[Leica] CV lens recommendations

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

At 1:07 PM -0700 3/30/07, Photo Phreak wrote:
>Has anyone compared the lens formula for these two with the two old 
>SuperAngulons ?
>   
>   I get the impression that some of these "new" rangefinder lenses 
>are the older formula lenses with computer recomputation, more 
>modern glass and multi-coating.  I am sure modern production 
>technology may help as well.
>   
>   As good as the newer Leica 21s have been they do not alway seem to 
>produce an image with the same "character" as the SuperAngulons do. 
>The SuperAngulons were true short focus lenses where the newer 21s 
>are retrofocus or reverse-telephoto.  Both have distinctive 
>"signatures".
>   
>   
>
>==================================================================
>
>Thank you very much for the information on the CV glass. I particularly
>find useful the fact that the 21/4 is superior to the 21/2.8
>non-aspheric. If I were to have bought one I more than likely would have
>chosen the faster lens. More than one person has told me they do not
>like the Nokton for various reasons. I won't be buying it. Some also
>say that the glass flares and other that it doesn't. I tend to believe
>that if it happens to one it could happen to all. From what I am hearing
>the CV lens is not as good as Leica but still a good value for the
>money. I have had recommendations for the 50/2.0 Heliar and the APO 90.
>Over the weekend I will decide which of these two I would like to have.
>
>Jack

I did a comparison of 4 different 21's a couple of years ago for the 
Viewfinder, which included the 21/3.4 SA, the 21/4CV, the 21/3.5 
Ricoh and the 21/2.8 ASPH. Over the years I've had and used about 15 
different 20's and 21's.

The writeup was also posted to the LUG, so it should be here somewhere.

-- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com