21mm 3.4 Super Elmar distortion?
Old 03-09-2018   #1
oculus
Registered User
 
oculus is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 27
21mm 3.4 Super Elmar distortion?

Greetings! I am relatively new to the forum, so please forgive any social solecisms I may commit.

I purchased a new 21 Super Elmar a few weeks ago. On my digital MP the performance is astounding, no distortion. On film, however, I've noticed what seems to be some distortion in the corners. Please see attached images, in which I perceive distortion on left-bottom corner (46) and on right-top corner (47). I am also aware of the possibility that the perceived distortion may actually be the result of the scan (these are both scanned negatives).

Many thanks for your help and shared expertise, in advance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-09-2018   #2
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,562
As focal length gets shorter, subject in corners has to distort toward corners. Circles will become ellipses. This is a result of trying to get three dimensions onto a flat plane.

Look up earth map projections and you will see it is impossible to image a sphere on a flat plane.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-09-2018   #3
PaulCooper
Registered User
 
PaulCooper's Avatar
 
PaulCooper is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 57
I think I've read somewhere that digital Leica cameras compensate for ditortions of the lens they are coupled to. That's distortion on film only.
__________________
Contax G1, G2, 21/2.8 Biogon G, 35/2.0 Planar G, 90/2.8 SDonnar G, Nikon F4, 180/2.8 Nikkor,
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-09-2018   #4
Rangefinder 35
Registered User
 
Rangefinder 35's Avatar
 
Rangefinder 35 is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Seattle, Washington.
Posts: 356
Look what Ken Rockwell writes about this lens' distortion at http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/21mm-f34-asph.htm
__________________
Contax G2, 21/2. 35/2, 45/2, 90/2.8, Nikon F5, 21/2.8 F Distagon, 50/2.0 F Planar, 100/2.0 F Macro-Planar, 180/2.8 ED Nikkor. 300/4 ED Nikkor
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2018   #5
HenningW
Registered User
 
HenningW's Avatar
 
HenningW is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 207
Leica cameras compensate for lenses' (coded or assigned a code) vignetting and colour shading, but not for distortion.

The 21/3.4 has some distortion, but it's quite small and rarely a problem. The distortion you see is, as noted above, projection distortion and unavoidable in lenses that are very wide angle and are intended to show straight lines as straight.

Ken Rockwell's analysis is hilarious, as is much else of his writing. With respect to 21mm lenses, his main concern seems to be sunstars. Also, his assessment of the old 21/4 is rather off base, as it is definitely a poor performer by today's standards if anything away from the centre is of any importance whatsoever to you.

I've had all of Leica's 21's, and still have the 21/3.4 SE, the 21/1.4, 21/2.8 ASPH and the 16-18-21. Each have their uses, but the SE gets pulled out when the highest performance in good light is needed.

For film, my first choice would be the 21/3.4 SA. But then the specific type of sunstar that KW so desires is not high on my list of photographic achievements. BTW, while it can use 48mm filters, which were fairly common in the 60's, it can also use Series VII which made the filters compatible with the pre-ASPH 35/1.4 and if I used a 50/2 or 90/2.8, the hood of the 35/1.4 with filter in place could be quickly interchanged between the three of them. Very convenient.

Now 46mm is the most common size for Leica, so the 21/3.4 SE fits right in.
__________________
Leica M's, Mamiya 6 's and many off topic items
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2018   #6
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,535
The Zeiss Hologon 16/8 has zero distortion.
__________________
- Raid
________________

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2018   #7
teddy
Jose Morales
 
teddy's Avatar
 
teddy is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenningW View Post
"Ken Rockwell's analysis is hilarious, as is much else of his writing..."
I read Ken's analysis. But didn't find anything hilarious. I wonder what you mean - just out of curiosity...
__________________
View my Flickr space
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseantoniomorales/
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:43.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.