I have been considering a 21 or 24 lense for some time know, and I had always assumed that the latest aspherical designs were what to head for because they were sharper/better etc. Whilst this may be the case I would be very interested to know what the views are on the early lenses. I like to shoot in low light with wide apertures, and love the results of my 35/2 and 50/2 but do not think very much of the 15 Voightlander I also have. I have borrowed a 24 for a quick shoot and was impressed by the sharpness of the lense and lack of distortion but was wondering whether the images appeared a little 'clinincal'. The 'quality' of the leica images for me is more than the ability to resolve fine detail and I would like to ensure this elusive parameter is in the next lense purchase I make. I make no apgologies for opening another subjective debate, and if you are only interested in what can be measured and scientifically proven then simply resist the temptation to comment......if you can.

-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), July 10, 2001

Answers

If, as you say, the ability to resolve fine detail isn't the main concern, then the earliest 21/4 Super-Angulon-M, 1st-version (non- ASPH) 21 Elmarit,the 21/2.8 Kobalux (aka Adorama),and 20/5.6 Russar are probably your best choices. The 21ASPH, 21/3.4 S/A (and I have heard that the 21/4 Cosina "Voigtlander" is similar to the 21/3.4) might be too sharp for your requirements.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), July 10, 2001.

Richard:

The 24asph is indeed a lazer when it comes to sharpness -- and it offers high contrast. The "clinical" charachteristic you're referring to may be the look the lens produces BECAUSE that razor sharpness and contrast extends corner-to-corner across the image. At any rate, and IMO, it still offers the Leica "look" however, primarily because the Bokeh is still creamy. As for the 21's, I own the latest non-asph, so can only comment on it. It produces sharp images, but clearly is not in the same league as the 24asph. It has a signature that is very similar to my Summilux -- sharp in the center, but slightly soft at the edges, to soft in the corners; and it has good Bokeh. Hope this helps.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 10, 2001.

I've been lurking in this forum way too long...time to post my first response!

I own a first year production 21/4 Super Angulon which I use with my M2. I've heard a lot of people say that this lens isn't quite up to par with the 21/3.4 SA, and definitely not the newer 21/2.8 ASPH lenses. However, I've probably used my lens in most every lighting condition I could think of, and I could not find any weakness to the lens that is worth mentioning. In terms of subjective image quality, there is definitely a 'Leica' feel to the images - I can definitely say it's not as 'clinical' as my 20mm AF-D Nikkor. Granted, the resolving power of my 21/4 may be lower than the latest 21 ASPH, but looking at the feel and quality of the images I find it hard to convince myself to upgrade to the latest 21/2.8 ASPH, although I would like to eventually trade up to a 21/3.4 SA when I could afford it because of the 21/3.4's better handling over the 21/4.

-- Badris (badris@mac.com), July 10, 2001.

One other item... The earlier 21's will not meter properly in an M6. Only the 21 f2.8 and asph will work.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 10, 2001.

Hi Richard,

I recently addressed this very question. After using the 24 ASPH for over a year I decided to sell it and purchase a 21 Super Angulon and after looking over my first roll of film with the 21 SA I have to say that I am happy I made the switch. For me the angle of view of the SA is much more pleasing and the ability to focus as close as 16 inches (although you have to judge the distance as the range finder only focuses to roughly 24 inches) is much better than the 24mm. Make no mistake, the 24mm is a beautiful, sharp, contrasty lens but for me the angle of view and the size, it's big, make the 21 SA a better fit. Of course it does not meter with the M6 which can be a pain and if you did a lenthy test the 24mm would probably come out on top. In practical use it is a more personal decision.

T. Gallagher

-- T. Gallagher (tgallagher10@yahoo.com), July 11, 2001.

Here's some more reading:

MORE ON SUPER-ANGULON

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 11, 2001.

Hey there,

I have both the older 21 and the 21 ASPH. The older lens is a touch softer on the edges and vignettes more than the ASPH. My choice would be Older 21 for portraits and dramatic effect ASPH for architechture and big vistas like mountains. Also the ASPH is a bit easier to get a good exposure on account of the reduced vignetting.

-- Paul Daniels (pauldaniels@hotmail.com), July 12, 2001.

Paul,

Thanks for the correspondence. I have been considering the non aspheric 21, but had sort of been put off by the Erwin Puts report. I am specifically interested in the performance wide open. Any comments on this particular respect would be good. I shoot mostly people and am less fussy about edge detail than about good contrast in low/poor contrast lighting. I often shoot hand held at 1/8 second and get some olvely results with my 35/2 wide open. Obviously the sharpness performance of the lense is less important here. [I still do shoot in mormal light and normal shutter speeds.]

-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), July 12, 2001.