Re: [Leica] Test report that ends all reports?(21 and 135 issues)

[nbwatson@juno.com (N. B. Watson)]

Ok, here is my opinion; Erwin's will probably be different because he is
much more of a scientist in his outlook. 
 I am more concerned with a lens' performance in my own style of use. 
I nearly always shoot with a camera support, even if only a Leitz
table-pod.
With Leica-M focal lengths I am nearly always stopped down to the
mid-to-smaller apertures for DOF.
I nearly always use Velvia with the Leica.
I rarely enlarge 35mm to more than 14x11. For "large" prints I choose 6x7
or 5x4 formats.
Given *my* preferences, *perhaps* I would appreciate the improvements of
the 135 APO over the TE, but I won't know that until I actually shoot it
even though I do not doubt Erwin's results in the least.  Given that my
mint late-model TE is worth only about 1/2 the price of a new APO it
would take *quite* an eye-popping difference to persuade me to sell one
for the other.  
OTOH, the 21 SA must be used either with a handheld meter or else
metering must be done with another lens and then swtiched.  There was a
reason to suffer with this whilst the earlier 21 was the only other
choice, because it had more distortion than the SA.  Now, especially
given that a mint, late black SA is worth nearly 75% of a new ASPH (more,
if compared to a mint  ASPH) I would not hesitate to make the switch.

Regards,
Nigel

As to the SA vs 21-ASPH, 
On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 19:00:59 -0500 "A S Jordan"
<andrewsjordan@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>Nigel, Erwin et al.:
>
>Thanks for the outstanding test reports and the ensuing enlightening
>discussions with respect to the new Leica optics. I have been using a 
>21f3.4
>SA and less frequently a 135f4 TE for about 15 years. Both old test 
>reports
>and my own experience indicate that these are outstanding lenses.
>I accept the general conclusion confirmed by Erwin's studies that the 
>21
>asph and the 135 apo are superior to their predecessors. Some 
>questions:
>
>1. Will the improvements show up if  the camera is hand held?
>2. Does one need the finest emulsion film (Kodachrome 25 and 64 or 
>Fuji
>equivalents)  to see  the advantage of the new designs?
>Depending on the answer to these questions and one's  individual
>photographic style,  upgrading to the latest  may not make much sense 
>even
>if funds to do so are readily available.
>3. Is there any activity in Solms to incorporate a multifocal finder 
>in the
>M line? Neither of these lenses is useable without an external finder. 
>The
>21 is self-evident. But the frameline for the 135 mm lens in the 
>M4,5,6  is
>almost useless. I have no experience with the M3 or M6HM but I doubt 
>that a
>20% increase in finder dimensions is sufficient for accurate framing. 
>With
>the 1970s version of the TE, I solve this problem either by using a 
>135mm
>brightline finder or mounting the lenshead on a R body via the
>16464(focusing mount) and 14167(M-to-R adapter).   Both are clumsy
>approaches.
>Clearly the design and incorporation of a multifocal finder in the 
>"M7" is
>more urgently needed by the M user than the ultimate performance 
>permitted
>by the latest asph or apo lenses.
>
>Regards, Andrew Jordan
>
>
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]