Super-Angulon or Elmar?

What type of distortion do you like on the 21mm R Super-Angulon? Ordinary wide-angle distortion, which is there on any rectilinear wide-angle lens? Or pinchushion or barrel distortion, which it's a challenge to avoid on retrofocus lenses, and much easier to avoid on symmetric lenses like the M Super-Angulon.

 

The ordinary wide-angle distortion, which makes circles into ellipses in the corners of the field, is simply a function of focal length.

 

Also consider the levels of light falloff in the various 21mm lenses. It can be noticeable.

i just got today my new m7 .58 Chrome and i have to say it has been a long time that a new camera as

made me happy. Mamiya 7 was to make my life easy wile i was traveling, my hassy was side tracking me

from vacation...the 5D make me want to quit my job, and the new baby m7 make me stick with

photography and reminded me why i have become a photographer in the first place!

 

Here my question and you have been there before me and i think your help will be important. For 18

years my favorite lens was the 21 R Super-Angulon and i have used it 95% of the time, let's say it match

my eye. Now i have been reading a lot about the 24 Asph. to be an amazing lens and I was until today

going to purchase one but had a second thought. Everybody are saying the 24mm have very little

distortion, but i do like the distortion on my Super-Angulon and would like to hear if some of you had a

chance to compare them. I will buy a tri-elmar for my M2 and need a prime lens for the m7...21 or 24mm?

 

It took me that long to switch system, but it's never too late!

 

Tomorrow i will take it for a ride...with a 1960 Cron' f5cm...no other m lenses to play yet!

 

Thanks for your thought.

If you were happy with the 21 R, why would think a 24 would be better in the M line?

 

21 and 24 ASPH lenses are of equal quality.

 

Keep your lenses in the same vintage. A new design 21 or 24 would better match with a new 50.

The Tri-Elmar will give you a 28mm focal length. Adding a 24 is a small but useful step wider; but I wonder if you might prefer a larger step, from 28 down to 21.

 

The 24mm Elmarit-M is an especially well corrected and low distortion lens. But if it isn't the most useful focal length for your system of lenses, it might not be the best choice. That said, something in its favor is that I can shoot my 24mm, if I so choose, through the .58 finder on my M6. No, the framing is not quite accurate, using the full width of the finder. But with a little judgment, it is usually quite good enough. I have not been disappointed with the resulting pictures. I can use the 24mm bright frame to align verticals with good accuracy. I have the 24mm finder for when I need it.

 

I haven't noticed any distortion in my 21mm Super-Angulon f/3.4, 21mm Elmarit ASPH, or 24mm Elmarit ASPH, that wasn't my fault for my choice of camera angle.

 

Oh . . . don't forget to pick up a 28mm finder for your M2, if you are going to use the Tri-Elmar on it.

Thanks all,

 

i bought a .58 to be able to use the 24mm with out the view finder as Rob is doing, and

this is why i wanted to buy a 24mm and not a 21mm. Also as a prime lens the 24mm

would be a good one too for architecture, some times the 21 is a bit too wide.

 

John, thank you to explain on the barrel distortion corrected on the M lenses, now i know

if i take a 21mm it won't match my R 21.

 

I might stay with the 24mm choice and get a 25/28 zeiss finder to do the job on the M2 as

well.

 

Rob, you were saying the M2 doesn't have a 28mm frame, so then 35/50/90 right?

If you want a fantastic 25mm, consider the Zeiss Biogon 2.8/25 ZM. This baby is surely one of the best WA lenses available for 35mm. Oh, and it's much less expensive than the Leica.

Roby

 

I have the Super-Angulon-R and although it was a good 21mm for 1970 the 24 Asph for the M is in an altogether different league. The 21R only gets sharp right into the corners at f8. This, I am sure, is not the case with the 24mm ASPH (I don't have one, but its reputation precedes it). There is more wide angle distortion with a 21mm than with a 24mm obviously, but this is simply due to its greater angle of view. As to which of these lenses has less optical distortion (i.e. aberration) then I feel certain that the 21R is worse, simply because it is a much older design. The 21R is OK distortion-wise I have found, but the 24mm ASPH is surely better.

Roby, I forget the part number (something like ....228, I think), but Leitz once made an R to M adapter that might make your R lens suitable for scale-focussing (adequate) on the M7. Maybe hard to find, but a WTB on Photo.Net may turn up one. Agree, however, that the post 1990 Leica (and Zeiss-Cosina) super wide angles are much better designs, especially wide open. But they are expensive, and an adapter would not be.

Addendum: I noticed Cameraquest sells custom 3rd party R to M adapters at a good price (about 130$), upon special order.

thanks for the idea of an adapter, but i 'm thinking to sell once for all my R system, i don't

work with it anymore, i love it but too much money sitting on gear.

 

Once i was thinking to part out my M2 cause i was using it once a year, now from 3 R body

and 6 R lenses i am doing a complete switch to the M. It is better for vacation and to carry

it around for snapping.

 

The forum was help full to make a decision, M7 o.58 + Tri-Elm 2nd series + 24mm +

zeiss 25/28 finder.

 

I will get use to a clean wide angle, which is not bad for architecture...

 

thanks all.

Roby,

 

Yes, the M2 has finder frames for 35, 50, & 90. One could learn to estimate the coverage of the 28mm by "shooting loose" outside the 35mm frame, if accuracy is not needed. That would be OK for street photography, but perhaps not for the architectural work you had in mind. I have the Leitz 28mm finder, and I like the perspective and frameline accuracy I get with it. I even use it on an M6, as it keeps the lens out of the finder view. The Tri-Elmar does intrude mildly to moderately on the 28mm frame of the M6 finder.