patrik in sweden Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Hi all, I have the last version of the non-ASPH and after a lot of reading about how much greater the ASPH version is, I am getting a little curious, should I replace it and take the finacial hit, or should I stick with it? It has nothing to do with the 35/2 Summicron being an ASPH version... Please let me have your comments. I also have the the 35/2 Summicron ASPH, and 90/2.8 Elmarit-M and a 0.72 M6TTL. I hopefully will add an 0.58 M6TTL as well. Thanks, Patrik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_kastner Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.73 [en] (Win95; U) [Netscape]"> <title>21 A or Non-A</title> </head> <body> Read this: Need an M 21mm; will the latest non-ASPH do? <p><u><font color="#3366FF"><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002ce3">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002ce3</a></font></u> </body> </html> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Pattik: This is the usual weird Leica-owner question that appears on this board. You apparently read about both lenses and have some idea that the differences are not that major. Why don't you just try your 21 mm and see whether you are satisfied? As they say in Danish: "Du aer ikke riktigt klug." --Mitch/Bangkok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watts Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 If you think using the pre-ASPH 21 is the limiting factor which is holding back your photography with the 21m focal length then take the hit and trade up to the ASPH. Otherwise, just get on with taking pictures with your present 21. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I've owned and operated both lenses. They are both quite good, so you have to decide just how much you will really use the lens.And how big do you like to print. I went for the 21/2.8 ASPH to get even the slightest edge in performance because I like to print quite large when using a WA. It's then you really get the effect of a 21mm perspective. Also, I shoot a lot of low available light, handheld, wide open at 1/15th for wedding work and print at 8X10...the A version is quite good wide open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karl_yik1 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Patrick, Unless your main lens is the 21 and you regularly make enlargements, I wouldnt bother trading up, unless that is you have bundles of spare cash burning a hole in your pockets! ;] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrik in sweden Posted January 29, 2003 Author Share Posted January 29, 2003 Thanks so far for the input. No I (unfortunately) do not problems with money burning any holes, we just got our first son 6 weeks ago, and I'm already realising the cost of diapers!+ I did a sort of financially stupid thing about 2 years ago when changing my chromed equipment (M6TTL + 35/2 Summicron ASPH, and 90/2 Summicron (pre-APO)into the prevoius stated equipment in black). I therefore wish to do this right!! One thing, might sound a bit vain, but with the ASPH version you can have the lens cover over the hood as well, I know you shouldn't have it on but sometimes it would be neat to be able to do so. One reason could be I'm bringing this up is I (unfortunately)read Puts' review on the comment "does not bear the Leica badge with full honor" sort of stuck with me... Patrik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_kastner Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Patrik, this doesn't have much to do with Erwin, but it sure does have lots to do with collectiing Leica stuff -- BTW congratulations on getting your son -- but now's the time to buy as much Leica stuff as you can. In 10 years you'll need to start buying a lot new clothes for him. And in 20 years wait till he wants to go to university. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal dimarco Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Patrik, As the owner of the 21mm Elmarit-M, the only reason, I can offer to replace the lens with the ASPH is for the 55mm filter size. Have you ever tried to find a 60mm CC30M filter? (For fluorsecent light correction, in case you didn't know) However, since 3x3 inch gel filters are easily available, I see no reason to take the finanical hit to get the new lens. Yes, the new lens is a little better. But, in practical photograhy, it isn't always noticable. Spend your money on the second body!!Happy Snaps, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 What I love most about all you gotta-have-the-latest types is that it keeps Leica in business. The secondary function you serve to mankind is being the only source of supply of good clean used Leica equipment for photographers more interested in having quality tools at reasonable prices than impressing their friends. I got a good deal on a non-retrofocus 19/3.5 Canon in FL mount after the retrofocus model came out ~ about 1968. A lens mount converter B and an M bayonet adapter put this on my M4 where it shot many an assignment, hundreds of published pictures, and no editor complained it wasn't sharp enough. If it hadn't been stolen I'd still be using it today. I recently bought a 21/3.4 Super Angulon which I guess is a tad sharper, maybe a bit less vignetting, but in black and white I usualy edge burn anyway. My subjects (mostly people) tend to be away from the extreme frame corners and fairly close, so the less sharp part of the image is also out of focus anyway. No metering problem either on my M2 bodies. Upgrading to the latest model just because it's available only makes sense if there's a significant improvement in real life shooting conditions. Hand held shooting with ISO 400 B&W film or color negative is going to mask a lot of difference in lens quality. Only if you shoot something like Pan F or T-Max 100 and like using a tripod, if your normal print size is 11x14 or larger, is anybody but possibly another Leica photographer going to ask "Did you shoot that with the new aspheric?" For everybody else your photo is going to stand or fall based on other criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrik in sweden Posted January 29, 2003 Author Share Posted January 29, 2003 I don't remember writing anywhere that I got to have the latest equipment. For the record ALL my equipment has been purchased 2nd hand, both Leica and Nikon. Call me vain, but would be caught dead with any Cannot equipment, how good it may be. With the rapidly changing and upgrading that brand is having on the lenses, the comments you are reffering to must be directed at users of that brand. By the way, thanks for not answering my, initially intended, kind request for help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I sold my ASPH because I wasn't using it, bought the 21 C/V for the size. It's a spectacular lens, and the price is an added bonus. Recently I ended up with a mint late 21 Elmarit non-ASPH in a 3-lens buy and after trying it out I'm convinced that Erwin's comments on it, like the 135 T-E vs APO-Telyt, are mostly hyperbole. Yes there are differences but nowhere near of the magnitude his urgent descriptors suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_krantz3 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 All these questions about lens performance is really not important for most users. The advantage of the asph model as compared to the "old" version is uniform sharpness over the entire picture area and improved "micro" contrast. Most people use the Leica lenses handheld and thus will not (I repeat: will not!) be able to see any difference in sharpness between a SA 21/4.0 and a 21/2.8 asph. Try it for yourself! However, if you mount the camera on a heavy tripod and use careful metering and exposure (i.e. 0% error margin) and have a subject with details all over the area, e.g. landscape or architecture, you will see a (big) difference at large enlargements if you use a high quality enlarger lens and 0% error procedures. (I use a 24/2.8 asph for exactly this purpose.) Does the above come as a surprise to you all? I don't think so, but that's not the issue. The issue is that we all like to own great Leica stuff and that's perfectly all right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r._fulton_jr. Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I own the 21 pre-asph Elmarit and think it's a terrific lens. No problems. Well, the sunshade has been broken since I bought it, but that's what they make black gaffer tape for. Can't imagine the ASPH version would be that much better (other than Erwin's review). I hadn't thought of the filter problem as mentioned by Sal. Anyway Patrik, I don't think it's worth the cost of upgrading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Mitch You should read Michael Reichmann's site to see that "the latest is best and therefore essential" argument is by no means unique to Leica owners. Or read the Canon EOS forum etc. etc. Nothing special about Leica at all. Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin_baker___heidelberg_ Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Michael, When you decide it's time to part with "your" lens, it can find a nice home in Heidelberg... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_phillips1 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Just processed my B&W and received my transparency film shot with my late pre ASPH 21 (personal stuff) while on assignment in Reno, NV. I am perfectly satisfied with all results (and even the shots on my 4th version 35 F:2 'Cron look great) and can't wait to print some frames! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Robin: >>You should read Michael Reichmann's site to see that "the latest is best and therefore essential" You're right, just human nature. Patrik: As for Erwin Puts and his statement of not wearing the "Leica badge with full honor": this is irrelevent for most (handheld) photography. Puts is mostly messuring minuscule differences in sharpeness/contrst which are not visible unkless you use the slowest, finest grain film with your M camera on a heavy tripod. I doubt that this is what you intend to do with your 21mm lens. It's unfortunate that Puts' book is often quoted as a bible here because, although the man has done a huge amount of work over years preparing it, the book is simply not good as it takes an uncritical appoach and ultimatelly states that the "newest is the best." That it may be the way Puts tests, but has little significance for most photogarphers, that is, the ones that don't use the finestt grain films on heavy tripods. Indeed there are many lens characteristics that are important that Puts does not measure. You might look the arument between him and Mike Johnston on the LUG, Johnston maintaining that using the lens a long time for the type of photography you do is the way to test it rather than Puts approach. It's interesting, Leica used to state (see Osterloh's book) that its lenses were not designed to win lens tests and that a Leica-owner should not be disapppointed when they didn't. Now when the major manufacturer's all produce great lenses it seems that Leica wants to win lens test with its latest lens series: now their marketing requires to differentiate mimuscule differences in sharpness and contrast, even though this is unimportant for most of the market. However, in producing the latest highly (overly?) corrected ASPH lenses, Leica has perhaps lost the "smooth" transition from sharp areas of the picture into the bokeh that helped older Lieca lenses the famous"glow." (Throwing the bokeh out with the bath-water?) --Mitch/Bangkok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 "One reason could be I'm bringing this up is I (unfortunately)read Puts' review on the comment "does not bear the Leica badge with full honor" sort of stuck with me... " Patrik: Yes, that phrase of Erwin's has sort of stuck with me, as well. It seems to be an especially powerful turn of phrase. I think that if it proves anything, it proves the power that words have to influence the way we think (this is recently being called psycholiguistic programming). For one thing, it mixes and confounds concepts of "honor" and "badges" (which suggests authority) with optical performance, so that the issue takes on an emotional tone for some of us. Not having the item that wears the badge of full honor might imply that the owner is in disgrace: like a military discharge "under less than honorable conditions." Just to counterbalance things, Brian Bower, in the Leica Lens Book, has a full-size architectural shot taken with the same lens you own. It looks fine to me! I don't have the patience to go back though all of Erwin's data just now, but I wonder what difference there really is by f/8 or so? I thought Jay's comments were especially relevant and insightful. The differences were probably greatly exaggerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrik in sweden Posted January 30, 2003 Author Share Posted January 30, 2003 All, Thanks ever so much for bringing my mind to senses! Will spend the money on a 2nd black M6TTL instead, this time a 0.58. Of course this will be a 2nd hand body;-) Happy shooting, Patrik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Patrik: I must say that I am disappointed by your conclusion that you have now decided to keep your 21mm pre-ASPH lens just because most of the responses you've gotten in this message thread state that the differences between this lens and the new ASPH lens are minor and only visible when shooting with the slowest, finest-grain film with the camera on a heavy tripod. But how do you know that all of us are not just parroting someone who originally said this without having made any test of the two lenses ourselves? I must say, that in a moment of soul-searching, I felt that I have to confess that this is the case of my posting: I only wrote what I _believe_ to be the case -- I have not made the test myself. Don't forget that this is the internet and you don't know the people who are making these postings. A few years ago there was a New Yorker cartoon which showed a dog sitting on a chair typing on a computer talking to another dog sitting on a chair, saying, "And the great thing about the internet is that nobody knows you're a dog!" It could be that Erwin Puts is right and the pre-ASPH is much less good than the newer ASPH lens. A few years ago I got a book of desert photographs by the great photographer, Lee Friedlander. In the essay at the back of the book, Friedlander, who had been exclusively a Leica M-shooter states that he found somehow that his photos with your 21mm lens were not coming out the way he wanted them, that he was disatisfied with this lens. He then ask all the lens experts that he know what was the best 21mm lens -- this was before the Leica-M 21mm ASPH -- and was told that the best one was the lens on the Hasselblad SWS (Superwide Camera) which is equivalent to 21mm in medium format terms. He then started to use the SWC and found that he was satisfied. Now, I don't know what problem Friedlander had found and whether he would have been satisfiied with the Leica 21mm ASPH the way he was with the Hasselblad SWC. No, your conclusion should have been that you would go out a shoot a few rolls of film with your 21mm lens and make prints at the maximum size that you print and see for yourself whether you are satisfied. --Mitch/Bangkok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrik in sweden Posted January 30, 2003 Author Share Posted January 30, 2003 Mitch, Thanks for your deep concerns about my decision! Well, I guess you are right about the Internet/ dog description, but it sort of cuts it for me. The things that have "bothered" me is mainly, as others also stated, the filter size, and as I said previously, the lens hood not taking the lens cap on the non-ASPH version, for me the optical performance has not let me down. I mainy shoot with Kodak Portra 400BW or 400 CN, and hand hold. Leica M and tripod use doesn't match in my book, but I'm sure others disagree. Therefore I cannot say, due to this I "must" upgrade to the ASPH. So wanting and needing are two different things in this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 While Puts is perhaps overly obsessed with MTF graphs, personally I found Marc Williams' comments helpful too. He knows what he wants and likes and so has made his choice. Personally I tend to agree with him that with ultra-wides I think that resolution at full aperture and low distortion are very important and it is in precisely these areas that ultra-wides are so often lacking - the reason I think it important is that you are by, the nature of the shot, interested in the corners and edges (it gets a lot in). Also the bokeh is to me of much less importance in a 21mm (do you see any?). The smooth transition and "beautiful" bokeh/imaging characteristics that are more important in, say 50 upwards are not so relevant to ultrawides. Still, if the image quality of your current lens is fine for you then there is no need to change, but if you can rent the 21 ASPH at all (you can in some places) it might be worth giving it a test run. Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Patrik: What sort of special filters do you use that you should be worried about the filter size? The Summilux 75 and the Noctilux also take 60mm filters, and there is no problem getting yellow, orange, red, etc. filters in this size. --Mitch/Bangkok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now