A couple of weeks ago I asked if anyone had done a comparison between the Leitz/Schneider 21mm Super-Angulon-M 3.4 (1964) compared with the (preASPH) 21 Elmarit (1980), optically speaking.

No one had, it seemed. So I decided to do it myself. Here are my first results.

The practical and physical differences between the lenses are pretty obvious and well-known. The Super-Angulon is compact, 1/2 stop slower, and won't work with any of Leica's TTL meters. The Elmarit is larger, faster and will allow TTL metering with anything from an M5 to an M7. The SA is VERY slightly lighter - about 9.1 oz. to the EM's 9.4 oz. (by my postage scale). Both lenses focus to .65 meters with the rangefinder - the SA will also scale-focus on down to .4 meters.

Optical comparisons: (All images for this first segment on Tech Pan film and a tripod - just to keep everyone happy!)

City Hall - Center image quality

City Hall - Corner image quality

Library Interior - for distortion - click underneath for larger/smaller versions

1) Distortion. The retrofocus Elmarit has more than the symmetrical Super-Angulon (well, duhh!). What's interesting is that it is not particularly visible as curved or wavy lines. At least I haven't been able to draw a straight line across any of my scans and show curvature in the Elmarit images. Maybe an experienced architectural photographer could see it.

It DOES show up as a change in image magnification (compared to the SA) from the center to the edges (See the "City Hall" pictures). In the center the EM projects an image slightly (1%-2%?) SMALLER than the SA - i.e. it looks like a 20.5mm lens instead of a 21. Notice that in the same cropped area, the Elmarit images include a tiny bit more of the columns and railings than the SA does.

At the corners the EM projects an image clearly LARGER (10%?) than the SA - e.g. it looks like a 23mm lens. Notice that the bike barely fits in the crop in the EM images, whereas it has lots of space around it in the SA crops.

In addition the EM 'stretches' objects very close to the corners (see round bicycle wheels) more than the SA. (Which, BTW, proves me wrong in one respect - retrofocus lenses WILL, in fact, make heads near the corner of the frame look more football-shaped than true-wide-angle lenses!!)

2) Contrast. The Elmarit has a little more macro-contrast, esp. at wider apertures.

3) Resolution.

a) At the center - flip a coin: both lenses are very close to equal at all apertures. The Elmarit's higher contrast gives it more APPARENT sharpness (especially at low magnifications - e.g. looking at the negs with a 4x-10x loupe.) But once the images are blown up the differences are much smaller - but still a tiny edge to the Elmarit - maybe.

b) At the corners wide open - fairly big difference. The Elmarit smears the image quite a lot. Both lenses have some astigmatism - lines running in/out from the center of the full frame (sagittal/radial?) are sharper than lines running side-on to the center of the frame (tangential). (see the bicycle spokes, e.g.)

c) At the corners stopped down to f/6.8 - improvements in both lenses. The SA doesn't gain a lot of resolution, but increases contrast, edge sharpness and tonal separation - a "clearer" image.

The EM gains a lot more - so that it is essentially equal to the SA except a little smearing due to the retrofocus distortion - on radial lines it's possibly even a little sharper than the SA (see the bicycle's main sprocket) but we're probably into the realm of experimental error here (i.e. i can't guarantee it's not just a scanning variation).

4) Image color. I don't have any scanned examples yet, and I'm not sure the difference is large enough to translate on the web. MY Elmarit is slightly yellower than the Super-Angulon, but then it's also slightly yellower than all my other Leica lenses. In addition the lower contrast of the SA may be due to some veiling flare - which would tend to (for example) make everything a tad blue if there is a lot of blue sky or overcast clouds in the frame - just like the 90 Tele-Elmarit (thin).

Speaking of flare - it's been cloudy here, so I haven't done "into the sun" comparisons yet. But I don't see a big difference so far between the lenses when faced with diffuse light sources (see windows/skylights in the library pictures, especially top of frame.) Both lenses flare a little.

Suffice it to say for now that it's easy to see WHY there's some difference of opinion about which lens is 'better.'

If you're a photojournalist/street photographer the EM's contrast, center resolution, and edge in speed may be more important than a little softness in the corners. If you're doing illustrative or architectural work than the SA's lack of distortion and sharper corners (or even just its compactness) may win out.

Watch this space - I'll add comments and links as I get additional image examples. Any suggestions for additional comparisons between THESE two lenses gratefully accepted. But don't ask me to also include the 21 ASPH and/or the Voigtlander 21 - two 21s around the house is probably one too many as it is. =8^o

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 04, 2002

Answers

Andy, nice work! Viewing the comparisons on screen, the SA seems contrastier & sharper, but I don't have the ability to look at these shots at 300 dpi+. At least you at using proper methodology -- same view, same aperture, etc. So many of the lens "comparisons" posted here compare apples to oranges & then ask, Gee--which lens is best?... A possible additional test -- close focus/distortion comparison? Both lens at the same subject at say, 4 or 5 feet? Your shots must have been at infinity. But all in all, great work!

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), April 04, 2002.

Andy, thanks for your time and share, I personaly like the SA, it is so compact and does pretty well, I would find imposible to ride on those bikes. ; )

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 04, 2002.

andy -- fine work. your results comports precisely with my own experience. what a great site this would be if your post was typical of what people contributed.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), April 04, 2002.

Cool. This is the type of stuff I like to see! :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 04, 2002.

Well done Andy! I like it a lot. Well if there was anything you, and we all shoudl've learnt from the "Erwin Puts test reports" post is, is that submitting the "actual" pictures used in the review process is a great way of supporting your claims. Sure they could've been taken from anywhere with any lens, but if the review is consistent with what can be seen in the images, the credibililty of the review increases.

As seen here from Anydy's accomplished efforts. And his english was clear and understandable, quite unlike some of Erwin's reviews (see end of 90APO review against 80/1.4). No racism intended! It just helps to read something understandable in relatively plain english. (my english is far from perfect!).

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 04, 2002.

Thanks' Andy, but do you have to keep posting stuff that makes me wish I'd settled in Denver? It doesn't take much.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 04, 2002.

Is this review subjective? "YES, I belive so", in a posh sounding voice. Is this a problem? "NO, I belive not". Why? "Because most of us here are also subjective", in a humourous voice.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 04, 2002.

Andy- Excellent work! There have been so many 50 Elmar-M vs. 50 Summicron-M that I wish we could see a comparison of those two, side- by-side, just as you did with these 21s.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), April 04, 2002.

Thanks Andy,

Your review is informative, well written and, although convincing, doesn't give me a feeling of "the reviewer tried to impose his views on me". With the promissed additions it will be a piece of reference. Cheers.

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), April 05, 2002.

I have a 21mm f4 super angulon. I havent used it too much yet... I took some shots at Yankee Stadium with it. I forgot what f stop I used but somehow I am pretty sure it was at f4. It was towards sunset and the sun was just off the composition and there was some strong flare. But the parts of the picture that didnt flare had the nicest gradations you can imagine - every shade of grey. Many people knock the older super angulon for flare but I wonder how bad it really is when compared to the other 21mm. I am not a flare expert and do not know how to judge what is too much flare for a given focal length.
My question to you guys would be -- how much help would a hood be for a 21mm focal length? As I understand it's really only of help if the strong light source is just off the composition... And the hood for the SA costs a bomb!

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), April 05, 2002.

Nicely done test. What it tells me is that either lens is good enough that, if the image doesn't work, it's not fair to blame the equipment.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 05, 2002.

Russell, I once read of the great capability of 21/4M to handle flare, even better than Elmarit, this acording to that test that I readed. I had that lens for years and never had a flare problem, on the other side it was quite fussy wide open.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 05, 2002.