View Full Version : The "slow" 21mm's - Se 21f3.4/SA 21f3.4/C Biogon 21f4.5 and more
I have now put 20 + rolls through my Super Elmar 21mm f3.4 and can have some opinions about it.
It is very good, as it should be at $2500+. The MTF curves does not lie - at f3.4 it is amazingly even across the image field. Very little edge fall-off.
It is quite compact, fits the camera and hands very well - and compared to the venerable 21f3.4 Super Angulon - you can actually operate the aperture ring without using foul language!
Before you start asking, I dont see any significant difference between the C-Biogon 21f4.5 and the new Super Elmar 21 - supposedly the Elmar has a bit more distorsion but so far I haven't encountered any significant samples of it.
I thnk the biggest difference lies in that extra 3/4 stop you get with the Super Elmar. We were in N.Y. and Pittsburgh a couple of weeks ago. Pittsburgh was part of the LHSA annual meeting and the big draw for me was a chance to see Frank Lloyd Wrights "Falling Water" house. The interior is a bit "gloomy" and as no tripods are allowed, it was "available darkness" - mostly 1/4s or 1/8s and f3.4 with TriX @ 320.
I will start put up some shots with the Super Elmar and other "slow" 21's.http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6234/6287213355_7ca49e6c13_z.jpg
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6225/6287734226_9e18e50a9f_z.jpg
This is "hope over experience" shot - 1/2 s @ 3.4. I did brace myself against one of the rocks in the wall. Love this staircase too - would take hours to get up as you would find books to read while climbing it!
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6107/6287213933_f5da5cf4af_z.jpg
The living room of "Falling Water" - this shot is a bit deciving as I found the interior of this house a bit cramped and uncomfortable. Low ceilings (7 ft) and narrow doorways - and equally narrow stairs!
The Arts and Craft Movement did some nice stuff - but comfortable chairs was not one of them. Mr Kaufmann of Kaufmanns department store who commisioned the house, evidently brought in some of his own once FLW left the building.
Nice stuff, Tom. I haven't been able to get one--apparently the first batch were all recalled for some soft of flaw? Is yours a new one post-recall?
Jeff
The first batch could "bind" on some M9's so they recalled the small series that had been shipped and replaced the rear mount. Mine still has the first version mount - and now has become a highly collectible!!!!! There is no difference in performance. Supposedly they are starting to ship them as we speak.
Tom
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6039/6274224482_d426278e17_z.jpg
This is in my opinion F.L Wrights most successful building - The N.Y. Guggenheim Museum.
1/60 and f3.4 in flat evening light.
These are very nice photos Tom! I'm getting my CB21 tomorrow as there's no way I could afford a $2500+ lens!
Hope to see some colors as well.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4126/5091458552_cec16e67a0_z.jpg
Just for comparison, Zeiss C-Biogon 21f4.5 @ 4.5 and 1/15s. Musee De L'Automobile, Mulhouse, France
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2575/4099018566_0fee5078e4_z.jpg
Old shot with a Super Angulon 21f3.4 - TriX in D76/M4-2.
The SA 21f3.4 is a bit of a "drama" queen among the wide-angles - but it has look that is unique to it. Very sharp center - even at 3.4 - slight softening of the edges and significant vignetting - but who cares - it is a great lens.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2406/2150560350_66a9537a26_z.jpg
From another visit to Musee De L'Automobile. Leica MP and Voigtlander Color Skopar 21mm f4.0. Remembering the lightlevel there, probably at f4 and 1/15s. TriX/D76
The Color Skopar has a bit more vignetting, but less than the Super Angulon 21 - and it is amazingly straight rendering.
.
Snobs! Nary a Ford F-150 in the bunch.
.
sebastel
10-27-2011, 20:38
the schlumpf's(*) were into bugatti, not ford.
(the schlumpf collection was the starting point of the cite de l'automobile (http://citedelautomobile.com/en/home))
.
Snobs! Nary a Ford F-150 in the bunch.
.
But there is a Bugatti pick-up truck in the collection - and i do agree, it does not have the best truck of them all, the Ford 150.
Tom
You make me miss my 21/f4 Color Skopar, even if it probably has nothing on the Super Elmar. Love the staircase pictures, dark yet fully detailed.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6135/5935763358_f92fc3a766_z.jpg
This is with the old Nikon F 21mm f4.0. By using the Voigtlander F-S adapter you can put this lens on a Nikon RF camera. Uncoupled - but with a 21 it is not a big problem, if you stop it down and dont do too close focussing. It is a pretty good 21, some edge fall-off. It is very compact as most of the lens protrudes into the camera and only about 20 mm sticks out - highly pocketable. There is an original version for the Nikon Rf - but it is a/ extremely expensive and b/difficult to find in clean shape. My Voigtlander adapter and the 21f4 in F-mount cost me about 10% what a RF version of this lens would be - and they are very similar in performance!
Nikon S2, Nikkor 21mm f4.0, Kodak 5231 (+X movie stock) in Beutler 1:1:10/6.5 min.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3508/3733658758_d6abfc4367_z.jpg
In the 50's the 21 to have was the Zeiss Biogon 21mm f4.5. It was the best available - and even into the early 60's many working photographers were using M cameras, but carried a Contax II/III or a Nikon Rf with this lens on it. Until the arrival of the Zeiss C-Biogon 21f4.5 in M-mount - it was the straight drawing lens of them all. Minimal distorsion and though the new C Biogon improved upon it - it still can hold its own, even against the latest offerings.
Ergonomics "sucked" though. Miniscule engravings, black on chrome (aperture scale) and equally small distance scale! It is also heavy - but that is the build quality - second to none, even today.
Never found a hood for mine - dont even know if there ever was one!
In 1964 we got the Super Angulon 21f3.4 - more convinient - but the old Biogon still gets out now and then.
The shot is of a Camera Obscura at the University Of BC (UBC). The flare is not due to the lens - it is the film. It is Agfa Scopix X-ray film, rated a 100 iso and processed in Beutler, 1:1:10/10 min. This film lacks anti-halation backing, hence the flare. Very fine grain and a bit unpredictable results - I like it though, maybe just because of that.
Nokton48
10-28-2011, 13:03
Hello Again Tom,
Nice shots of Falling Water. I have been there four times myself, although each time I packed a 4x5 Sinar Norma to do exterior shooting. Did you check out the waterfalls and the views from downstream?
-Dan
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/133/405863525_bf1b797f76_b.jpg
This is with my last "slow" 21 ( at least for the moment- who knows what will pop up at the next swap-meet?). This is with a limited production Ricoh 21mm f3.5 in screw-mount. It was just a small run of maybe 500 in black and 5-800 in chrome in 1995. Tiny little lens, very good performance. Small enough that aperture control is done with small lever as it is difficult operate otherwise.
This is the Tokyo International Centre - roof has a viking ship look to it - and yes, I know it is slightly tilted but a/ the world is round not flat and b/ the security guard was trying to stop me from shooting!
Neopan 100, Beutler 1:1:8 10 min. I think it was on a M2.
Hello Again Tom,
Nice shots of Falling Water. I have been there four times myself, although each time I packed a 4x5 Sinar Norma to do exterior shooting. Did you check out the waterfalls and the views from downstream?
-Dan
Dan, I was wishing for a 4x5 or even a 8x10 when I was looking at the building. The 667W had to do. We had limited time there - and for most of time the weather was rather gloomy.
On the other hand, I was happy that I did not have to lug a 4x5/8x10 on those rather muddy trails. The downstream trail was impossible for me to tackle (my legs are rather crappy - so I pick my trails carefully). It is place one wants to back to - as is Pittsburgh and it's surroundings.
Tom
helenhill
10-28-2011, 15:52
Oh Hello T
Really Love your first three shots : Falling Water/Super Elmar
Just Fantastic !!
The Drama Queen SA also won my Heart
Very Cool Slow Wide Lenses -
Thanks for All the Comoarisons in Glass
Tom, any preference for the Ricoh over the C-Biogon? I enjoy the Biogon however at times I desire a bit more speed. The Ricoh / Super Elmar are looking appealing as well as a converted G Biogon f/2.8.
Thank you Tom for the gorgeous shots of Falling Water. Your observations of its darkness and crampness are very interesting. I would like to know if your access to the interior was anything out of the ordinary for a typical tourist: i.e., whether you had to get special permission to either access certain interior areas, or take the photos.
Would your experience of the interior have been much different if you had visited during another season?
Thanks,
Mike
Mike, I think because it was arranged by LHSA (Leica Historical Society of America)we were given a bit more freedom to shoot the interior stuff. I really dont know if a "regular" visitor would have the same access. I suspect that if you talked to them beforehand, they would be amenable to interior shots. They did not allow tripods etc - which makes sense as it is a bit cramped and carrying backpacks, tripods etc could upset the order of things. They tend to split groups in to 10-12 people at the time - just to avoid traffic jams in narrow stairs and doorways. Well worth visiting.
Tom, any preference for the Ricoh over the C-Biogon? I enjoy the Biogon however at times I desire a bit more speed. The Ricoh / Super Elmar are looking appealing as well as a converted G Biogon f/2.8.
The C-Biogon is a better lens - and much cheaper than the "collectible" Ricoh - particularly the black version. In my opinion the the C-Biogon is still the best 21 around - with the Super Elmar close behind. At f3.4 the Super Elmar is astounding, dead even across the field etc - but @ a $1500 premium over the 21 C-Biogon - the Biogon still holds the top-spot, even with a 3/4 f stop penalty in speed. Either lens is better than we really need or, in most cases we can't use the full capability of the lens.
To make full use of it, you need to put either lens on a tripod, with a spirit level and slow film (tech Pan/Pan F etc).
Nokton48
10-28-2011, 18:15
I recall I stopped to shoot several minutes inside Falling Water, and the group moved on. It was then a catch-up, and finding the group again was a challenge, as the space is a bit of a maze inside. Another group was not that far behind us.
tstermitz
10-28-2011, 23:01
I visited Falling Water over Thangksgiving weekend last year, and caught the last tour of the day. That was special because when it ended I could photograph at dusk with the lights coming on.
Our tour guide said no photographs inside, and when I snapped a shot on one of the verandas, she nicely reminded me not to take pictures. I think it is more about preventing lots of flashes disturbing the atmosphere. You can do special, longer tours which include permission for taking photos.
Falling Water is rather smaller than you would expect, (certainly when compared with suburban US McMansions of the 1990s and 2000s), and as Tom says the hallways are downright cramped. Guest bedrooms are very small, but each suite has its own private veranda. As they say, Falling Water creates a living environment within the forest, not separate from the forest. There is a wonderful, wonderful sense of space.
This picture was shot with Sensia 100 (I would have much prefered velvia) with my M6 and a 50mm summicron. I was pushing 1/15 second and leaning against a tree because I had lost my leica tabletop tripod the day before.
http://www.photokinesis.info/Travel/Travel/i-j2mwmZJ/0/M/00820031-M.jpg
I visited Falling Water over Thangksgiving weekend last year, and caught the last tour of the day. That was special because when it ended I could photograph at dusk with the lights coming on.
Our tour guide said no photographs inside, and when I snapped a shot on one of the verandas, she nicely reminded me not to take pictures. I think it is more about preventing lots of flashes disturbing the atmosphere. You can do special, longer tours which include permission for taking photos.
Falling Water is rather smaller than you would expect, (certainly when compared with suburban US McMansions of the 1990s and 2000s), and as Tom says the hallways are downright cramped. Guest bedrooms are very small, but each suite has its own private veranda. As they say, Falling Water creates a living environment within the forest, not separate from the forest. There is a wonderful, wonderful sense of space.
This picture was shot with Sensia 100 (I would have much prefered velvia) with my M6 and a 50mm summicron. I was pushing 1/15 second and leaning against a tree because I had lost my leica tabletop tripod the day before.
http://www.photokinesis.info/Travel/Travel/i-j2mwmZJ/0/M/00820031-M.jpg
Great shot. I like the interior lights coming through.
Tom
Tom,
You once wrote that you recall the W-Rokkor 21mm/4 not to be sharp. Is that something you are sure of? Thanks.
ZivcoPhoto
10-30-2011, 19:47
Tom A.
You have inspired me to get my 21mm Biogon F2.8 ZM on the M2 and get out and shoot some film.
I know you have a 21mm F4.5 Nikon S (read Carl Zeiss Biogon for Contax IIA) mount lens, how would you rate that with the new 3.4 Elmar?
Thanks Tom
Bob
ZivcoPhoto
10-30-2011, 19:52
Tom A
I missed your Biogon shot below...other than the flare issue how would you compare it with the 3.4 Elmar?
Bob
Tom,
You once wrote that you recall the W-Rokkor 21mm/4 not to be sharp. Is that something you are sure of? Thanks.
Raid. I tried a couple of them and neither one was particularly good - at least compared to the SA. It was also a bit 'clumsy" to use.
Tom
Tom A
I missed your Biogon shot below...other than the flare issue how would you compare it with the 3.4 Elmar?
Bob
There is of course almost 54 years difference between the old Biogon 21f3.4 and the latest Super Elmar 21f3.4. Technology did march on, particularly with coatings and new glass.
I like the old 21f4.5 - but part is for sentimental reasons (just as with the 21 SA) but also for the rendering it has. Sharp and quite distinct look to it. The flare issue is not big, for a lens almost reaching "retirement" age. If you have direct sunlight hitting the front glass it can show a bit of veiling flare - but not enough to worry about. Just keep it in mind when using it.
If you are shooting color, I would suggest the Color Skopar 21f4 in S-mount instead. More modern glass, better coating and cheaper! For bl/w the Biogon looks very much like 50's and 60's - especially with films like TriX.
Biggest problem is filters and some kind of hood - mainly to protect the font element. It is also a heavy bugger - you know that there is a lot of brass and steel in it - and the aforementioned ergonomics - you spend a lot of time peering at aperture and focus ring trying to figure out which number is being referred to!
Tom
ZivcoPhoto
10-31-2011, 21:17
Thanks Tom
Yes I have the 21mm F4 CV in S mount and it also is outstanding......but the 21 F4.5 Biogon on my SP is a sentimental favorite....and I do like the old time look with color especially.
Vince advised me to use a step-up ring on the 21mm Biogon - 40.5 to 43mm for a quasi - type hood and I guess it is effective, I never take it off...I use a 43mm lens cap on the step up ring. The step up ring does not seem to vignette using the lens wide open.
Bob
Tony Whitney
10-31-2011, 21:38
Loved your Falling Water images, Tom! As a Wright junkie, it's always been my dream to go there, but it's a long way from Vancouver. When I do make it, I'll certainly have my Leica with me - if not with a Leica 21 mm (CV 15 mm maybe)...Tony Whitney
Tom, thank you for this thread - very interesting, as I am more and more interested in 21mm.
Do you have an opinion on the Konica Hexanon Dual 21-35 f3.4-4 lens, that has been made around 2002 as a limited set?
I have been looking for a while now for my first 21mm lens, to try out and finally bought one of those Konica lenses as my very first 21mm.
I like the lens a lot so far, but have no idea, how well it compares to other offerings (especially the lenses, you named in the thread).
Tom, thank you for this thread - very interesting, as I am more and more interested in 21mm.
Do you have an opinion on the Konica Hexanon Dual 21-35 f3.4-4 lens, that has been made around 2002 as a limited set?
I have been looking for a while now for my first 21mm lens, to try out and finally bought one of those Konica lenses as my very first 21mm.
I like the lens a lot so far, but have no idea, how well it compares to other offerings (especially the lenses, you named in the thread).
I had one of these for several years. Very large and a bit clumsy - but very good performance - particularly at the 21 setting. I found that I rarely used the 35 setting as I found it a bit slow. As a 21 it is on par with a 21f2.8 Asph Elmarit - which is high praise indeed. Mind you, you dont need to do weight training carrying it around!
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2059/2350832413_fa1756200c_z.jpg
exanon 21-35 in 35 mode. TriX in PCK, Leica M2
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3124/2350830713_7725573daa_z.jpg
Hexanon 21-35 in 21 mode.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/2351661206_8d1abe536e_z.jpg
Hexanon 21-35 in 35mm mode and @ f4. This was with Across 100, developed in PCK.
Tom, thank you very much for your input and samples ;-)
This is my very first 21mm and I am eager, to know, how what I see in my sample compares to the giants of 21mm lenses.
I have to agree, that the Hexanon 21-35 is a bit unwieldy at first, but I do love the ergonomics of the focus tab and the really beautiful, effortless focussing.
The distance scale is also first rate (I think in meter and find the scale's readability better than one or the other Leica lens).
Finder obstruction is big - the front element and added hood is huge indeed.
I could only shoot the lens during the night so far.
How does the contrast of the lens compare to other 21mm lenses (I was surprised, how much shadow detail was there (I clipped some black, to add contrast in these photos)? All photos made with 21mm on M9.
Of course, I am curious on the differences to the new Leica 21 f3.4 :)
http://www.teknopunk.com/images/2011-11-07%20Konica%20M-Hexanon%20dual%2021-35%20f3.4-4/L1004861-Maserati%20GT%20-%20M9%20Konica%20Hexar%20Dual%2021-35%20f3.4-4.jpg
http://www.teknopunk.com/images/2011-11-07%20Konica%20M-Hexanon%20dual%2021-35%20f3.4-4/L1004876-watching%20TV.jpg
http://www.teknopunk.com/images/2011-11-07%20Konica%20M-Hexanon%20dual%2021-35%20f3.4-4/L1004920-Police%20and%20street%20vendors.jpg
http://www.teknopunk.com/images/2011-11-07%20Konica%20M-Hexanon%20dual%2021-35%20f3.4-4/L1004981-cool%20bikers%20from%20US.jpg
With 21's it is more the subject and user skill that counts. They are all very good - and, possibly one benefit you would see with the SE 21f3.4 versus the Hexanon 21-35 is the smaller size.
I think it is more important to "shoot" oneself in with an extreme angle lens than anything else anyway.
Like your stuff too - the two guys on the bicycles are a good example of using a 21 to give a bit drama to the image.
If you go to Flickr and use the tag "Leica Super Elmar 21mm f3.4 Aspherical" there is some 60-70 shots done with the lens in the last month.
Tom
sebastel
11-08-2011, 17:57
dirk,
if you want to try it, use my ZM21mm/4.5 for a test ride. but be warned, the M9 shows nasty purple edges with it.
cheers,
sebastian
With 21's it is more the subject and user skill that counts. They are all very good - and, possibly one benefit you would see with the SE 21f3.4 versus the Hexanon 21-35 is the smaller size.
I think it is more important to "shoot" oneself in with an extreme angle lens than anything else anyway.
Like your stuff too - the two guys on the bicycles are a good example of using a 21 to give a bit drama to the image.
If you go to Flickr and use the tag "Leica Super Elmar 21mm f3.4 Aspherical" there is some 60-70 shots done with the lens in the last month.
Tom
Tom, yes, there is still a long way to go, exploring 21mm - my interest is all there now ;-)
I think, I am not interested for now in another 21mm - the Konica is just a few days fresh.
Reason for asking was mainly, that I had no comparison for performance and saw some strange behavior.
It has been corrected now (collimation of the lens for use on digital cameras).
The first test shots show much improved sharpness - interestingly across the frame - I am surprised.
dirk,
if you want to try it, use my ZM21mm/4.5 for a test ride. but be warned, the M9 shows nasty purple edges with it.
cheers,
sebastian
Hey Sebastian - thanks for the offer ;-)
Are you in Shanghai these days?
Let's meet up and do some wide angle shooting maybe?
The M9 also shows purple corners, light falloff and distortion with the Konica, but you can code the lens in the camera as a 21 Elmarit pre ASPH and the files are amazing!
edit [strange confusion of mind led me to believe of something weird regarding the Hex' focus coupling to Leica bodies]
Getting the hang of 21mm now - love that focal length.
It is just the perfect bit more wide than the 28, I never really got the feel for.
It has just the perfect wide angle distortion, to still look natural, but add that little drama, wide shots live from.
Here a photo that I made yesterday at night in the beach of Hendaye (Basque Coutry - France) with the C Biogon T* 4.5/21:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6223/6338823166_bbfb6486b5_b.jpg
M9 + C Biogon T* 4.5/21 [ISO800 + F5.6 + 250seconds]
Shab: Love the beaches in your area; wonderful surf.
.
Any thoughts on the 21mm f/4 SA? My understanding is that it is the only 21 Leitz produced for LTM. I have a IIIg that I'd like get a 21mm for and have just been offered a 21 SA, but it is a bit pricy compared to the CV.
Douglas
Douglas, no contest. Get the CV 21f4. Much better lens. I have had the Super Angulon 21f4 LTM - in fact I have had several of them and always found them a bit "bland" and not that good. Mind you - I used them against the SA 21f3.4.
I think only reason for a SA 21f4 is the fact that it takes 39 mm filters!!!!
anu L ogy
12-28-2011, 19:24
Tom,
Do you know if caps for the 3.4 sa w the hood on are manufactured by anyone? I
Jim
35mmdelux
12-28-2011, 19:36
Great photos! Tom you are on a roll.
Tom,
Do you know if caps for the 3.4 sa w the hood on are manufactured by anyone? I
Jim
I have never seen a cap that would fit a SA's hood. There used to be a cap that would go on the lens (using the "pins" on the lens front to hold it in place). Had one, lost it (happens to most of my caps).
Great photos! Tom you are on a roll.
When it comes to 21's - i think I have been on a roll for the last 50 years!!!!!
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6226/6286575848_cf68d8deaf_z.jpg
New York, Super Elmar 21f3.4 on a Bessa R4M. Dont exactly know what they are doing - but they did it with gusto!
jan normandale
12-28-2011, 20:20
Tom those hand held shots in "Falling Water" are amazing considering the speeds you have used for the shots. Makes me want a 21mm. I'll have to think about this now you've planted a seed..
;D
Jan, I used a Bessa R4M (with a minisoftie) - gives about a stop slower speed capability. I am lucky in that I have a "steady" hand. I would like to attribute it to "clean" living - but I suspect it is dumb luck.
Hi Tom, you pictures from Super Elmar 21f3.4 look super sharp to me.... I like the look a lot.
kermaier
12-28-2011, 20:34
Tom,
Do you know if caps for the 3.4 sa w the hood on are manufactured by anyone? I
Jim
The Leica 14040 hood cap for the 35/1.4 Summilux Asph will fit nicely on the 12501 SA hood.
Ari
Hi Tom, you pictures from Super Elmar 21f3.4 look super sharp to me.... I like the look a lot.
The 21f3.4 SE is sharp even wide-open - but having looked at some of my other 21's - not sharper than the 21f4.5 C Biogon - just a stop faster. Where it shines is in how even it is across the image field, even at f3.4.
Douglas, no contest. Get the CV 21f4. Much better lens. I have had the Super Angulon 21f4 LTM - in fact I have had several of them and always found them a bit "bland" and not that good. Mind you - I used them against the SA 21f3.4.
I think only reason for a SA 21f4 is the fact that it takes 39 mm filters!!!!
Thanks, Tom. I'll continue using a 21mm Contax Biogon with an Amedeo adapter (centered, not 1mm low) that goes on my If or Ig - however, it's one of those that has very faint aperture markings and really drives me nuts, even with bifocals.
Douglas
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7169/6602059547_85d452da99_z.jpg
Doing some close up stuff with my V-Elmar 65f3.5 and decided to look for something more interesting. This is the "troika" of 21's that I am currently using.
The SE 21f3.4 is the largest, but not too large. The C Biogon 21f3.5 is the most compact and also the most "linear" of the three. The SA 21f3.4 is the oldest (a1979/80 version - last of a line).
They are all good and will do what you want a slow 21 to do - with minimal fuss. Both the SE 21f3.4 and the C Biogon are about as good as you would ever need - and the SA 21f3.4 is a trip back to 2 stops edge darkening and 60/70's style images.
Richard G
12-30-2011, 14:04
Is the G 21 as straight as the C Biogon?
sepiareverb
12-30-2011, 14:17
Don't have the graph for the C Biogon, but here is the G 21.
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff221/sepiareverb/G-Biogondistortion.jpg
zm 21/4.5 c-biogon
http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zm/21mm-f45/charts/distortion-0600.gif
sepiareverb
12-30-2011, 14:27
Beat me to it fbf!
Here we have a winner 16/8 hologon :D
http://photoog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/hologon_mtf.png
sepiareverb
12-30-2011, 15:45
The 16 is remarkably straight.
And as we see the G21 is not as straight as the C-Biogon.
But, to put it in perspective here is the SE 21/3.4, the same graph and actual distortion for 1/4 of the image area:
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff221/sepiareverb/21-34.jpg
Years ago I had the Hologon 15f8 - and yes, it is very straight but also a miserable lens to use! F8 if you could live with the dark corners - and f16 if you used the compensating filter. Limited use as an all round ultra wide.
I have shot with the Hologon 16 and also the G21 - but not enough to have any opinions about either lens.
I find that if I have to some something that requires straight edges and all that - I go for the C-Biogon 21. The Super Elmar is a good lens for "normal" shooting, i.e no tripod, no spirit levels etc.
Will be interesting to see which one which wins out in the end as my preferred user. It takes me quite some time to settle on a lens anyway. The 0.5 close focus on the C-Biogon is another thing that I like - and use. Probably will be a case where I keep both handy and use the alternating days or something like that - with the VC 21f4 and the SA 21f3.4 for other days!
David Murphy
12-30-2011, 16:04
Beautiful photos. Thanks for this informative presentation.
Travis L.
12-30-2011, 16:04
Douglas, no contest. Get the CV 21f4. Much better lens. I have had the Super Angulon 21f4 LTM - in fact I have had several of them and always found them a bit "bland" and not that good. Mind you - I used them against the SA 21f3.4.
I think only reason for a SA 21f4 is the fact that it takes 39 mm filters!!!!
I had an M mount 21 f4CV for a while and it never really grew on me.
My f4 Super Angulon on the other hand.... I love!
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t27/lewisaurus/1959mbz_sm.jpg
M3 21 f4SA on HP5
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.