Ben Z
Veteran
I had the black 3.4 SA.
I can recommend it as a fine lens, but the $300 Voitlander performed better in every way I can think of, so I sold my SA to a collector who appreciates that aspect more than I do.
I can recommend it as a fine lens, but the $300 Voitlander performed better in every way I can think of, so I sold my SA to a collector who appreciates that aspect more than I do.
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Browse through flickr, etc., have a look at all 21mm photos, and ask yourself which ones would have better been taken with a longer lens like a 28. US 2400 can get you some very cool other stuff. Or a week in Hawaii or Paris. Just saying .... 
Tim Gray
Well-known
Personally, I'd get the ZM 21/4.5 or the CV 21/4.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Tim's advice is good. Fore sheer perfection the ZM Biogon 21f4.5 is the tops. However, having been a 21f3.4 user since 1964 - there is something about the image quality of this lens that is special. It does show dark corners - but that center sharpness is something else.
$2400 is high, particularly if you intend to use it. A good, user with clean glass should be possible to find for $13-1400 (look for # over 2.5 million as there was a minor change in coating and contrast is better). Pick up a Zeiss ZM finder 21 (vastly better than the Leica metal one) - or even the new 21/25 finder in metal from VC. Take the money you save and buy film instead.
$2400 is high, particularly if you intend to use it. A good, user with clean glass should be possible to find for $13-1400 (look for # over 2.5 million as there was a minor change in coating and contrast is better). Pick up a Zeiss ZM finder 21 (vastly better than the Leica metal one) - or even the new 21/25 finder in metal from VC. Take the money you save and buy film instead.
David Murphy
Veteran
Heck yeah if the price is reasonable. I'd die to have one of these, particularly with the box, hood, and finder.
tim_n
Member
I agree with Tom A that there is something special about the rendering of the 21 SA, both in BW and color. I've used mine since 1977 and would never sell it. Light fall-off is a non-issue for me because I either scan negs or use digital M; the symmetrical fall-off is trivial to fix in post, if you want to. That price seems high, but maybe I'm influenced by what I paid in 77.
Tim Gray
Well-known
Thanks Tom. I was actually regurgitating your advice But for $2400 compared to about $1500 for the ZM + finder or $400 for the CV + finder...
I ended up with the ZM (bought here for a good price) and really like it.
But for $2400 compared to about $1500 for the ZM + finder or $400 for the CV + finder...I ended up with the ZM (bought here for a good price) and really like it.
fixbones
.......sometimes i thinks
Yeah.... might just look into a Zeiss 21mm C BIogon instead.
Suppose there is no point shelving out the money for one that is not going to be one of my primary lens.
Have to admit though the images from the super angulon looks really nice. Much akin to my 35 preasph lux...... i think that is what attracted me the most.
Suppose there is no point shelving out the money for one that is not going to be one of my primary lens.
Have to admit though the images from the super angulon looks really nice. Much akin to my 35 preasph lux...... i think that is what attracted me the most.
Tim Gray
Well-known
I've really enjoyed the ZM 21/4.5 so far. I'm experiencing some growing pains with it - I'm learning I can't shoot it like a 28 - but I do like it a lot.
