Question regarding the rendering of SA 21mm f/3.4

[KyledeC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all,

 

I've got a question regarding my Super Angulon 21mm f/3.4. I've recently been using the lens with color transparency film as opposed to the usual black and white, and I haven't been very satisfied with the results. Not sure if the lens needs to be serviced, or maybe this is just the way the lens renders with Velvia 100. What I've been noticing is that the lens doesn't seem to have that distinct Leica clarity. It seems to be sharp, but to me not nearly as detailed as my other Leica glass. I'm not shooting with the newest optics by any means. Currently a Summaron 35mm f/3.5, Summicron Collapsible 50mm f/2, Tele Elmarit 90mm f/2.8 (FAT) and a Tele Elmar 135mm f/4. All of these lenses have that distinct sharpness and 'pop'.

 

So I was just wondering what you guys think. Could it just need a CLA, or is this just the nature of the optic? I've done as much research as I could find online, I read that it is a sharp lens with a unique character. But I would say the same is true of all the lenses I use, so I can't figure out why this SA would be lacking, causing me to see this distinct difference.

 

Here is a link to some image comparisons to show what I'm talking about: link

 

 

Thank you all greatly!

 

Kyle

[KyledeC]

The link i provided seems to be having problems, will post new one once I figure it out

[Vec]

If it's any help, here's a link that's working: http://www.kyledeclerck.com/site/super-angulon-21mm-f-3-4-comparisson

 

From the Puts Leica Compendium, here's what he has to say about this lens (any mis-typing is my own if I transcribed incorrectly):

 

 

Many lenses from this period share the characteristic that the textural details are recorded with a certain softness, which at bigger enlargements gives the impression that the plane of focus has been missed. It is true that the extended gradient between sharpness and unsharpness gives a pleasing effect to the pictures at the detriment of a clearly defined plane of critical sharpness. This is part of the fingerprint that defines the general characteristic of all Angulon lenses.

 

Your reading of the lens seems to match what Mr. Puts thinks about it as well.

[KyledeC]

Vec, thank you very much! You're right that description is spot on. Very interesting. It seems the Velvia just makes it much more apparent to me. Shooting black and white with the SA is a pleasure, I love the results so I'll definitely hold onto the lens. Maybe having it CLA'd wouldn't be a bad idea anyway. Any advice on a 21 that will render more to my liking (that being what I've tried describing above as missing from the SA)? I've read some great things about the Zeiss Biogon 21 f/4.5, though I would love to stick with Leica glass is possible (meaning something in the ballpark of $1,500 or less).

 

Thank you again!

[Vec]

The new SEM 21 f/3.4 seems to get rave reviews from Puts. I have a copy and I have to agree that "wide open the lens delivers a very high contrast image of extremely fine details from centre to edge.""The Super Elmar-M 21mm f/3.4 ASPH. approaches the ideal lens design: one does not often encounter a high-performance optical cell with homogeneous image quality at all apertures, distance settings and image height from centre to 21.6mm wrapped up in a compact high-quality precision mount, even in the Leica stable."

 

I picked one up used from a local camera shop in Seattle perhaps a half year ago (for more than online... supporting the shop I suppose). This was before reading the Puts book at all. I had seen some test shots and took a few myself and liked them enough to pick the one they had sitting on their used shelf up.

 

That said, I've seen one on eBay go for just a hair less than $1800 a few months back, so if you wait you might get a good deal on it.

[michaelwj]

Vec, thank you very much! You're right that description is spot on. Very interesting. It seems the Velvia just makes it much more apparent to me. Shooting black and white with the SA is a pleasure, I love the results so I'll definitely hold onto the lens. Maybe having it CLA'd wouldn't be a bad idea anyway. Any advice on a 21 that will render more to my liking (that being what I've tried describing above as missing from the SA)? I've read some great things about the Zeiss Biogon 21 f/4.5, though I would love to stick with Leica glass is possible (meaning something in the ballpark of $1,500 or less).

 

Thank you again!

 

 

On top of what I wrote on RFF in reply to you;

The ZM 21/4.5 is excellent, very crisp.

If you want to stick with Leica, I hear the SEM is the 'best', but also hear very good things about the 2.8 ASPH.

 

Michael

[KyledeC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you Vec and Michael. I'm going to look into those suggestions. The 21mm is one of my favorite focal lengths, so saving a little more to get a top notch optic that will satisfy is most certainly worth it.

[KyledeC]

Michael, you said the ZM is excellent. How would you say it compares to the Leica glass?

[Vec]

The reviews from elsewhere seem pretty darn good. The f/2.8 new retails for less than your budget without the lens hood which isn't too expensive itself. From what I can tell from Ken Rockwell's review ( also enough of a groove to code the lens yourself with some paint.

 

As an added bonus both the f/2.8 and the f/4.5 (discontinued) have a convenient 46mm filter thread for what it's worth. (Zeiss has a habit of picking some oddball filter threads that don't coincide with Leica)

[michaelwj]

Michael, you said the ZM is excellent. How would you say it compares to the Leica glass?

In my limited experience increased contrast but not too much. Generally crisper across the frame, but not clinical. Less character but technically better.

For me, the biggest drawbacks are the 1/3 aperture stops and the focus 'nub'. Sounds petty, but so be it. If my other lenses had 1/3 stops and the focus nub, I'd get it without question.

I doubt any of that helps, sorry.

 

Also keep in mind my only Leica lenses are the SA and pre-asph 35 summilux, which are both loaded with character and have quite similar profiles.

[KyledeC]

Thank you both! Sounds like a pretty solid lens. I've read a lot of good reviews too. Thanks for the info, Vec, that 46mm filter will be nice. I will definitely be holding onto the 21 SA, I'm gonna have it serviced and continue working with it. Though I think that Biogon 21 will be a good addition and definitely worth giving a try.

 

Michael, do you shoot much color with your SA?

[michaelwj]

Thank you both! Sounds like a pretty solid lens. I've read a lot of good reviews too. Thanks for the info, Vec, that 46mm filter will be nice. I will definitely be holding onto the 21 SA, I'm gonna have it serviced and continue working with it. Though I think that Biogon 21 will be a good addition and definitely worth giving a try.

 

Michael, do you shoot much color with your SA?

Never, black and white only.

[menos I M6]

People say good things about the Voigtlander 21/4 (which coincidently is nicely low priced compared other 21mm offerings).

Also good reviews have been written about the much larger and heavier Voigtlander 21/1.8 - it fits your budget beautifully (even new) and you might find the fast aperture useful as a second lens to your Super Angulon.

 

I have personally tried neither Voigtlander lenses.

 

There is a (rare) Konica 21-35 Dual Hexanon lens in Leica M mount (these were limited production lenses before Konica stopped making rangefinder cameras).

It is at it's 21mm setting about equal in performance to a Leica 21/2.8 ASPH but adds the benefit of having an also very excellent 35mm focal length.

I love mine and use it next to Leica lenses from a newer generation of glass than you use, yet mostly not with the latest, sharpest and most contrasty glass.

I think the Konica 21-35 Dual would fit beautifully with your other Leica lenses from the era of 1960/70 rendering without looking obvious out of line in rendering, yet having a very high, modern performance in detail and sharpness.

 

shop owner couple by Dirk Steffen, on Flickr

 

As has been mentioned before - the Leica 21/3.4 SEM is the very best there currently is in optical performance. You will find nothing better corner to corner, but in my personal opinion it may very well look a little out of line when in a series of photographs together with your other lenses. it is simply that contrasty and sharp, it may not fit as well.

 

 

Another odd choice that comes to my mind when I read your comment of missing clarity in the SA compared to your other lenses is this exotic:

Carl Zeiss 16/8 Hologon.

 

couple waiting by Dirk Steffen, on Flickr

 

It may be too wide for your taste but may also add nicely to your kit, being that much wider than 21mm as another choice to your SA.

As the SA it is an optical design, highly symmetric, hence having almost no distortion.

It has a fixed aperture of f8 (but with it's 4x centre filter attached it will be used at exposures for f16).

It has no filter threads but uses special bayonet filters (available are 4x centre filter and clear protection filter).

It has been made only in Contax G mount but many samples have been converted into Leica M mount over the years before the availability of the Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 LTM and M mount lenses.

There is no rangefinder coupling, so it does scale focus only (with a small lever with very short focus throw) - and yes, although it being f8 @ 16mm mis focussing does lead to lower acuity which could be an issue when you shoot moving subjects close up a lot.

It is a modern lens with modern coatings and a modern recalculated optical formula (based on a formula, Car Zeiss developed for their famous 15mm Hologon super wide angle fixed lens camera, which also resulted in the now very collectible and rare 15/8 Leica M mount lenses in the ~1970's (if I remember correctly)

 

The Hologon has a very special rendering - in my opinion reminding very much of the rendering of Carl Zeiss medium format lenses with high contrast and a very special fine acuity and wonderful fine details.

It has VERY strong light falloff, hence the absolute need for it's centre filter.