Voigtlander 15mm or WATE on M9

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...The M8 doesn't allow user setting of lenses (except by doing physical lens coding).

Exactly hence my question.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[dseelig]

I have used both the 15 and the wate. In tough lighting situaitions you will find the wate performs far better.

[jibanes]

Exactly hence my question.

 

If it was a M8 he would have coded a leica 21mm which is closer to a 15mm under a crop factor of 1.3, not 16mm. Hence, this is a M9. Moreover, this purple vignetting is a characteristic of the behavior of the CV15 under a FF M9, this is hardly visible (if even) on a M8 or M8.2, because of the smaller sensor.

[jaques]

here is an image from an m9 with the CV 15 (new RF coupled version). The large version is extremely sharp. It is a 100 second exposure and the colours are extreme- all over the place- but the lighting was diverse- moonlight, tungsten, you name it. there is the red edge issue (this image has not been corrected with CF) but I am very happy with this lens.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jibanes]

beautiful!

[Jerry_R]

The result on the M8.2. is very close as you can see. Once I get my M9 back I will do the same test

Any chance to see M9 comparison ;-) ?

 

Some of you still repeat - that WATE (@16mm) is better than CV 15mm. So far - none comparison shown that. I really would like to see that difference. I am not interested in color shift or vignetting, but aspects like sharpness, distortions.

[jibanes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just received my CV15mm which I will try on my M8 this weekend. I took a few test shots, no vignetting.

[C_R]

I can recommend Sean Reid´s pages. A thorough test of CV15 vs WATE (@16) and Zeiss 15/2.8 Distagon on M8 showed best sharpness with the Zeiss, then CV15, followed by the WATE (in the center - over the whole M8 frame, the CV15 was slightly better than the Zeiss and WATE). Really pixelpeeping, very small differences.

[Logic108]

The best 16mm lens is the Zeiss Hologon 16/8. After that then the WATE has the best IQ/versatility. The CV 15 very good and the new CV 12 will hopefully be as good.

 

If you can afford it then the WATE is probably the way to go. If you want absolute best IQ and shoot landscapes then the Hologon 16/8 adapted for Leica is the one. If you want a mix of very good IQ and good price then the CV 15 is the one.

 

I should also add that a few photographers are stitching their landscape shots. I use the 50mm 'lux for this. Obviously this is not possible in all cases.

[thrice]

The best 16mm lens is the Zeiss Hologon 16/8. After that then the WATE has the best IQ/versatility. The CV 15 very good and the new CV 12 will hopefully be as good.

 

If you can afford it then the WATE is probably the way to go. If you want absolute best IQ and shoot landscapes then the Hologon 16/8 adapted for Leica is the one. If you want a mix of very good IQ and good price then the CV 15 is the one.

 

I should also add that a few photographers are stitching their landscape shots. I use the 50mm 'lux for this. Obviously this is not possible in all cases.

 

Odd that you should mention the Hologon, I was poised to buy one but decided to go with the Heliar. Distortion on the Hologon doesn't exist at all, the graph is flat. However:

 

• no metering (unless you hack apart the rear shroud even then it's just partial)
  
• extreme colour shifts (red edges)
  
• extreme falloff (partially countered by the centre filter) that can't be fully corrected
  
• relative rarity
  
• expense
  
• no coupling
  

 

led me to choose the Heliar. If I ever get to walk through certain cathedrals and museums in Europe where tripods and flash photography aren't permitted, I'm sure shooting at f/4.5 rather than an effective f/16 (with centre filter) will be far more convenient.

 

I've read that the centre filter gives a green cast on film, obviously correctable on digital but they say it diminishes some of the colour quality the lens exhibits without the filter.

[Logic108]

You are right about the Hologon and not being able to use a tripod indoors. The colour shift can be somewhat corrected by coding the Hologon. Also the shift does not seem so problematic in low contrast situations or when shooting black and white. There is also software that can fix it. It is however still an expensive lens with it's own set of limitations - but the IQ is the best.

[thrice]

You are right about the Hologon and not being able to use a tripod indoors. The colour shift can be somewhat corrected by coding the Hologon. Also the shift does not seem so problematic in low contrast situations or when shooting black and white. There is also software that can fix it. It is however still an expensive lens with it's own set of limitations - but the IQ is the best.

 

Let's not forget how sexy it is, and how compact it is mounted on a camera! It only protrudes 11mm from the body.

 

If Voigtlander had an 18mm to rival the Distagon I'd struggle not to buy that lens, but as they are producing both lines, they wouldn't dare cannibalise one of their own products.

[piero]

....

This isn't a guess - it was confirmed on a trip to Solms.

 

are you positive on that?

[j_lir]

the ZM Distagon is the 15mm lens that I use, however I'm thinking of grabbing a CV 15 (coupled) for travel etc...the distagon is a HUGE piece of glass, my biggest (> 75 lux. > nocti, > .95 canon!)

[Alnitak]

The best 16mm lens is the Zeiss Hologon 16/8. After that then the WATE has the best IQ/versatility. The CV 15 very good and the new CV 12 will hopefully be as good.

 

If you can afford it then the WATE is probably the way to go. If you want absolute best IQ and shoot landscapes then the Hologon 16/8 adapted for Leica is the one. If you want a mix of very good IQ and good price then the CV 15 is the one.

 

I should also add that a few photographers are stitching their landscape shots. I use the 50mm 'lux for this. Obviously this is not possible in all cases.

 

FYI, but the new 12mm has the exact same optical formula as the model released about ten years ago.

 

It also seems that the Hologon isn't a really practical option, so that really leaves the current Zeiss 15, the CV 15 and the WATE as the reasonable options in that focal length.

 

I haven't used the Zeiss 15, and the CV 15 has some pretty serious red edge issues on the M9, so IMO, the only practical option at the moment is the WATE.

 

Jeff

[Guest roey]

Hi There

It vignettes a lot, and you will get a red tint down the left hand side.

The only sensible way to use the CV15 on the M9 is using cornerfix - really not worth bothering otherwise, but excellent if you DO use it.

 

That's what I thought, too, initially. But I gave it another try the other day. Here is one photo with the CV15 on an M9 (coded as 21mm 2.8) adjusted for tone and white balance in LR:

 

 

 

And this is the same with a simple graduated color filter, applied through a Lightroom preset:

 

 

 

No Cornerfix required -- Cornerfix might get even better results and I will use if I come across an image that needs it. I have another preset that removes the remaining vignetting, but in many cases (like this one) I like it better with it.

[The_hog]

Roey:

 

I am very interested in this discussion. Tempted by the CV 15. But, what about the red I see along the whole of the left edge edges of both pictures? Doesn't it bother you?

 

Best

Arni

[lct]

...No Cornerfix required...

Too much vignetting and color cast in your pic roey. If Cornerfix works, as suggested my Jono, why not using it if i may ask?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest roey]

But, what about the red I see along the whole of the left edge edges of both pictures? Doesn't it bother you?

 

Hi Ami:

 

Are you seeing any difference between the two pictures? My point was that the red cast can be fixed with a color gradient in LR. I might not have been aggressive enough with the gradient because you are obviously seeing some red in the second picture. Measuring it it looks like there still is a little bit too much yellow.

 

Too much vignetting and color cast in your pic roey. If Cornerfix works, as suggested my Jono, why not using it if i may ask?

 

I am not opposed to Cornerfix in general. I think it is a great tool at an unbeatable price. However, if I can fix it in LR I prefer doing that because it is much faster and it is non-destructive.

[Guest trond]

Any chance to see M9 comparison ;-) ?

 

Some of you still repeat - that WATE (@16mm) is better than CV 15mm. So far - none comparison shown that. I really would like to see that difference. I am not interested in color shift or vignetting, but aspects like sharpness, distortions.

 

Dear Jerry,

 

For what it is worth, I have used the WATE for almost two weeks now doing street photography in San Francisco. I can only say that the WATE is an incredible lens!

 

I have done direct comparison with my Summilux 21mm and the WATE at 21mm, both shot at f4.0.

 

The WATE at f4.0 is almost as sharp as the Summilux 21 at f4.0!

 

I think this is an incredible achievement by Leica.

 

I have no problem with color shift in corners with the WATE, not even at 16mm.

 

The lens is perfect for walking around and shooting unnoticed, just set the lens to f8.0, zone focus, and you can shoot unnoticed shoot the hip!

 

Best regards

 

Trond