Question regarding the rendering of Super Angulon 21mm f/3.4

[KyledeC]

Hello all,

I've got a question regarding my Super Angulon 21mm f/3.4. I've recently been using the lens with color transparency film as opposed to the usual black and white, and I haven't been very satisfied with the results. Not sure if the lens needs to be serviced, or maybe this is just the way the lens renders with Velvia 100. What I've been noticing is that the lens doesn't seem to have that distinct Leica clarity. It seems to be sharp, but to me not nearly as detailed as my other Leica glass. I'm not shooting with the newest optics by any means. Currently a Summaron 35mm f/3.5, Summicron Collapsible 50mm f/2, Tele Elmarit 90mm f/2.8 (FAT) and a Tele Elmar 135mm f/4. All of these lenses have that distinct sharpness and 'pop'.

So I was just wondering what you guys think. Could it just need a CLA, or is this just the nature of the optic? I've done as much research as I could find online, I read that it is a sharp lens with a unique character. But I would say the same is true of all the lenses I use, so I can't figure out why this SA would be lacking, causing me to see this distinct difference.

Here is a link to some image comparisons to show what I'm talking about: link
Thank you all greatly!

Kyle

 

[KyledeC]

Thank you Ole. I will double check my scanning. Maybe have them scanned professionally at the lab just to ensure quality. After getting some advice it sounds like it could just be the nature of the lens. I was shown a piece of writing from Mr. Puts from the Leica Compendium, and it sounds like he was seeing pretty similar to what I'm describing as well.

I apologize if this isn't a perfect quote:
"Many lenses from this period share the characteristic that the textural details are recorded with a certain softness, which at bigger enlargements gives the impression that the plane of focus has been missed. It is true that the extended gradient between sharpness and unsharpness gives a pleasing effect to the pictures at the detriment of a clearly defined plane of critical sharpness. This is part of the fingerprint that defines the general characteristic of all Angulon lenses."

 

[KyledeC]

And it looks like that original link is having some issues, here is a better one that should be working:

http://www.kyledeclerck.com/site/super-angulon-21mm-f-3-4-comparisson

 

[maddoc]

Here is a link to my gallery at Flickr of photos taken with this lens (BW and some slides).

My lens had developed some haze over the years and it was very hard to detect because on the inner surfaces. I had the lens serviced by Leica and contrast improved slightly.

This one is Velvia 50 (before the lens was serviced):

200909-09-M4P-RVP50-21SA-35LUX-029 copy by Gabor Samjeske, on Flickr

After servicing the lens:

Sensia 100F

201103-13-M4P-RAP-F-21SA-35SUMMARON-35LUX-04 Kopie by Gabor Samjeske, on Flickr

 

[x-ray]

I'm going to say its your scans. I've used the 21 3.4 since the 60's and it's a super sharp lens. Is there haze in it? What are you scanning with? I currently have a black one and had a chrome one I bought in 1968. Both are stellar. Other than heavy vignetting wide open its excellent even at f3.4.

 

[KyledeC]

Beautiful images Maddoc. Hmm, it definitely wouldn't hurt to have it serviced. And X-ray, I'm scanning with a Plustek 8100. I'm definitely going to have them scanned professionally and see what I think. Who would you guys recommend for a servicing? Maddoc, you said you had yours serviced by Leica, was that in the states? Thank you very much for your help!

 

[maddoc]

Kyle, thank you!

I brought the lens to Leica Ginza in Tokyo and was told that they can`t service it locally so they sent it out to Leica in Germany.

Beautiful images Maddoc. Hmm, it definitely wouldn't hurt to have it serviced. And X-ray, I'm scanning with a Plustek 8100. I'm definitely going to have them scanned professionally and see what I think. Who would you guys recommend for a servicing? Maddoc, you said you had yours serviced by Leica, was that in the states? Thank you very much for your help!

 

[michaelwj]

They look like nice images to me, I'd be happy with them. In my opinion, this is not a landscape lens - I've never been pleased with the detail I get shooting landscape, but love it for everything else.
Don't forget the design is pushing over 60 years old, and was pushing the limits at the time. It is the equivalent of the super fast 50's and 35's of the era - in fact it is quite similar to the 35 pre ash summilux - pushed to its limits. You compare it to designs which were well and truly mature at the time they were made, which should do better.

Also, it's not actually a Leica lens, but a Schneider one, so should it even have the 'Leica Look'?

 

[KyledeC]

Very good points Michael. Comparing them is unfair. And thank you Maddoc. I'm definitely gonna hang onto the lens. Have it serviced, and reassess my scanning workflow. Maddoc, which color film would you say you use most with the SA?

 

[maddoc]

I gave up on color films almost entirely a couple of years ago. My favorite was Kodachrome but also Provia400X.

Very good points Michael. Comparing them is unfair. And thank you Maddoc. I'm definitely gonna hang onto the lens. Have it serviced, and reassess my scanning workflow. Maddoc, which color film would you say you use most with the SA?

 

[KyledeC]

I gave up on color films almost entirely a couple of years ago. My favorite was Kodachrome but also Provia400X.

Interesting. Ya for quite awhile I was shooting Provia 100f, and then recently started working with Velvia (both 50 and 100), and I've got to say I prefer that Provia. It's much more neutral, I find the color saturation just perfect and the resolution is incredible.

 

[michaelwj]

Very good points Michael. Comparing them is unfair. And thank you Maddoc. I'm definitely gonna hang onto the lens. Have it serviced, and reassess my scanning workflow. Maddoc, which color film would you say you use most with the SA?

And I use the same scanner, it shouldn't be the weak link (if there is one). To save you some time, get Vuescan and follow Chris Crawford's website (he has a sticky in the film forum)

 

[x-ray]

The super angulon was based on the Zeiss biogon. The biogon is the lens on the Hasselblad Super wide that brings high praise. For decades the Biogon / Super Angulon design has been the benchmark of super wide angles and is to this day. The Biogon / Super Angulon is even the standard in large format wides. If you have a problem it's most likely a misalignment in your particular lens or something in the chain of producing images.

What film are you shooting for landscapes? Using a tripod? How much do you stop down? At small apertures diffraction reduces sharpness. If you're shooting at f16 or 22 expect diffraction.

 

[KyledeC]

And I use the same scanner, it shouldn't be the weak link (if there is one). To save you some time, get Vuescan and follow Chris Crawford's website (he has a sticky in the film forum)

Thanks Michael, I will definitely check out Vuescan. I've heard good things about it.

 

[KyledeC]

The super angulon was based on the Zeiss biogon. The biogon is the lens on the Hasselblad Super wide that brings high praise. For decades the Biogon / Super Angulon design has been the benchmark of super wide angles and is to this day. The Biogon / Super Angulon is even the standard in large format wides. If you have a problem it's most likely a misalignment in your particular lens or something in the chain of producing images.

What film are you shooting for landscapes? Using a tripod? How much do you stop down? At small apertures diffraction reduces sharpness. If you're shooting at f16 or 22 expect diffraction.

Thanks X-ray, I'm very familiar with both Biogon and Super Angulon. My entire LF kit is Schneider glass, with three lenses being SA's. I think that is one of the primary reasons I'm feeling this frustration because I've been using SA lenses for quite awhile.

As far as film, as of recently I've been primarily shooting Delta 100 with the 21 SA, shooting black and white I see little to no problem with that 21mm, in general I am very happy with the results. Though lately, I've been working almost entirely with Velvia 100. With my other Leica glass I've been enjoying working with color, the rendering is beautiful. With the 21 SA, I'd say half the time I'm shooting on sticks and half hand held. Typically f/8-16, though the great majority is f/8. Diffraction is a great point though, definitely something to keep in mind.

 

[KyledeC]

Thank you all again for your help and advice, it is very much appreciated!

 

[Nick R.]

A photographer friend of mine has two SA 21/3.4. In his words, one is crap and one is superb. It's probably worth sending the lens to one of the usual suspects for a CLA to get the most out of it.

 

[x-ray]

Using the same lens for both B&W and color, I don't see any way rendering can change. It has to be scanner or processing related. My guess is scanner related or possibly profile related. Scanner profiles make a the difference. Rendering of a lens is a constant for both types of film.

 

[sevo]

The super angulon was based on the Zeiss biogon.

No. That is a widespread, wrong assumption caused by Zeiss lamely applying the same naming to two very different lens designs. The original Biogon DESIGN (as implemented in pre war Biogons) is a Sonnar derived assymetric lens - that puts it in the triplet family. The Super-Angulon is a very different Russar and Angulon related near-symmetric narrow neck lens with projected pupil.

The "Biogon-2" we are more familiar with nowadays is somewhat similar to the Super-Angulon (and not related to the original Biogon design). But there is no "first", Schneider and Zeiss both hit the market at the 1956 Photokina - if any, you could maybe claim the Biogon-2 to be of "Super-Angulon type", as the latter was the first lens of that type with a original name. But the Super Angulon might not be considered original enough to be a generic type, Slussarev and Ruusinov did all the hard work, without their copyright being properly acknowledged in the McCarthy era, and the underlying wide angle double anastigmats weren't original either, these had already been around for 50 years. And while Schneider applied the Slussarev effect to the Angulon, Zeiss did so to the Topogon, so that both arrived at a similar lens from their own designs - there is no question of copycats there, other than that both stole from the Soviets.

 

[giganova]

I received a 21/3.4 Super Angulon in "mint" condition today, shot, developed and scanned a test film. Wow is this lens sharp! I had a CV 21 Color Skopar before and that was a great lens, but the Super Angulon clearly outperforms the CV. Super sharp and yet is has this creamy quality Leica glass is known for. Even wide open, it is tack sharp, corners are perfect at 5.6, at lower f/stops it gets softer.