Super Angulon vs Color Skopar

Hello Wilt. I have the SA and have not tried the CV 21/4. I'm very happy with the SA, particularly in terms of this sort of "american-football-shaped-head" distortion that one often gets near the corners of photos taken with extreme wide-angles. The SA is very good in this regard. The SA is sharp as h#*l. In terms of sharpness, I have read good things about the CV, and if I didn't already have the SA I would surely give it a try (very fair price). I also have the CV 25/4 "snapshot skopar", and it is very sharp and contrasty. The SA is less contrasty, but actually I prefer that because it's easier to get details in the shadows and to get a negative with a full range of grays. In my experience, it's easier to add contrast to a flat-ish negative in the darkroom, than to deal with trying to get a good print from a very contrastly negative. Some people don't like the SA because you can't meter with it TTL on say the M6 or Minolta CLE, whereas that shouldn't be a problem with the CV 21mm. HOWEVER, metering with such a wide angle is usually pretty tricky in any case (for example, lots of sky can fool the camera into underexposure), so I always use a separate meter and it's not a big deal. Lastly, the SA with its deep protruding rear elements will not fit on all M-mount cameras. I use mine on a CLE and an M4, it will not fit on a Bessa R2. Another drawback of the SA is that it is generally very expensive, although mine was pretty cheap (700 US dollars) with finder and caps because the barrel was "user", but the glass was perfect. Mine is a "classic chrome" one from the 1960s (looks great on the chrome M4), but apparently the black Super Angulons are improved in terms of flaring.

Regards from Copenhagen, sleepyhead
 
I wrestled with the same question last week, but then I took a look at the prices at Stephen Gandi's site( www.cameraquest.com) and well, to keep it short, my Skopar is in the mail now.......
 
Last edited:
No experience with the Super Angulon 21/3.4 but I am using a CV 21/4 and like it very much. I had read many good comments both here and elsewhere on the CV lens and saw the price difference and now you know the rest of the story. I think it would be hard to go wrong either way.

Bob
 
Hi Rover, I really like your "photo 4" and the others taken indoors. I think that indoors and in tight spaces in general is where these extreme wides prove to be most useful. I missed a good shot the other day - I'm so annoyed with myself - an old lady was scarfing down a big long Danish hotdog whilst leaning in on the counter of one of these typical Danish outdoor hotdog vans. I saw her, came up to the side window of the van, had my 21mm, from that vantage point could have gotten her and the whole inside of the tiny van including the guy cooking up more hotdogs. Anyway, she shot me an annoyed look, and I backed down. Still I wish I'd taken the picture, would have tried to justify it as "recording Danish society" ....If I knew Danish better, I would have tried to strike up a conversation, but alas...
 
Thanks all for the information!

sleepyhead: I know the feeling! Sometimes the picture that was missed for one reason or another lingers in the mind for weeks, months.
 
sleepyhead said:
Hi Rover, I really like your "photo 4" and the others taken indoors. I think that indoors and in tight spaces in general is where these extreme wides prove to be most useful. I missed a good shot the other day - I'm so annoyed with myself - an old lady was scarfing down a big long Danish hotdog whilst leaning in on the counter of one of these typical Danish outdoor hotdog vans. I saw her, came up to the side window of the van, had my 21mm, from that vantage point could have gotten her and the whole inside of the tiny van including the guy cooking up more hotdogs. Anyway, she shot me an annoyed look, and I backed down. Still I wish I'd taken the picture, would have tried to justify it as "recording Danish society" ....If I knew Danish better, I would have tried to strike up a conversation, but alas...
Click to expand...


Thanks for the comments. I agree that the super wides work great in intimate settings, more so in my eyes than for landscapes. The photos in my 21mm gallery correspond to my very layman's review of the lens.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1010
 
I'd like to chime in for the CV 21. Very flare-resistant, and great performance : cost value, especially for less-frequently used (for me) focal length.
 
Has anyone experienced flare with the CV 21 when using a filter? When in place, there is no hooded protection of the filter with the original hood. I always wondered if this would be a problem though I haven't seen one.
 
ray_g said:
I'd like to chime in for the CV 21. Very flare-resistant, and great performance : cost value, especially for less-frequently used (for me) focal length.
Click to expand...

Ok.. I'm now DYING to get my hands on the one I've ordered and am waiting for!!

My local shop hasn't got any in stock but they've apparently ordered it.. sheesh!!

Glad I'm making the right choices with these lense :)

Cheers
Dave
 
A couple of years ago, when the 21 CV lens just came out, I compared it to the Ricoh 21/35, SA f/3.4 and 21 ASPH. The SA and ASPH were mine, and I have since added the CV. I've also had and used the SA 21/4 and ealier, non-ASPH Elmarit.

The comparison of the first 4 was published in the LHSA Viewfinder in 2001:

--------------------------------------------------

21 mm lenses for Leicas

I had an opportunity to go out and shoot with 4 different 21mm lenses
lately. These were my current 21mm f/2.8 ASPH, my 21mm f/3.4 Super
Angulon which I bought new in 1974, Tom Abrahamsson¹s very limited
issue 21mm f/3.5 Ricoh GR lens in Leica Thread mount, and Tom¹s 21mm
f/4 Cosina made and Voigtländer labeled lens. Previously I have had
and/or used the older 21mm f/4 Super Angulon and the older 21mm f/2.8
Elmarit M, as well as many other non Leica branded lenses of 21mm
focal length or thereabouts. Understandably, I¹ve had the greates
experience with the 21/3.4 SA, and therefore will use that as my
reference standard.

Over the years the 21 SA has always been my reference, against which
all those SLR newcomers had to be measured, and generally they all
fell somewhat short of the SA. Very few of them could exhibit the
same degree of sharp rendering of fine detail, resistance to flare
and none had the almost total lack of distortion, which is so
important in my photography. With the M5 and M6, TTL metering wasn¹t
possible, but the superb optical performance made that a minor issue.
When the first 21 f/2.8 Elmarit came out I wasn¹t too impressed after
trying it out. It had better evenness of illumination than the 21 SA,
but had poorer performance than the 21 SA in most other respects. I
eventually got a used one mostly for the metering convenience, but
kept the 21 SA for any critical work. When the 21 ASPH came out, I
was very interested and ordered one right away. I generally use this
21 and have put the 21 SA into semi-retirement, but it still comes
along at times. The comparison results will show why I have kept it.

For a few days I went out with only the 21mm focal length, but in
four flavours. Most pictures were shot with the Ricoh 21 GR
(hereafter shortened to just ŒGR¹) and the Voigländer-Cosina 21
(hereafter shortened to ŒVC¹), but enough with the 21 ASPH and 21 SA
to make a comparison.

Delta 100 was used for all shots, developed in Xtol 1:3. No Tech-Pan,
no Neopan 1600. These comparisons were made to get a realistic feel
for the capabilities or limitations of these lenses, but not to be a
rigorous test. A basic series of a detailed subject was made with the
camera fastened to a large and solid tripod, but for the most part
the lenses were mounted on four different cameras, including a Hexar,
and used like I would normally. That means they were used handheld
with some bracing going on in darker areas.

I had compared the SA and the ASPH earlier, in the company of the old
21/2.8 Elmarit to determine which lens(es) I wanted to keep, and what
their relative capabilities were, so I had a good idea of their
relative merits. In the center of the image there is not much to
choose between them. In practical picture taking they will both
render the finest detail to the satisfaction of any user, at any
aperture, particularly if he or she is using the camera handheld. As
one gets further away from the center, a slight difference shows up.
The SA does not render fine detail quite as well at the far edges of
the frame. This is most noticeable at the wider apertures, but
persists until f/5.6. At f/8 they render detail virtually to the same
level even at the far edges.

The GR anc VC lenses fall in between, with the VC being the better of
the two. However, while they both, and particularly the VC, render
fine detail better than the SA with all lenses at f/4, they do not
perform quite as well at f/8, although the differences are slight.
The slight softness of the GR rendered edges had more of a smear to
them, while the SA and VC were just slightly soft and indistinct.
When I checked for evenness of illumination, the hands-down winner was
the ASPH, and the hand-down loser was the SA. Again, the two Japanese
lenses fell between, with the GR being slightly better than the VC.
Considering the miniscule optical cells of the GR, I did not expect
this. The front element isn¹t a lot bigger than that of the old 28mm
Summaron. The VC, GR and ASPH are all, however, retrofocus designs to
one degree or another, and this certainly helps the evenness of
illumination.

The ASPH easily has the best flare control. It really doesn¹t matter
if you point it into the sun, have the sun just outside of the frame
or have large bright expanses of sky while you¹re trying to get
information on film from the inky shadows. The ASPH handles all these
situations better than any other wideangle lens I have used. The GR
is fairly good in this regard, but a rangefinder lens has to be
particularly good because you can¹t tell what veiling flare or flare
spots might be served up in your picture until the film is developed.
I noticed some veiling flare under severe conditions, but it never
ruined a picture. The SA showed more flare, and also some ghost
aperture spots in a few instances. In general, still a pretty decent
performance. The VC had less veiling flare under most conditions than
the SA or the GR, but I was able to coax some severe flare and ghosts
out of the lens when shooting into the sun, with the sun about
halfway between the center and the closer edge; ie., about 6mm off
the center. Those pictures were gone! 10mm off center, and everything
was fine again.

The last check I did was for distortion. A building downtown with
prominent vertical aluminum ribs was chosen as the target, and the
pictures shot. In this test, as expected, the SA reigned supreme. As
a classic, almost symmetric wideangle, it didn¹t have much to worry
about in this test. I detected essentially no distortion, and I can’t
ever remember having seen any in all the years I have used this lens.
In fact, it’s for this reason alone that assignments that I otherwise did completely with an SLR for framing accuracy and for use of shift lenses were often completed with shots taken with the SA. The ASPH had the poorest distortion performance, with straight lines
close to and parallel to the long edge shooting off into the corners
in the last 5 or 6 mm. About 15mm or so from the center I could see a
very slight bit of barrel distortion. In other words, distortion
characteristics typical of most retrofocus designs, but of a very low
value. SLR lenses should have it so good! The VC and GR lenses also
showed some distortion, with the VC being somewhat better, but they
had less than half the distortion levels of the ASPH. Most people
would regard the distortion levels in all of these lenses as being
completely negligible. In my architectural photography it does make a
difference at times, and I always want to know exactly how a lens
will perform in this regard, so I take the testing of this parameter
seriously.

The out of focus areas of the pictures were all handled acceptably.
Hard to say much more regarding 21mm lenses. Not much was really out
of focus.

Handling the four lenses almost simultaneously heightened my
awareness of their ergonomics. The VC lens is tiny; the same size as
the 25 Skopar, and seems at times of the same order of size as the
finder. It is also light, being just over 100gms. The hood is
vestigial. You have to remove it to attach a filter (39mm), but when
you reattach the hood which screws on onto the outside of the lens,
it extends only a millimeter past the filter. The aperture ring is
still easy to get to, and is easy to adjust. The focussing ring has a
little lever like some other lenses in the Voigtländer lineup, and
using this it is easy to make the adjustment, especially with the
rangefinder coupling. The lens focusses down to 0.5m, but the
coupling stops at 0.7m due to the physical interference in the lens
mount. As a comparison, the SA couples down to 0.6m because it
doesn¹t have this interference. It focusses down to 0.4m manually.
The GR couples down to 0.7m as well. It has a focussing tab, and a
lever on the aperture ring, which is relocateable. This lever on the
aperture ring was something I didn¹t have time to get used to. I
often grabbed it to focus, and found myself at f/22 while still
focussed well off the subject. Oh well. This lens is nearly twice as
heavy as the VC, but is actually a bit shorter. As mentioned, the
optics are tiny, and sit well down in the lens. It takes 40.5mm
filters, and has a (heavy) metal hood that screws into the lens¹
filter thread, and is then rotatble and fixed with a set screw, which
is necessary as the hood is rectangular. The Ricoh finder is large,
dim and as poor as the VC finder is good. I like the Leica finder,
which doesn¹t stick up as much as the VC finder, but I doubt I will
buy another Leica finder as long as I can buy a VC finder for 1/3 to
1/2 the price. Compared to the two Japanese lenses the German ones
are huge and weigh a ton. The SA, of course, sticks way back into the
camera, but doesn¹t stick out in front too much more than the
Japanese lenses, but it is longer overall and very heavy in
comparison. The ASPH is by far the largest, but handles well once on
the camera, partly due to its size. The aperture ring and focussing
ring are both easy to find and operate. The aperture ring on the SA
is rather too thin to operate easily. The Leica focussing tabs work
the best, and are located where you expect them.

All the lenses were a delight to use, and if one only had any one of
these there would absolutely be no need to feel deprived. BUT, in
summary:

The Super Angulon has been outclassed in all but distortion levels.
It was and is a great lens, but there are now better ones. Also
counting against it is the inability to meter with it. The Ricoh GR
lens is interesting, but due to the low number of production it is
unlikely to be put to use much, but rather kept in a collection.
Performance is very good, but not really any better than the less
expensive Voigtländer. The Voigtländer lens is, like many of its
stablemates, an outstanding value. This is the lens to get if you¹re
not sure you¹ll use a 21 a lot, but would like to have one available.
Similarly, this is the lens to take if you¹re not sure you¹ll need
one on a walk or trip. It and its finder take up hardly more room
than two boxes of film. The performance is truly excellent, and needs
no excuses. For hardly more than the price of the Leica finder, you
get a finder and they threw in the lens. We then come to the ASPH,
which is, as has been noted by others, a truly outstanding lens which
defines the standard for 21mm lenses, except for distortion.

---------------------

Henning
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom