VC 12mm or VC 15mm. Which to get?

[gvaliquette]

Hello all:

I will soon be looking to add a super wide-angle lens to my equipment. Since these lenses are used only for special shots, I cannot justify the price of a 15 mm f2.8 Super-Elmarit-R for my R9, so I have been looking at the Voigtlander/Cosina 15mm f4.5 Heliar and the 12mm f5.6 Heliar for my M4-2 and/or CL. Does anybody have first hand experience with these lenses? Which do you recommend. How much, or how little, distortion is there? Vignetting?

Your help will be appreciated. Thanks

Guy

[michael_boylan]

Guy,

I haven't tried the 12, but I am one of many here that have the 15 and love it. You really get a bang for your buck.

You need to be careful with the horizontals and verticals but once you do that there is very little distortion.

Inside the Tate Britain, IIIf, 15mm CV, FP4

11440007.jpg

[jofe]

Guy,

I am using the 15mm Heliar with Voigtlaender Bessa L, this works very good. The connection of my Heliar to the M6 with M39 adapter is not simply because of tolerance in the screwing mount - the direction of the internal lens hood of my Heliar (with M39 addapter) does not lie parallel to horizontal and vertical frame. But in combination with the Bessa L body it does.

Stopping down at 5.6 the lens works very good, it is not easy to use because of it's great angle, this is the reason that I don't think about 12mm Heliar.You could be very happy the 15mm Heliar.

Jochen

[Perspectics]

I`ve seen another thread in this forum where people clearly voted in favor of the 12mm, which is a twice as expensive, btw. Anyway, I ordered a 12 and will be fetching it this afternoon I may need to add that the other thread was about use of the lenses with M8.

[philipotto]

I have the 12 and the 15.

I much prefer the feel and handling of the 12. I like the focusing screw and indents at 1M and .5M. I also like the removable armalite hood and viewfinder. The 15 has a fixed hood and plastic viewfinder. Plus consensus seems to be that the 12 offers superiorly performance. The only downsides appear to be its increased size, weight, price, and loss of a stop.

I now have my 15 up for sale as the 12 stays in my bag, and the 15 sits in my drawer.


42950033.jpg
M6 I CV12 I Tri-X @ 100

[jlancasterd]

Originally Posted by gvaliquette

Hello all:

I will soon be looking to add a super wide-angle lens to my equipment. Since these lenses are used only for special shots, I cannot justify the price of a 15 mm f2.8 Super-Elmarit-R for my R9, so I have been looking at the Voigtlander/Cosina 15mm f4.5 Heliar and the 12mm f5.6 Heliar for my M4-2 and/or CL. Does anybody have first hand experience with these lenses? Which do you recommend. How much, or how little, distortion is there? Vignetting?

Your help will be appreciated. Thanks

Guy

I've had a CV 15mm for about a year and use it a great deal - it's probably the lens that I use most often apart from the 28mm lens that is my normal 'body cap' for the M8. With reasonable care in framing the subject and estimating the focus, it produces excellent results.

I've recently bought the 12mm but have yet to 'come to terms' with its FOV, and I'm beginning to think that it may be much more of a specialist lens than the 15mm. The 15mm is, after all only a 21mm equivalent on the M8, whereas the 12mm is a 16mm equivalent.

I have both lenses fitted with Milich coded adapters and Milich lens hoods/filter holders, which I would say are essential for use with the M8.

[spydrxx]

I've had the 15 for about a year now, and used it infrequently on my M6. It is sharp, and I rarely use the accessory viewfinder. It does vignette somewhat more than my 35 and 28mm lenses. I would rate it a good bargain for those who want a good lens of this angle of view without robbing the bank.

[luigi bertolotti]

I think your choice has to be done also depending on which is at the moment your WA equipment; I have the 15 only, but for what I have seen here in the forum, both are equally good, and both have an inevitable vignetting on film. I'd say that if you are "film only" and don't have anything under 28, the 15 can be a wise chioce; if you already have a 21 (and moreover a 19) ... go really extreme and take the 12.

[bill]

I can only speak for the 15, but it works for me.


British Museum 2.jpg

Congratulations.jpg

IIIc Millennium Bridge.jpg

Pool 15mm 2a.jpg

Regards,

Bill

[leitz_not_leica]

I bought both at the same time to see which I preferred. I tested them with the camera mounted on a TT tripod. The 12 was sharper and had better contrast, so I sold the 15. As someone posted, if you're going to go radical wide, get the 12.

[gvaliquette]

Thank you all; this is really helpful.

Luigi, I currently have a 21mm/f4 Super-Angulon-R and a 16mm/f2.8 Fisheye-Elmarit-R. I love both of them.

21mm Super-Angulon-R/R9/DMR:
l1011303.jpg
Monte Riggioni

16mm Fisheye-Elmarit-R/R9/DMR:
l1011468.jpg
Siena, Duomo, Batistero

I think I'll go for the 12mm!

Thanks again to all.

Guy

(I can never get the knack of getting the pictures where I want in the post! )

[Perspectics]

I got my 12mm for Christmas and my first impression is that the lenses is great and the viewfinder total crap.

Let me explain: First of all the viewfinder is 12mm and because of the M8 crop it should be 16... well, you get the lenses in a set along with the viewfinder. Secondly, depending on where you place your eye before the viewfinder, the angle changes significantly. Thirdly - and this is really bad - you cannot level the camera. I mean, you have no famelines, no nothing that would help you to keep the camera horizontally. You can buy a water-lever from Voigtlaender. And you need it, seriously. I would summarize that the only way to compose a picture with this lenses is through trial and error, with automatic replay turned on. I really wished that some person who understands this lenses would comment on this and/or correct me.

The lenses on the other hand are big fun. I cannot really judge the quality yet, but the pictures can have very surprising looks and in the moment I`m really in love with the results.

[giordano]

Originally Posted by Perspectics

I got my 12mm for Christmas and my first impression is that the lenses is great and the viewfinder total crap.

Let me explain: First of all the viewfinder is 12mm and because of the M8 crop it should be 16... well, you get the lenses in a set along with the viewfinder. Secondly, depending on where you place your eye before the viewfinder, the angle changes significantly. Thirdly - and this is really bad - you cannot level the camera. I mean, you have no famelines, no nothing that would help you to keep the camera horizontally. You can buy a water-lever from Voigtlaender. And you need it, seriously. I would summarize that the only way to compose a picture with this lenses is through trial and error, with automatic replay turned on. I really wished that some person who understands this lenses would comment on this and/or correct me.

Using a spirit level is a big help in keeping things under control with lenses this wide. No finder for this focal length will be perfect, but with experience you'll get to know the relationship between what the finder shows and what gets recorded.

The Voigtlander bubble level with angled prism works well with the 12mm finder but isn't quite so convenient to use with the Voigtlander 15mm finder (which gives a reasonable approximation to the 12mm's field of view on the M8).

The Voigtlander is the only 15mm finder I've owned. It doesn't have projected framelines and you have to take care to keep your eye centred. The other choices seem to be the Frankenfinder (which covers 16mm and has projected frames and a spirit level but has horrible barrel distortion and costs about as much as the Voigtlander lens and finder together) and the Zeiss 15mm finder.

Does anyone know if the 15mm Zeiss has projected framelines and a bubble?

[Perspectics]

Originally Posted by giordano

Using a spirit level is a big help in keeping things under control with lenses this wide. No finder for this focal length will be perfect, but with experience you'll get to know the relationship between what the finder shows and what gets recorded.

The Voigtlander bubble level with angled prism works well with the 12mm finder but isn't quite so convenient to use with the Voigtlander 15mm finder (which gives a reasonable approximation to the 12mm's field of view on the M8).

The Voigtlander is the only 15mm finder I've owned. It doesn't have projected framelines and you have to take care to keep your eye centred. The other choices seem to be the Frankenfinder (which covers 16mm and has projected frames and a spirit level but has horrible barrel distortion and costs about as much as the Voigtlander lens and finder together) and the Zeiss 15mm finder.

Does anyone know if the 15mm Zeiss has projected framelines and a bubble?

Thanks much for confirmation... although I was secretly hoping you`d call me wrong. Anyway, experience will come will effort and passion and I`ll learn to use it... currently I use "M8-Liveview-Simulation-Mode" (=auto-review ).

Would you think (I`ve seen your great Dymo-coding posting calculations) coding these 12mm lenses is possible/makes any sense? Does any code for a 12mm lenses exist at all?

[tobey bilek]

I have had both since they were introduced. The 15 gets more use on film.

The 12 is best at 5.6 and after 11 diffraction sets in

The 15 also gets diffraction at 11

I masked the viewfinder down with mylar slide binding tape as it shows too much at the top. the l/r changes as to how you eye is positioned. Brightlines would really have helped these two.

Both are nice lenses, but the 12 does some vignetting, the 15 less so.

[Perspectics]

The 12mm lenses and another shot with it..