Leica R 21/4, Leica R 19/2,8 V1 or Leica M 21/2,8 pre ASPH?

[marco febbrari]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone,
I need your experience. 
I have the opportunity to purchase one of these three lenses: 
Leica R 21/4 Super-Angulon, 
Leica M 21/2.8 pre Asph and 
Leica R 19/2.8 ver. 1
I would use it with a Leica SL typ 601 and Leica SL2-S with both Leica adapters for R and M lenses.
I'm a little disoriented, can you help me?

Thanks

Marco

[dpitt]

I do not own the Super Angulon 21/4 R v1, but I think it will not work on any digital body. The rear element is too close to the sensor, so at least it will give pink edges and metering will be off.

The 21/4 R v1 should work, but I never tried that one.

I would go for the 19 Elmarit-R. It truly is a remarkable lens, and does not feel as a super wide angle at all (very little distortion). If you want to use it on the SL series only, and do not mind a bit more bulk and weight, I think it is more exceptional that the Leica 21/2.8 Elmarit.

I have no experience with the 21/4 Super Angulon R.
The M 21/2.8  Elmarit M pre-ASPH is smaller and easier to carry. I like to use it on my Leica TL2 because of the size and FL (32mm eq.)
Using it with filters is possible (not so easy with the 19mm R), but it is and feels more like a typical Leica super wide angle. It is a bit younger than the 19mm.
It will also have a bit more contrast and will not flare as easily as the 19mm R.

AFAIK the 19mm is currently the most expensive of these three in the same condition. If price is a consideration the M lens probably provides the most value for money.

[W124]

I used two copies of the Leica R 19mm f/2.8 V1 analog and digital with R9 plus DMR, later with several Sony cameras.

Both always worked very well, but as I'm using now mirrowless cameras only, I sold it for the Leica M WATE which is much more compact.

[adan]

Shorter version (my personal bias) - I would choose the M pre-ASPH 21mm lens. I have used this lens on M cameras (film and digital) since 2001 (first M lens I bought). It helped win me a 2nd Place in the Pictures of the Year International (POYi) photojournalism contest. The "21mm" images should be obvious in this set, made with M9 cameras (or Canons with longer 180/400mm R lenses).

https://www.poy.org/69/34/second_01.php

It is the most compact of the three you list (60mm filters during most of its production). It is notable for being somewhat blurry at larger apertures (f/2.8>f/5.6) - in the outer edges/corners of the picture. But needle-sharp in the center, and progressively to the corners as one stops down. A "photojournalists' " lens.

I still have it - although since it has been so vigourously used over 23 years, I have only just this year backed it up with an ASPH 21mm Elmarit as well, that is in better condition physically.

Longer version - All the lenses you mention will work just fine on the SL mirrorless digital cameras, using the R>SL or M>SL adapters. And in fact the R 19/21 lenses worked just fine adapted to a Canon 5D Mk II DSLR.

All of the lenses you mention have generally equivalent image quality. (designs from 1975-1980). I have used all of them - the R 21 and 19 lenses on a Canon 5DmkII; the M 21mm lens on M4-2, M4-P, M6, M8, M9, M10. They all have some flare tendency, as in repeated color patches across the picture, if the sun is in or just outside the picture area. (20th-century coatings and complex multi-element designs). All show some rectilinear distortion - e.g. lines of bricks in a wall will be somewhat wavy. Due to their relatively-early retrofocus designs (the R lenses to clear SLR mirrors, the M21 to allow ttl metering (M5, M6...present).

The "R" lenses (esp. the 19 f/2.8 v1) are therefore significantly larger and heavier, due to their need to clear a moving SLR mirror. And for me, this is the most important difference.

The R lenses focus significantly closer, since they were expected to be focused ttl (through the lens) and not via the M rangefinder with its enforced 0.7m close-up limit. Which is why I gave them a try-out on the Canon body.

The 21 R (1968) has slightly better corner image quality, due to the smaller max. aperture and less-stressed design. Drawback - its aperture only has 4 blades, so "bokeh blurs" are also 4-sided, if stopped down at all. It should be noted that it is actually a Schneider-Kreuznach lens design (thus the trademarked "Super-Angulon" name) because Leitz/Leica were not yet experienced in designing superwide lenses at that time. Which may also be a factor in the slightly better IQ. It is of "middle" size (Series 8.5 or 72mm filters)

The 19 R v1 (1975) performance is virtually identical to the 21 M pre-ASPH (1980) - but its larger size (88mm overall diameter, 82mm filters) allows the extra 2mm/~10% of wider view at that same quality.

Conclusion - The image quality will be a minor factor, for the most part - definitely NOT modern SL APO appearance, but very good for the era. You will need to prioritize: aperture speed; across-the-frame IQ; close-up focusing needs; size and weight; and any price difference.

https://wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/21mm_f/2.8_Elmarit_M

https://wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/21mm_f/4_Super-Angulon-R

https://wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/19mm_f/2.8_Elmarit-R_I

Edited May 4, 2024 by adan

[marco febbrari]

Thank you all for the valuable experience!

Ciao

Marco

[farnz]

(Deleted post since I found that I had repeated much of what Adan had so eloquently written.)

Edited May 6, 2024 by farnz

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One thing that I will add is that the 19/2.8 Elmarit-R version 2 is a better lens than the version 1.  For identification purposes it is the version with the built-in filter turret.

Pete.