Tom's Custom 21mm Super-Angulon f3.4 w/goggles...

[LeicaVirgin1]

Dear Tom-

Thanks again for reading my thread/post. I have Jonthan Eastland's, "The Leica "M" Compendium", a good book. In one of the chapters he mention and shows pictures of a 21mm "Super-Angulon" f3.4", yet this one had goggles built in, (much like the 35mm Summicron f2.0 for the "M"-3).

Do you still use them, Do you have any extra? If you do I'd be interested in investing in one from you. If you do not want to sell, perhaps you may recommend someone, or a biz who does? People say that the 21mm "Super-Angulon" f3.4 has a "unique" look as compared to the F4.0 version and the newer, faster Elmarit, & the super-fast Summilux just put out by Leica this year. Your comments are most appreciated.

Best,

LV1

 

[Benjamin]

Yes, I've often been interested by the idea of the goggled Super Angulon. Seems like a pretty good idea.

Presumably the creation was/is intended for use with a .72 finder?

Good luck in your search by the way LV1.

Benjamin

 

[Tom A]

The goggled 21f3.4 was born from the frustration of loosing expensive Leica finders. A friend of mine in Toronto made it up for me according to my specs. It is not an easy operation as you have to machine off material at the back of the lens and also remake the bayonet to engage 28 mm lines.
We made about a dozen of these in the early 90's (including a 21f2.8 Asph - nerve wracking as you had to put the whole lens in a lathe!). Sadly, I have none left - the last one, a black 21f3.4 went to a friend in Japan many years ago.
It worked quite well on older style M's (M2/M4/M4P) - but on the M6 and later, the shield inside the finder cut off too much and only gave you about a 24/25 view.
Today you are better off with a Bessa R4M as it has the 21 finder built in - and it is much brighter than the goggles + the regular finder of a M.
Tom

 

[LeicaVirgin1]

Thank you both. I will do some research.

Best,

LV1

 

[Tom A]

Presumably the creation was/is intended for use with a .72 finder?



Benjamin

As it engages the 28 finder and magnifies it to roughly 21-22 mm, it also worked very well with the 0.58 finder. Less intrusion of the light shield too.
Drawback was that a/ it "bulks up" the lens and b/the additional optics in the goggles does dim the finder somewhat. Some years ago I had a goggled Summaron 35f3.5 and just for fun I took it apart and mounted a 21f4 VC lens in it. Focus got shifted, but it kind of worked - I did end up giving someone the mount though. The Bessa R4 has cured me of this kind of stuff ( at least for the moment - still toying with the idea of putting the R 180f3.4 Apo Telyt in a 135f2.8 mount and re-camming it as a 180 for a rangefinder!).

 

[Al Kaplan]

The 180 sounds like a great idea! It's been over forty years since Komura briefly made a 200/4.5 rangefinder coupled LTM lens. I think I'd prefer the look of a 180/2.8 though. I still regret not grabbing that preset Visoflex II version when I had the chance.

 

[Waus]

Leica made a few prototypes of coupled Apo-Telyt 180mm 1:3,4-one was for sale a few years ago on evilbay...

 

[Tom A]

The 180f3.4 in M-mount with goggles was a "trial" run for an order to the US Army. Supposedly 6-7 were made and delivered for trials. However, somehow they got "lost" (i.e stolen) from the Army and a couple have shown up on E-bay and in private sales. It is still considered a "hot" lens as the US Army took a less than positive view of loosing them!
The goggles are very big- round glass that looks like a pair of binocular!
The conversion was less than succesfull. Close focus was only at 15-18 ft and the 180f3.4 Apo Telyt was designed to give optimum performance at f3.4 and at infinity. Even today, a 180f3.4 will hold its own under those settings - it will out resolve Tech Pan!

 

[Al Kaplan]

I like the way that my early single cam 180/2.8 looked on film. The pre-set version for the Visoflex II had the same optics as the early Leicaflex lenses. My calculations indicate that a goggled 180/2.8 on an M3 should be quite useable. Many modern designs (180/3.4 and others) are too "clinical" in their rendition. Not everybody shoots brick walls and test charts on Tech Pan. Good rendition on Tri-X in the 15 to 100 foot range makes more practical sense to me.

 

[aoresteen]

The 180 sounds like a great idea! It's been over forty years since Komura briefly made a 200/4.5 rangefinder coupled LTM lens. I think I'd prefer the look of a 180/2.8 though. I still regret not grabbing that preset Visoflex II version when I had the chance.

Al,

That's what SLRs are for! 😀