a different circle on confusion, wider than late calculation? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 5, 2015 Share #47 Posted June 5, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Always a pleasure to see the resurrection of an old thread .. and so better if from a new member (welcome, maruaton !!!) It is surely possible that Schneider used a different Circle of Confusion (CoC) from Leitz... the CoC concept in itself has a certain degree of undeterminess, for it takes into account values that lack scientific exactness ("normal viewing distance" ?) - and this leads to different formulas of computation... my hipotesis is that Schneider, historically dedicated (much more than Leitz) to large film formats, used a standard of computation indeed different from Leitz ... those variations aren't little... you can find documents in which the CoC is stated in a range of (about) 0,2 to 0,3 mm... a +50%. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maruaton Posted June 5, 2015 Share #48 Posted June 5, 2015 Ciao Luigi, Thanks for the answer. Yes I am a new member, but an old italian fan of Leica. I have read many interesting discussions in this forum. I have the tables of CoC for Hasselblad lenses, and there are computations for 0,03 and 0,06 mm; obviously the second have doubled depth of field, So the little difference in the two engravings could be due to a CoC of 0,04 mm instead of the normally used in leica, I think 0,03 mm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
f3p5 Posted June 6, 2015 Share #49 Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) Some other Super Angulon 21mm/3.4 information: Lens hood:12501 Front lens cap:14102 (A52.5) --> hard to find, I need two for my SA 21/3.4 and Elmarit 28/2.8 (9-element) Cap for front lens hood 12501:? --> hard to find Filter: 48mm or series VII filter in 12501 lens hood (dropping in from rear of the hood). Number of aperture blade: 4 --> form a square/diamond shape, may be seen on blur background which is the 'signature' of this lens. External viewfinder: 12002 Leather case for 12002: 14617 Famaous user: Jeanloup Sieff (must also use SA 21/4) Digit camera usage: Work well on Sony A7S, light color shift on A7. Edited June 6, 2015 by f3p5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
f3p5 Posted June 6, 2015 Share #50 Posted June 6, 2015 Here is a picture shown the diamond shaped blur image taken by SA 21/3.4 lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
f3p5 Posted June 6, 2015 Share #51 Posted June 6, 2015 Here is picture taken by SA 321/3.4 lens. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/172974-21mm-f34-super-angulon-information-wanted/?do=findComment&comment=2829131'>More sharing options...
f3p5 Posted June 6, 2015 Share #52 Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) Also this lens and also SA21/4, Elmarit 28/2.8 9-element has limitation to use on Leica M5 camera. I do not know the serial number which is safe for M5 camera. One can easily identify the 'safe' lens by looking its 4-claws Leica's BM. If there is a about 15mm cutout between the 2 claws at the 6-o'clock mounted position, then it is safe to use on M5. The cutout is just to tell M5 there is no lens mounted so the M5 meter won't swing out when shutter cocked. Edited June 6, 2015 by f3p5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted June 7, 2015 Share #53 Posted June 7, 2015 Some other Super Angulon 21mm/3.4 information: Lens hood:12501 Front lens cap:14102 (A52.5) --> hard to find, I need two for my SA 21/3.4 and Elmarit 28/2.8 (9-element) Cap for front lens hood 12501:? --> hard to find Filter: 48mm or series VII filter in 12501 lens hood (dropping in from rear of the hood). I've heard that the lens hood cap from the 1.4/35 Asph also works, although I have no personal experience. Cheers, Michael Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 8, 2015 Author Share #54 Posted June 8, 2015 It is surely possible that Schneider used a different Circle of Confusion (CoC) from Leitz... the CoC concept in itself has a certain degree of undeterminess, for it takes into account values that lack scientific exactness ("normal viewing distance" ?) - and this leads to different formulas of computation... my hipotesis is that Schneider, historically dedicated (much more than Leitz) to large film formats, used a standard of computation indeed different from Leitz ... those variations aren't little... you can find documents in which the CoC is stated in a range of (about) 0,2 to 0,3 mm... a +50%. I do wonder whether the simple square diaphragm also 'influences' the perceived DoF of the 3.4 SA. Zeiss papers indicate that DoF/bokeh are influenced by optical design and aperture shape so there will be some link. Despite its age the SA is an intriguing little lens and very capable even on the M9 (I tend to use it for B&W these days though). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 8, 2015 Share #55 Posted June 8, 2015 I do wonder whether the simple square diaphragm also 'influences' the perceived DoF of the 3.4 SA. Zeiss papers indicate that DoF/bokeh are influenced by optical design and aperture shape so there will be some link. Despite its age the SA is an intriguing little lens and very capable even on the M9 (I tend to use it for B&W these days though). It's an intriguing detail which I didn't think of before.... indeed, in theory the blur spot of an out-of-focus lightray has the shape of the lens'aperture... to say, when stopping down, the shape of the diapragm... I have never read some paper on this matter... but is widely recognized that lenses with different diaphragm shapes do provide different bokeh effect.... my quick idea is that this does not translate, generally, in a different perceived DOF... but haven't idea if some computation do exist which can support this opinion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 8, 2015 Author Share #56 Posted June 8, 2015 Hi Luigi I have PM'd you! Thanks Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted June 8, 2015 Share #57 Posted June 8, 2015 Hello Maruaton, R3p5 & Michaelwj, Welcome to the Forum. You can see a very nice photo of the square opening created by the 4 aperture blades in Luigi's Post #20, this Thread. Best Regards, Michael Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted June 8, 2015 Share #58 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) Hello Again Everybody, Please note the difference in the depth of field scales of the Chrome & Black versions of the optically equal 21mm F3.4's in Jean Claude's very nice photo in his Post #24 above. Both lenses are focused to approximately 1 meter. Both lenses have the same distance scales engraved on their lens barrels: The Chrome lens shows the depth of field to be acceptable up to 0.6 meters if the lens is stopped down to F8. The Black lens shows the depth of field to be acceptable up to 0.6 meters if the lens is stopped down to F11. Best Regards, Michael Edited June 8, 2015 by Michael Geschlecht Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share #59 Posted June 9, 2015 I've heard that the lens hood cap from the 1.4/35 Asph also works, although I have no personal experience. Cheers, Michael If you are talking about the pre-FLE then I've checked, and no it doesn't I'm afraid. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted June 9, 2015 Share #60 Posted June 9, 2015 If you are talking about the pre-FLE then I've checked, and no it doesn't I'm afraid. Must be the FLE then, sorry I can't remember where I heard it, but it was most likely here or RFF. Cheers, Michael Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.