Leitz Super Angulons Compared

Testing an obscure lens against its replacement

I compared two Leica M 21 mm lenses (21 f3.4 Super Angulon and 21 f2.8 Elmarit non-aspheric) and offer the following results. The tests were somewhat subjective and not entirely scientific. These tests compare the two lenses to each other, not to other lenses. The tests were to help me make up my mind which one of these two money sinks to keep. The tests were made with a series of exposures from a tripod of stationary and static subjects. As this was meant to be simply a comparison between two lenses, analysis of exposed images was not calibrated to any standard. Instead, exposures made under similar circumstances were viewed with a slide projector and compared to each other. I'm quite sorry to say that I can't find the original photos from this trial, so I cannot post them here. See other photos: Super Angulon / Chinese New Year in Bangkok

Equipment Used Leica M6 Steady tripod Leitz (Schneider) Super Angulon 21 3.4 M chrome, no filter (*) Leitz Elmarit 21 2.8 M black, no filter Kodak Ektagraphic AF-1 Kodak 3" lens (straightforward optics, no zoom, etc) Note on Contrast The Super Angulon appears to have a design flaw which could result in slight loss of contrast at maximum aperture. If you open the lens to 3.4 and peer at a light source from the film side, you will see a halo around the iris opening. The halo vanishes at f4. This had been fixed on my Super Angulon by unscrewing the rear collar and using flat black amonia-acrylic paint to black-out the narrow glass channel surrounding the inner-most element just behind the iris. Without this modification, I don't think you'd notice a difference in image quality unless you really looked for the right symptoms.

Coverage Zone / Angle of View The Leitz Elmarit appears to be slightly wider than the Super Angulon. I wasn't testing for this variation, so it's difficult to quantify this. If the Super Angulon is what one might consider to be 21 mm, then the Elmarit appears to be apx 20 mm. In other words, the Elmarit is apx 1 mm "wider".

Resolution I looked at resolution in three areas of contrast / lighting; extremely high / bright, medium, and low / dark. In terms of pure resolution, both lenses are quite good to excellent. Numerous examples of distant text and other fine patterns demonstrated a very high degree of resolution. I wouldn't mind having enlargements made 70 * 50 of the images from either of these lenses. The only difference I saw in pure resolution is indicated below in color aberations.

Color Aberation The Elmarit does have a touch of chromatic distortion which does not seem as noticible in the Super Angulon. On white / black borders normal to the edges of the frame, and only in the corners, the Elmarit shows a very slight orange tinting pre-white and blue tinting post-white. As this is a chromatic aberation, closing the iris seems to have little or no effect. Now, before anybody runs out to dump the Elmarit and drive up the price of Super Angulons, I will quickly add that the degree of this is really quite small, and that the Elmarit does very well [if not better than the Super Angulon] in other areas. The Elmarit offers excellent definition and consistancy out to the corners and is still so much better than most of the wide lenses I've seen in this respect.

Contrast In looking at examples from many brightness and contrast levels, I noticed that the Elmarit does seem to show higher contrast in the darker levels. It seemed to me that things such as fine patterns in dark carpeting were more noticible and contrasty with the Elmarit. I would say that you'll see more shadow contrast with the Elmarit, based on my limited testing.

Color Balance I found no difference between the color balance / shift of these two lenses.

Color Saturation Another area where both lenses are so close to each other as to be virtually the same. I was impressed with the great distinction between distant tiny illuminated red EXIT sign letters against blue backgrounds.

Depth of Field Though the scales are marked differently on the two lenses, I found no significant difference in the depth of field between these lenses. The Super Angulon does focus closer (to 40 cm, Elmarit to 70 cm), and the Super Angulon scale implies that more will be in focus at ony one time than the scale on the Elmarit. The test cases were extreme, and nothing seemed different to me.

Flare Under conditions of rather sharp and bright highlights at the corners, I didn't notice any evidence of flare on either lens at widest aperture. Outstanding for each.

Falloff Both the Super Angulon and the Elmarit offer comparable performance in this area. In later tests, I have noticed that the Biogon design falls off less, probably as the rear element is further from the film plane than the Super Angulons.

Consistancy, Center to Corners Again, both lenses are excellent in this area. Both show quite even contrast and definition from center to corners, with the exception of extremely minor chromatic blurring on the Elmarit.

Final Impressions The Elmarit is significantly bigger than the Super Angulon, though both weigh apx the same. The Elmarit meters on the M6 and the Super Angulon does not, unless you modify yours as I did mine (not for the faint-hearted). The Elmarit is somewhat faster, though only by 1/2 stop. If something happens to your Super Angulon you have to fight off the collectors to get another one, but the Elmarit can always be replaced in a matter of hours. I'd feel better about using the Super Angulon at fl3.4 if it were blacked-out as is mine (see above).

Cameras Travel / Images Home

Good Page Average Page Bad Page