duckrider Posted December 6, 2015 Share #21 Posted December 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Coding Zeiss is an easy to DIY: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/243968-lens-auto-detection/ 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 Hi duckrider, Take a look here Zeiss Zm 15mm vs. leica tri-elmar WATE. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Flu Posted December 6, 2015 Share #22 Posted December 6, 2015 What are you coding it as, if you don't mind my asking? Good question John. I've never done this to a lens before so I am actually not sure. The end result I'm after is to try and get the M to do some in camera processing and get rid of some of the color shifts at the corners. Do you have any advice in this regard? TY! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted December 6, 2015 Share #23 Posted December 6, 2015 21mm is the widest lens I have (Summilux and SEM). I have been considering a wider lens. I've recently tried out IkarusJohn's 2.8/15 and it's a most impressive lens. It has significant red-edging on the M240, and is a large and heavy lens (although it being narrower near the camera mount does make it reasonably comfortable to carry. I'm inclined towards the WATE because of it being smaller and lighter, and with no red edging to correct. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 6, 2015 Share #24 Posted December 6, 2015 Good question John. I've never done this to a lens before so I am actually not sure. The end result I'm after is to try and get the M to do some in camera processing and get rid of some of the color shifts at the corners. Do you have any advice in this regard? TY! Not really. The best code I've found so far is the 28/2.8 Elmarit ... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiepphotog Posted December 6, 2015 Share #25 Posted December 6, 2015 21mm is the widest lens I have (Summilux and SEM). I have been considering a wider lens. I've recently tried out IkarusJohn's 2.8/15 and it's a most impressive lens. It has significant red-edging on the M240, and is a large and heavy lens (although it being narrower near the camera mount does make it reasonably comfortable to carry. I'm inclined towards the WATE because of it being smaller and lighter, and with no red edging to correct. That's why I wish Leica is on top of the sensor tech next gen. Sony A7RII and A7S have no red edging problem whatsoever, and that's without in-camera correction. As for the two lenses, unless you need f/2.8 (wide-field astro and some creative landscapes) and the ease of filter use with lens hood, the WATE is a better lens stopping down to f/8 in term of across the frame resolution. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesom3 Posted December 8, 2015 Share #26 Posted December 8, 2015 any thoughts on the the new Voigtlander 15mm v3 lens???? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted December 8, 2015 Share #27 Posted December 8, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) The Voigtlander 15 V3 is a very capable lens indeed, and would be a good choice for a 15. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiepphotog Posted December 8, 2015 Share #28 Posted December 8, 2015 any thoughts on the the new Voigtlander 15mm v3 lens???? Like Ramchand said, the CV is a capable lens. Most modern lenses are. But for UWA, you do get what you pay for, more money, more even-ness across the frame. I have no direct experience, but from the infinity tests I have seen, it's neither Zeiss nor Leica in term of performance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted December 8, 2015 Share #29 Posted December 8, 2015 That's why I wish Leica is on top of the sensor tech next gen. Sony A7RII and A7S have no red edging problem whatsoever, and that's without in-camera correction. Really? I have both of those cameras and there's a bunch of M mount wides that have significant issues on both. The A7RII has mostly gotten rid of the red edges (although some lenses now have a cyan edge) but nothing will cure the significant corner smearing with many wide M mount lenses. This isn't a slight on the camera as they're not M cameras and their own lenses are really fabulous. Leica have the disadvantage of having to make the M cameras work with a whole bunch of old legacy lenses as well as ones designed for film. I also think it's a bit harsh to criticise Leicas compatibility with Zeiss and CV lenses. Performance with actual Leica lenses is pretty much great, when comparing the same lens on a film body. Gordon Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiepphotog Posted December 8, 2015 Share #30 Posted December 8, 2015 Really? I have both of those cameras and there's a bunch of M mount wides that have significant issues on both. The A7RII has mostly gotten rid of the red edges (although some lenses now have a cyan edge) but nothing will cure the significant corner smearing with many wide M mount lenses. This isn't a slight on the camera as they're not M cameras and their own lenses are really fabulous. Leica have the disadvantage of having to make the M cameras work with a whole bunch of old legacy lenses as well as ones designed for film. I also think it's a bit harsh to criticise Leicas compatibility with Zeiss and CV lenses. Performance with actual Leica lenses is pretty much great, when comparing the same lens on a film body. Gordon Gordon, that is not a criticism of Leica... I am stating facts. Which lens(es) do you have cyan edges on the A7RII? To what degree? If a lens can force cyan edges out on the A7RII, I'm pretty sure it looks horrible on any other digital platform. Leica has in-camera correction for the colored edge problem. If you turn it off, you will see how much worse it actually is. It's not a big problem by any mean for native Leica M lenses. Most of Zeiss and CV lenses can be solved by coding the right way as well. But isn't it better not to deal with it at all? Software correction will always lead to degradation of sort. As for smearing, it just proves that digital M is still the best choice for M-mount lenses. I always welcome any improvement Leica can offer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxo Posted September 27, 2016 Share #31 Posted September 27, 2016 That's why I wish Leica is on top of the sensor tech next gen. Sony A7RII and A7S have no red edging problem whatsoever, and that's without in-camera correction. As for the two lenses, unless you need f/2.8 (wide-field astro and some creative landscapes) and the ease of filter use with lens hood, the WATE is a better lens stopping down to f/8 in term of across the frame resolution. Sorry, but one question related to the topic of this old thread: wide-field astro is my purpose, but I'm unsure if the Leica SL is good enough to compensate the one stop less of the WATE (compared to the Zeiss 15mm). So what about the difference in picture quality wide open, Zeiss 15mm vs. WATE 16mm, any advice/experience? Thanks!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted September 28, 2016 Share #32 Posted September 28, 2016 Pending on which type of astrophoto you aim for, but for pinpoint stars, f1.4-2.8 may work with the present SL sensor, but f4 leads to too long exposure times (I would not go beyond ISO3200 for astroshots including (dark/darkish) landscape). I have not tested the 15ZM, but I would check out reported pink miscolouring towards the edges and rather strong off-centre light falloff. There seems to be few/no obvious Leica lenses for astrophoto including wide landscapes. The 28Lux is ok but not perfect (some coma, not very wide), 21Lux is not up there as far as I have seen, WATE and 21SEM are on the slow end, etc. But there are non-Leica alternatives around, like the still-going-strong Nikon 14-24 f2.8. Anyone with specific experiences out there with Leica/non-Leica optics? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted September 28, 2016 Share #33 Posted September 28, 2016 How about the CV 21/1.8 Ultron? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted September 28, 2016 Share #34 Posted September 28, 2016 How about the CV 21/1.8 Ultron? Not in the top league. See here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxo Posted September 28, 2016 Share #35 Posted September 28, 2016 Pending on which type of astrophoto you aim for, but for pinpoint stars, ... Thanks! Yes, I'm aiming for pinpoint stars, therefore I need f 2.8 One thing I dislike of the Zeiss, beyond the color cast in the egdes, is the strong distortion (4%). It would be great to use this lens for architecture as well, but this is limited by strong distortion. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.