How much is leica 21mm f4 super-angulon?

[Banky]

How much is leica 21mm f4 super-angulon with ikwoo hood now?

Thanks

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[jaapv]

And the Tom Abrahamson version with goggles - if you can find it- would probably set you back well over 2500$....

 

[Ben Z]

AFAIK Tom never had the f/4 adapted with the googles, only the f/3.4.

 

[Trius]

Speaking of the 3.4, I once had one and if memory serves it was very nice, especially for its vintage. Someone, I think here on RFF but maybe not, made a passing reference to the 3.4 not being that great, maybe even a dog in their opinion.

Is this lens perceived, rightly or wrongly, to not be a great performer? Not that I'm in the market, but if I ever found one again at a decent price, at the right moment, I wouldn't hesitate to grab it unless I had information that it wasn't worth it.

 

[kbg32]

21 f4 Super Angulon, screw mount, would be around $1500 or so. BTW the 3.4 version is excellent.

 

[venchka]

Some folks get very lucky on ebay. I don't seem to be one of them.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290030216562

 

[Banky]

Thank you. I heard that the Ikwoo hood for 21mm F4 supser angulon is really rare and expensive. do you know how much is it?

 

[Xmas]

If you look at the Cameraquest site for :-

'Leica M Lens User's and Identification Guide'

It says the VC f4 is better... It is cheaper - try buying a Leitz 21mm viewfinder.

The 3.4 is from '70 or earlier, even the rear caps are collectors pieces... It seems to perform ok.

Noel
P.S. the e-bay item Wayne references front cap is not original and there is no hood or vfdr

 

[SDK]

I had a SA 21mm/3.4 which was only OK, and the earlier 21mm/4 design is supposed to be worse optically. The only advantage of the SA 21mm lenses over nice modern 21mm lenses like the Biogon 21mm/2.8 ZM is smaller size. Zeiss is coming out next year with the compact 21mm/4.5 C Biogon ZM. I would wait for that if I were going for a small inexpensive 21mm.

 

[Ronald M]

I purchased a NOS 21 3.5 about 1988. The vignetting did not stop until 11 or 16. The 4.0 is known to be worse.

The laws of optics cause this as the distance from the lens to the film center and edges are far different, cosine to the fourth rule.

This was one of two Leica lenses I was unhappy with and it was soon traded for a 21 pre-asph I still have. Much bigger and clunky, but I consider the pics far better. Excellent 5.6 and smaller

 

[Banky]

what is the do you mean by ok? Would you mind to explain the different between the SA lens, and biogon 21mm/2.8? (in the quality of the picture)

thanks

 

[Banky]

opp sorry, I mean " what do you mean by ok?"

 

[SDK]

The SA 21mm/3.4 I had was not that sharp at any aperture. F/8 and f/11 were useable, but not high resolution. Light fall off was the worst of any lens I've vever owned. To compensate I useually overexposed 3 stops on low contrast color neg film like Kodak Portra 400NC. You cannot use high contrast film like Fuji Pro 160C, because the corners turn very dark, even with overexposure.

The 21mm/2.8 Biogon ZM is stunningly good in comparison, with some vignetting to be sure, but much less of a problem. I still overexpose deliberately, but find 1 & 2/3 stops works fine most of the time. The Biogon is sharp across the frame by f/4. It is a big lens in terms of length, but not too bad.

The upcoming slower 21mm/4.5 C-Biogon ZM will hopefully be similar in optical quality, and is more like the size of typical rangefinder wideangles. Nobody has reviewed on yet, and they won't be available until next year.