I bought a late M 21mm non-ASPH about 2 months ago just because I got a really good deal. I have only little experience with it and no real complaints. In the meantime I'm asking myself if I should have bought a new or used 21 ASPH instead. Had I had the time and money and offer, I should have done the heroic test I'm always recommending, and just compare the two before any purchase, but I just didn't (and unfortunately don't always) have the time or money or offer anyways. The way I see it, Erwin Puts did not say that the last non-ASPH is bad, he just said that it is somewhat better than its predecessors, i.e. this non-ASPH is a commendable performer and a slight improvement on the Super-Angulon 3.4, (a very good performer) which, again, was an even better improvement on the Super-Angulon 4.0. The outstanding ASPH is just simply the very best, as apparently all ASPHs always are in that they are all really sharp, in centers and edges, even when shot wide open.

For 21 ASPH I also see these two leedle wee tiny advantages: its lens hood is somewhat more sturdy, and maybe better against stray light since it has one instead of four openings (for reduction of viewfinder obstruction), and its screw-in filter diameter is E55 (instead of E60): E55 is also on a 24 and a 2.0/90 ASPH (E60 is "only" on a Nocti and a 75).

In a nutshell: if I had the opportunity to buy a used 21mm (non-ASPH but last edition, mint, and at a good price [for me]) then should I get it or should I add on the extra money for a new (or even used) 21 ASPH? Thanks for any ideas.

Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), June 18, 2001

Answers

Your Leica attitude is slipping badly! Only the latest will do! It's a known fact that it's impossible to shoot good pix with any equipment over four months old--well, maybe six months, if you don't use it much :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), June 18, 2001.

I agree with Michael Darton's sarcasm. I am often amazed at how fast a lens that was held up as a standard to be measured against is rendered "obsolete" upon the introduction of the next generation. Some improvements were absolutely so great that the replaced lens is no longer a viable alternative... the pre-aspheric 35mm Summilux comes to mind. Other improvements are evolutionary, not revolutionary, and if we are not doing the whole sharpness thing, (tripod, cable release, optimum aperture and slow film), then are we even getting the full potential out of our glass?

Just look at the number of photographers that are embracing the Tri- Elmar M. By all reviews, it is very good, and Erwin Puts recons it to be as good as the older versions of the lenses within its range. If Leica fanatics are able to like this lens, then are we over thinking this "absolute best" philosophy? It makes me laugh when a user of the Tri-Elmar tells me I'm a fool because I am still using the fourth version of the 35mm Summicron, when the Aspheric model is "so much better." We are both using less that "the best", but we are both more than satisfied. Don't forget, owning these older lenses would have made many non-Leica owners green with envy just a couple of years ago.

You are the only one that can say if the older 21mm lens is good enough. No one's opinion here can make the slides look better or worse. Shoot some film and look at it. By all accounts the lens should be capable of great results. I'm still happily shooting with an old 35mm Summicron, not caring about test graphs and magazine reviews... my slides are sharp.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), June 18, 2001.

Thanks for the post Mike!

I was curious about this as well... I too got a very good deal on the lens, so I thought I'd try it out, but did not expect much given what Erwin said about it. I was surprised (pleasantly) with the images off the first roll I shot. They actually appear quite sharp in the center - almost as sharp as my 24 - and only slightly soft at the corners. Having read Erwin's reviews of the 21's, I was almost embarassed to admit I had actually spent good money on the pre-asph 21. If I read his review correctly, it sounds to me like there is no Leica lens worse than the pre-asph 21 f2.8 except the 21 f4, with the 21 f3.4 essentially being a tie for second to worst lens. To quote Erwin, it seems these lenses did not "bear the Leica badge with full honor"! I would be curious to know if any others in this forum use this or earlier pre-asph version, and what they think. Has anybody compared its performance to the current asph version or even to the 24 asph?

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), June 18, 2001.

Well that depends on you more than anything else. Here are a few general statements that might help you in your choice.

The 21/3.4 and the early 21/2.8 focus using the rangefinder to .7 metres and then you can scale focus down to about .4 metre. The later 21/2.8 and the 21/2.8A only focus to .7 metre (still using the rangefinder).

The 21/2.8 and the 21/2.8A are retrofocus designs and thus have less vignetting wide open but also suffer from a wave shaped distortion when focused close. The 21/2.8A is better in this regard than the 21/2.8 (which is better than any SLR lens).

The 21/3.4 is a symetrical design and has virtually no distortion.

The 21/3.4 does have more vignetting than the other lenses. The 21/3.4 also suffers from flare wide open which disappears when the lens is stopped down to f/4.

Wide open performance is stunning with the 21/2.8A, very good with the 21/2.8 and fair with the 21/3.4 (mainly due to flare). See Puts

If you use 400 ISO handheld then there is no difference between the lenses other than you can meter with the 21/2.8s.

I had a 21/3.4 and was not happy with its performance wide open. At f/4 it was fine. I sold it and eventually bought the 21/2.8A and am very happy. If f/4 is fine with you then consider the "Voitina" 21/4. It is getting great reviews and is the equal of the 21/2.8 (except for the max aperture).

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), June 18, 2001.

PS:

The 21/3.4 will not meter with the M6 or M5 while the others will.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), June 18, 2001.

John

To pick through your comments "the 21/2.8 (which is better than any SLR lens)." This seems a bit of a dogmatic statement - how do you know? Which SLRs 21mm's? Have you tried them all? Does the Super-Angulon-R 21mm suffer from this - I haven't noticed (although it is has other issues)?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), June 19, 2001.

Thanks everybody for your really clear news. (Sorry, I sometimes think Erwin's reports are a little diffuse.)

Believe it or not, I do agree with all of you that e.g. the above oldie really is more than okay, even if the ASPH may be better here or there, AND... I (too) would not trade in such an oldie every time a newie comes out. BUT... all I was thinking about was whether my first purchase (e.g. of a 21) should be this one or that one. My ideas were: (a) their 1997 prices here -- USD 1565 and 1826 -- are pretty close, (b) usually, ASPH arrival means non-ASPH departure, (c) I do see both second-hand.

Jack, it is redeeming to discover your own thoughts here. I hope I'm right in hearing you alongside me say "Whatever I've got, I'll keep it; it's just a question what to get". I think we're both right in interpreting Erwin as we did, but that doesn't seem to offer the answer we need. The punch line (at least for me) has to be the 24. I won't buy it soon, and when I do, there is only the one anyways. I hope somebody compares your 24 to your/our/the/any 21.

John, thanks indeed for all your data: that is what I need. Again, a perfect example of your usual first words "it all depends on me". That is what I love about these questions and answers. Thanks, Forum!

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), June 19, 2001.

Sorry for the late reply Robin as I was chief cook and bottle washer at a luncheon my wife just gave. My food was a great success and thank you for asking :-)*.

I have not tried every lens personally but between myself and my friends we have tried a large percentage of them. The wave form distortion at close focusing distances is a fact of life with retrofocus lens designs so they all have it to a greater or lesser degree. If you photograph building interiors and exteriors you will know what I mean. If not, you would probably never notice. I do not photograph architecture but one of friends does so for a living.

SLR super wide lenses are retrofocus (unless we speak of the very first ones which required mirror lock up and a separate finder). They also suffer from "smearing" in the corners. The latest ones are much better in this regard than the older versions. Again I have two friends between which every super wide made buy Nikon and Canon has been purchased evaluated and sold (except for the latest ones). One of them just purchased a Contax G2 for this very reason. He wanted a Leica M but could not justify the expense for a so seldomly used lens (His speciality is close up work).

The 21/2.8 has been looked down upon by Leica photographers as it is significantly bigger than the 21/3.4 and has the aforementioned distortion. The increase in bulk was not sufficently rewarded by an equal increase in optical performance. It is still an excellent lens and a perfect companion to the M6 if you do not want to pay the extra dollars for an Asph.

If you are just looking for a 21mm for occasional use and are not too concerned about having an f/2.8, I think the "Voitina" 21/4 is something worth looking at.

*recipes upon request

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), June 19, 2001.

John

Thanks for the expansion on your comments. Sounds reasonable to me. My ears always are alerted when people say such things on the assumption that few people know what they are talking about when it comes to the vast array of lenses out there. Most of us only really have experience of a few. Still thanks for the info about the 21s. I don't use my SA-R much, but, when I do, I wish it was both faster and a better performer at full aperture.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), June 20, 2001.

I suggest to wait 3 or 4 years until Leica replaces the current 21mm f2.8 with a 21mm f2.0 APO Summicron aspherical that is the same size,and has almost no distortion or edge fall off.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), June 20, 2001.

Could it be smaller?

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), June 20, 2001.

Sure it could be smaller -- it just needs to be built with true achromatic glass, and might require oil-spacing between the elements intead of air.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), June 21, 2001.

And how often would it require oil change, and what about leaks, pampers for our leicas?; I´m actualy amazed to read this, I just never imagine oil could be use as an optical element. Very interesting.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), June 21, 2001.

The idea about waiting for a 2.0/21 is great (altho I'm not that patient) and size is always interesting. But size here might remain the same -- the way I see it -- as is the case with the new 2.0/28 which is only 0.4 mm shorter and only 10 g heavier than the "old" 2.8/28 (non-ASPH).

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), June 22, 2001.

Just a thought from a 21mm nut. I've used one 21 or another for architectural photography, street markets, shop windows etc for about 20 years now and will accept a bit of fall-off (Super Angulon)but not even minute distortion. For nearly fifteen years I used a Contarex 4,5 21 Biogon on a Contarex until I had a friend who made a Contarex to Leica converter (W/O RF obviously, but who needs the RF) and moved the biogon to a CLE (for about 7 years). I then got modern - read lazy - and acquired a G2 and its modern 21 Biogon which I liked a lot. This was replaced for a couple of years by 6x9 and 6x12cm Ekta panoramics on a Brooks Verywide - long story but not really as the 5,6 47mm SA on 6x9cm is a big-neg 21 - and you wouldn't believe 6x12. When I came back to smaller format I fell for the Leitz 2,8 21mm Asph on a Leica CL for compactness but wasn't really satisfied with the "feel" of the results. (I read tests but don't believe anything til I've seen it myself.) I am now back to the Conatrex 4,5 21mm Biogon modified for the M6 mount and simply love that lens. I'm admittedly "Zeiss Biogon"-washed but you might well be surprized by this combination. I might even be able to put you onto an adaptor. (Count 800+ for lens and VF, 100+ for the adaptor.)

The Russian 4/20's I've used were good but not excellent though they are rumored to exist.

anyone else gone this route?

bert

-- bert Mcclure (fuzbat@tiscalinet.fr), June 29, 2001.