21mm Super Angulon

This thread is not very GAS rehab friendly :/ I know it's the photographer, not the lens, but... it's tempting!

Today I've checked out a 3.4 SA (older coating, SN2292XXX) in a shop downtown, it has both caps, original hood and the original finder with its leather case. I've looked through the finder and it's not as clear as CV's or a Zeiss', but it was nice to look through (I could see a brighter circle around the image rectangle, bad sign or is it supposed to be like this?). The lens seems to be in great optical shape (the photo on the website doesn't do the lens justice!)... How much should a viewfinder cost? I'm evaluating if I should take the plunge..

I have a ZM Biogon 21/2.8 which is a great lens, but I see myself constantly enjoying more the look of older lenses, I think I was born in the wrong century maybe :) Thinking about selling the Zeiss and getting the SA.

Has anyone compared the SA to the CV 21/4 directly?
 
Is this image evidence of dark corners using the SA?

Is this image evidence of dark corners using the SA?

Here is another image taken at the Oregon Coast using the Super Angulon lens on my M3. Some of the images taken on the same roll did not show evidence of the dark corners as much as this one. I was wondering what makes the dark corners appear more visible in certain shots and nearly invisible in others? Scanning courtesy of Precision Camera on this image.

Thanks.

Ellen

large.jpg
 
Ellen: Do you remember the aperture for your scene? Wide-open will have more falloff, but it's pretty much part of rangefinder super wides. Even the new ones have lots of it.

- Charlie
 
Ellen, it's more visible in the upper left; you can't see it at all in the lower left and right because it's dark anyway. It can be there all the time but, depending on image content, you might not see it. However, in a scenic such as this - where you have nothing but sky above - you will notice it more. The worst wide-angle lens I've had for vignetting was a Super Takumar 20/4. Frequently I had to crop it to get rid of the dark corners, so I might as well have used a 28mm lens. I sold it in short order. But if it had been a Super Angulon I'd probably still have it.
 
I've found the falloff is hardly worse (if even less) than the 17-40mm I used to use with my Canon. Personally, I think the problem is greatly exaggerated. Remember that the sky isn't always uniform in brightness either.
 
The Leica 21mm SA and the Schneider 65mm SA have very similar vignetting fingerprints. The 49mm center grad filter for the 65mm SA would be a very close fit to the 21mm SA. If you could find one, it could be mounted in the 21mm hood backwards like a series VII filter and there you have it.

I've been searching for the center grad filter for the 65mm SA but it costs more than twice what I paid for the lens.

Phil Forrest
 
Egyptian solidarity protest in Philadelphia

Egyptian solidarity protest in Philadelphia

img_l1001664_E.jpg


img_l1001668_E.jpg


February 2, 2011. Leica M9.
 
Ari,
Thanks! But every time I feel the very smooth and positive click of my early 35mm 'Lux I kind of pine over an early SA 3.4 with an infinity lock.

This lens has a lot of schneideritis but is otherwise optically fantastic. Barrel is worn too but that is no bother. I'm thinking of sending it to John VanStelton or DAG to see if anything can be done to squeeze out more performance from it. Of course, it's not broke, so maybe I shouldn't fix it...

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Ari,
Thanks! But every time I feel the very smooth and positive click of my early 35mm 'Lux I kind of pine over an early SA 3.4 with an infinity lock.

This lens has a lot of schneideritis but is otherwise optically fantastic. Barrel is worn too but that is no bother. I'm thinking of sending it to John VanStelton or DAG to see if anything can be done to squeeze out more performance from it. Of course, it's not broke, so maybe I shouldn't fix it...

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

For some reason I get the impression that the later black SA lenses are more prone to Scheideritis than the early chrome ones, but I've only seen a couple of examples of each, so I'm no expert.

If you have reason to suspect there's some decentering, separation or shimming issues with the optics modules that results in reproducibly uneven/lower resolution or back/front focus, then you should definitely have it checked out by one of those guys. Otherwise, I wouldn't risk pulling the lens apart just on spec...

:a:Ari
 
I just got 4 21SA, 2 chromed and 2 black. I know this just sounds like crazy but this is due to an accumulated 30 years of frustration for wanting one and being unable to buy it :D I got my revenge.
In any way I think I can get a full refund anytime, that's the beauty of buying second hand Leica gear (non-digital).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom