Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Subjective lens impression (6, last part)
From: Alfred Breull <puma@hannover.sgh-net.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 16:27:36 +0200

2.8/28 Elmarit:
The lens was introduced in 1965; there are at least 4 versions (1965,
1972, 1979, 1993). I had an early version, maybe nr 1 or 2. Though it
was remarkable at close distances, it was unsharp above 10 meters. 
I sold it, and purchased a 3.4/21 SA. Recently, I saw b/w pictures taken
with a later version. The lens' rendition was very impressive, but I've 
no own experiences.

3.4/21 Super Angulon:
The 3.4 SA was introduced in 1963 and followed the 4/21 SA (1958). It shows 
its best results between f 4.5 and f 11, I prefer f 8. It is the the only 
super wide, on which I thought a little miracle might have happened 
to the 35 mm format optical industry, and which I judge as impressing as the 
MF 4.5/38 Biogon [ I feel the 4.5/38 as the best super wide I ever saw;
additionally, both lenses (3.4/21 SA and 4.5/38 Biogon) perform very 
similar (sharpness, color rendition, out-of-focus rendition), at least when 
stopped down to f 8 ]. The 3.4/21 is pretty sharp, and comparable to the 
pre-asph (version 4) 2/35 Summicron or rigid chrome 2/50 Summicron. Both, 
the out-of-focus and the color rendition, also agree to the pre-asph 2/35: 
rich and with a lot of shades. In low light (i.e. f 4, 1/30 to 1/60, 200 ASA), 
it additionally accentuates white or bright areas, increasing the modeling
effects. In my experience, the 4/21 M SA performs similar (although less
sharp by far), but both, the 2.8/21 asph Elmarit and 4/21 R SA, perform
remarkably different. Though more sharp, specially at lower f-stops, the 
2.8/21 asph lens shows colors and contrasts, which agree to the color and
contrast rendition/ management of the current 2/50 M Summicron or 1.4/35 
ASPH Summilux, and which I feel as "too strong" or too much saturated 
(not always, but too often). Different, the 4/21 R SA shows a (slightly) 
reduced color scale, specially in bright sun shine. The shadow parts are 
very dark, almost black. And, although this special performence remembers 
on the Summar's color rendition, there is a difference in the viewers picture
perception: The pictures, specially landscapes in bright sun light, get 
"restless", "turbulent", "unsteady", "nervous" (?, phrase). This effect 
results from the large number of changements of bright sun shine and 
(almost) black shadow, which cannot be avoided most of the times. The 
large number of changements results from the wide angle of the lens: 
you simply get "very much" in your picture. Additionally, there is another 
difficulty: Specially unexperienced 21 mm VF/RF users pretty soon get 
desperate, because the forground is "too empty". So, although I feel 
the 3.4/21 SA's rendition as more pleasant, I'd suggest the 4/21 R SA 
to beginners, because it is more easy to create the picture (you get 
what you see). The 3.4/21 is a neutral lens with a slight tendency to
cold, the 4/21 R SA is a warm lens.


2/90 M Summicron:
The 2/90 M Summicron was introduced in 1957 (1980, 2nd version). I know
the 1-st version pretty good, which is so fine, that Leitz needed 22 years 
to replace it by a (slightly) improved version (Erwin).  And, to be honest, 
I hardly see any difference. It shows it's best performance between f 2.8
and 8, with an optimum at f 4, but you will get very fine results at f 8
also. To give an impression of the lens' rendition: Whenever I see a
large (and good !) black & white picture or poster on a wall, kiosk, etc 
showing a person/-s, I have the feeling that this picture _must_ have been 
taken with the 2/90 M Summicron. The idea is my mind, before I realize that 
it's - of course - from an LF camera, and that it should have been less sharp.
But, the example gives an idea, how rich the very special grey tone rendition 
of this lens is (Erwin notes, that she is famous for her "creamy" rendition).
She is definietly less sharp than the 2.8/90 M Elmarit, and is the wrong
lens if you want to document events. But, you will be in the b/w portrait
heaven if you use her for exactly those pictures or "emotional" sceneries,
landscapes included. It's a cold lens.


End.

Hope, it helps and you enjoyed it.

Alf


- --------------------------------------------------

Alfred Breull
http://members.aol.com/abreull/index.htm
http://members.aol.com/mfformat/c-mf.htm