Opinions of the 21mm Super-Angulon

[Benjamin]

Dare I ask, what do people think of the Super Angulon?

I don't really like 35 or 28mm lenses. I have no experience of any 25 or 24mm's. I have a (Nikon F mount) 16mm f/2.8, but it's a bit much and I need something wide on occasion.

So are there any major optical differences between the thread and bayonet, or the f/3.4(8?) or f/4 versions?

How does it compare to the Zeiss Biogon? I hear at least that the aux finder is better.


Thanks for your time, Benjamin

 

[Ronald M]

Do you want it for Nikon F or rangefinder. Nikon wides for F mount are poor preformers in the very corners and they are have significant distortion except the 28 2.8 AIS.

21 3.4 is a true wide angle, not retrofocus, so the rear element is very close to the film which means the is severe vignetting. I sold mine within months of aquisition because it was a f11 or F16 lens in practice. After 20+ years I still have the 28 2.8 Elmarit that replaced it. It has some wavy line distortion I don`t notice much.

Any modern Zeiss or Leica M mount lens will give satifactory results. I know nothing of older Nikkor wide angles for rangefinders.

 

[Benjamin]

Hi Ronald,

Thanks for your input. Just to confirm, I am looking for a wide to suit my Leica.

I just thought it wise to mention my (limited) experience of other wide angles and fisheyes. 16/15mm is to much for what I require. 21 or 20mm looks good to me.


Cheers, Benjamin

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Get the VC21 or the Zeiss.
Both great lenses and great value for the money.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[kbg32]

I had my Super Angulon for 27 years and loved it. I only sold it recently because I couldn't use it on my M8. Some people love to hate this lens and I don't know why. I think it's a great and am sorry I got rid of it.

 

[Vics]

Now, isn't there a trick that Tom A. has done for the Super-Angulon where he machines it to bring up the widest frame in an M4-P and attaching the goggles from a Summicron 35mm lens for the M3, he obviates the need for an accessory viewfinder. One of the coolest set-ups in Leicadom! I don't know if it's still available or if by some wierd chance you shoot a M4-P, but...
Vic

 

[Tom A]

The goggled 21 was a result of yet another 21 finder getting crunched. A friend who knows how to do these things converted one of my 21f3.4's to the goggles and then we made it so that it brought up the 28 finder on the M4P. All in all we did about 15 of these conversions - including 21f2.8 Elmarit and 21f2.8 Elmarit Asph! Considering that you have to put the whole lens in a lathe and machine off part of the rear mount. it was somewhat nerve racking!
The project sprung from another idea that I had. It was to take the rear mount of a 135/2.8 Elmarit and install the lens barrel of a 180f3.4 Apo Elmarit in it. By modifying the mount to engage the 135 lines and then use the goggles to magnify these lines to a close to 180 frame. This is one of the still born projects - too much work and complexity - and the baseline of the M's rangefinder was really not designed for that long lens, even with the added magnification of the goggles. Even more detrimental to the project was my lack of interest in shooting long lenses on a M!

 

[wjlapier]

Get the VC21 or the Zeiss.
Both great lenses and great value for the money.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

The Zeiss Biogon 21/4.5 is a great lens. Not a bargain like the VC however--somewhere in the 800-1000+ range. There is an adapter that one can use for their M or LTM body. I have the LTM which works great, and should have the M version any day.

I often wondered about the Super-Angulon. Tom, I remember you writing about these two lenses, and I know folks have issues with the weight and the aperture ring, but performance-wise, can you remind me and other's?

 

[Tom A]

Ah, forgot to answer about the 21f3.4. As long as you use it on a no-metered camera, it works great.
Performance wise it is a good lens. I doubt that even the latest lenses from Leica/Zeiss/VC out performs the SA in center performance. However, edges and corners are very 60's. At f3.4 the fall off is distinct, though I kind of like it - at least in bl/w.
Today, the champ of the 21's is the ZM Biogon 21/4.5 - nothing better out there. Both the 21f2.8 from Zeiss and Leica are good too - but they are getting up there in size and prize. I am also a great fan of the VC 21f4 - small and very good performer (and it uses 39mm filters, which on a wide angle can be important). I must admit that I have several of them! LTM and M as well as Nikon SC mount. So, it is a bit slow, but the advantage with wides is that you can handhold them at extremely slow speeds.
I would recommend the 21f4 VC and spend the balance on either a R4M or a Zeiss 21 finder.
The 21/4 Super Angulon was the first attempt of Schneider and Leica to make a wide angle together. I never liked it - performance was mediocre and today it is mainly a collectible - and for less than 1/2 the money you can get a LTM VC 21/4 (with the finder) and it will outperform the 21f4 SA.

 

[Benjamin]

Thanks for your advice Tom A.

I just wonder what the the problem is with using the f/3.4 SA on a metered camera? Does the long tail obscure something or other, and is the same true of the f/4 version?

I'd intend to use the lens on an M2, and perhaps on an MP at some point as well.

On the basis of your recommendation I may well seek out the slower of the 21mm Zeiss lenses however. Will it meter correctly with the MP? I use a hand held meter anyway so I suppose it doesn't matter an awful lot.


Cheers, Benjamin

 

[Tom A]

The deep rear element blocks the meter on a MP/M6, but if you are using a hand held meter anyway - just leave it on the M2!
The ZM Biogon 21f4.5 works fine with metered cameras. Depending on what you are shooting, the 21f3.4 SA is great for going back in time. It screams 60's "soot and chalk" black/white. The ZM 21f4.5 is a modern lens with upgraded coatings and it is virtually distorsion free. The Biogon formula is the "king" when it comes to wide angles. It was carried through to the Hasselblad SWC and some rare larger format lenses.
The 21f4 SA is inferior to the VC 21f4 by a major factor. The price drop of these LTM lenses can be traced to the introduction of the VC 21/4 - for less than 1/2 the money you got a very good 21 with modern coating.
If you are willing to dedicate a body to a lens, get a 21f3.4 SA and stick it on the M2, but if you are going to be switching between bodies, get the 21f4.5 or even the 21f4 VC in the P mount (M-mount). Splurge on the finder instead (or simply get the R4M or A) with the built in 21 finder. Can't use the 21f3.4 SA on it though.

 

[fbf]

I consulted Tom with the choice between SA 21/3.4 and the newer zm 21/4.5 biogon-c just last week. The truth is I love the SA 21/3.4 and it usually runs the same price as the 21/4.5. I guess I should get the 21/4.5 to compare with the SA 21/3.4 then decide which one to keep.
One thing I am fairly certain and just like Tom has mentioned: the SA 21/3.4 has more characters but the 21/4.5 biogon-c is the handsdown better performer.

 

[Rui Morais de Sousa]

Opinions of the 21mm Super-Angulon

I love my 3.4/21mm Super-Angulon very much.
I use it mainly for black & white street shooting on meterless M's.
The fact that it is a retrofocus design ensures that it's distortion is minimal. I find it much better on this subject than my modern Canon zoom lenses (including serie L). I mention it just to give you a relation to actual models you may find on the street everyday.
I also love it's compact size and good build quality.

Now about vignetting: EVERY (extreme) wide-angle produces vignetting! That's physics!

I don't shoot Architecture with 35mm. I use some other (specialized) equipment for that: Corfield WA 67 and Horseman SW 612 Pro (the one with shift capability), from 6x7 to 6x12. Both use either a Super-Angulon from Schneider, or (APO) Grandagon from Rodenstock. You can bet that I (always) use the so called Center-Filter made for these optics.
As well as I use center-filters in any wide-angle lens from Schneider or Rodenstock that I use on my large-format cameras.
These filters are really expensive...

Why I use them? Because ALL of these lenses suffer from vignetting and I am a perfectionist!
Surelly they are NOT bad lenses: as a matter of fact, together with the Zeiss Biogon, I consider them to be the best wide-angles you can get!
A wall made of bricks keeps looking like a wall made of bricks! No need for PP programs...

I think the "problem" is that in 35mm the manufacturers didn't bother to make center-filters for their optics, as the purppose of the lenses is not Professional Architectural Photography or some other highly technical stuff.

Street photography and similar types maybe don't need that kind of perfectionist correction, or so they seem to think...

As a matter of fact, when I print (traditional) BW on the wet darkroom, I very often darken a bit the corners of the prints, for them to get some more plasticity. With the Leitz Super-Angulon maybe I need to do it a little less...

BTW: I also use a "newer" Elmarit-M (Tabed, 28 engraving), and I can't say that I prefer it to the S-A 21mm. Maybe a little better technically, but I think it lacks some "character".

It depends on what I wish to do when I photograph. For the kind of work I do with Leicas, I find the 21mm S-A just great! (The same I cannot say about some Nikkors I had, for example).

If I would buy new today, I would seriously consider the Biogon 4.5/21mm. Surelly high performance for a realistic price.
It also has one of the main caracteristics I like in the S-A: compactness.

Greetings,

Rui

 

[Trius]

I had my Super Angulon for 27 years and loved it. I only sold it recently because I couldn't use it on my M8. Some people love to hate this lens and I don't know why. I think it's a great and am sorry I got rid of it.

Me either. Yes, there is vignetting, but it is of the most pleasantly aesthetic variety. When I had an M kit, it was 50 DR, 90 Summicron and SA.

The SA was killer with TX in HC-110. There was something magical about that combo.

 

[Trius]

I will revise and say falloff rather than vignetting. The two are not synonomous.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I've been using a 21/3.4 S.A. for the past few years and I love it. It's the closest in imaging characteristics to the original non-retrofocus 19/3.5 Canon. I got the Canon in1968 and used it until it was stolen in 2003. The light fall off in the corners just saves me the trouble of edge burning my prints. Both lenses seem to have pretty much the same sharpness and light fall-off, but I never did any direct comparisons.

 

[Rui Morais de Sousa]

Opinions of the 21mm Super-Angulon

Of couse, on my post before I meant NON-retrofocus!

Only reading Al's comments I noticed that I had made that mistake.

Sorry...

Rui

 

[Rui Morais de Sousa]

Opinions of the 21mm Super-Angulon

Hello everybody,

Sorry to bother again, but I just thought of making a suggestion:

take a look at the work of the late photographer Jeanloup Sieff, in my opinion a true master of the wide-angle creative photography.

I think that looking at his images should forever end the question if the Super-Angulon is a capable optic.

If the S-A was good enough for Mr. Sieff, it should be good enough for EVERY ONE OF US in this forum (or in the entire planet!).

Have a nice Sunday.

Greetings,

Rui

 

[cam]

thank you for the link, Rui!

i'm chomping at the bit now to get my S-A!

 

[maddoc]

I bought my Super-Angulon-M 21/3.4 two years ago and it is a great lens. The newer designs might be a little sharper in the corners (and allow TTL metering) but lack character. The Super-Anglon-M 21/3.4 seems to be one of the few lenses, that most photographer regret having sold ... 🙂