Zeiss ZM 15mm f2.8 Distagon

[viramati]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was wondering if anyone was using the is on the M9. I ask because I recently bought the CV12 f5.6 which is an amazing lens for its price and I'm really enjoying using it. I already have the WATE and am thinking of selling it and the 12 to get the zeiss 15 as I would want to use it for street work and handheld where the extra 2 stops would make a real difference.

Thanks

[richfx]

I had a CV 15 f/4.5 Super Wide Heliar and new style CV 15mm VF. They worked well, but I ended up swapping them for a Zeiss 18mm f/4 Distagon T and Zeiss 18mm VF after using a Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 Distagon, which I love. The Zeiss 18mm is remarkable in terms of performance, construction, value and quality. I recommend them.

Rich

[kanuck]

"The Zeiss 18mm is remarkable in terms of performance, construction, value and quality. I recommend them.

Rich"

 

+1 on this the lens is fantastic actually and one of my best on the M9. I have been using the manual setting of the 18mm Leica lens form the 18-21-24 option and it seems to do the trick. I'd love to encode it. Unfortunately the 15mm ZM became out of my price range after I purchased the M9, 18 ZM, 28,50, and 90 M lenses all within 2 weeks of each other. I hear the 15mm Zeiss is magical though.

[lars_bergquist]

I too have had good experiences with the 18mm Distagon.

 

I understand that the 15mm Zeiss lens can be enticing to the unwary. But consider:

 

• The lens weighs 0.5 kg.

• It uses 72mm filters.

• It is not rangefinder-coupled. OK for 15mm at 4.5 but not at 2.8.

• It vignettes so badly that it needs a center-graduated ND filter. This reduces the effective light transmittance of the lens to about equivalent to a 4.5 lens -- but it does not increase depth of field!

 

The problems with various colour shifts on a M9 I can only imagine. I feel no inclination to explore them personally ...

 

As standard (for the Zeiss Ikon film RF camera) the 18mm Distagon keys in the 50/75mm finder frames, just like the Leica 18mm Super-Elmar. So you can code it as a Super-Elmar.

 

The wide-eyed old man

[richfx]

When I first got it, I manually coded the Zeiss 18mm Distagon T as the 16-18-21 WATE at 18mm and also as the 18mm Super Elmar in the M9. The Zeiss vignettes a bit less when coded as the 18mm Super Elmar in my trials and experience. Great lens.

Rich

[viramati]

Thanks Lars for you really informative post. After your advice I think I will stick to the WATE and the CV 12. I must say for its price (got it used for £450) it is one hell of a lens and I will learn to live with f5.6

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When I first got it, I manually coded the Zeiss 18mm Distagon T as the 16-18-21 WATE at 18mm and also as the 18mm Super Elmar in the M9. The Zeiss vignettes a bit less when coded as the 18mm Super Elmar in my trials and experience. Great lens.

Rich

The Super-Elmar did not exist when I got my Distagon, so I had the bayonet changed for one that produced the 28/90 pair of frames, and I too coded the lens as a WATE. This worked fine with the M8 but not with the M9. Instead of changing over to a standard 50/75 bayonet, I re-coded the lens as a pre-ASPH 21mm Elmarit, with decent success.

 

The Super-Wide Eyed Old Man

[richfx]

I tried both Leica lens codes with the M9's manual lens coding menu. After I was persuaded that the better coding (for me) was the 18mm Super Elmar, I used Tim Isaac's Match Technical Coder 2.0 kit for that Leica lens code. The nice thing about Tim's kit is that you can change the codes if you want to.

Rich

[Artichoke]

it may have the best optics of any ultra wide

Zeiss went all out with this design and the results show

this lens is virtually CA free from edge to edge, is tack sharp & has very little distortion

the build is first rate & it comes with a beautiful center gradient filter that helps minimize vignetting, though I don't use it much as it eats 2 stops of light

I set the code on my M9 for 16 mm WATE which works well as does CornerFix, though I rarely need that

f2.8 can be very useful, giving it significant advantage over competing M mount lenses

it is a large lens for an M mount, but balances reasonably well

this is one big caveat though

the 15 Distagon is not rangefinder coupled

it seems about 3/4 of the focus throw is for the first meter, so you have to be careful using zone focus, but after practice this is not much of a problem, at least for me

here are some samples to show what the lens can do

close focus subject

 

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!

 

distant subject, using center gradient filter

 

 

indoors with point light sources

 

 

shooting information & much larger versions of these can be found here Leica Digital Ms Photo Gallery by Artichoke Vinagrette at pbase.com for the first two and page 56 for the last

not many folks use this lens

I love mine & though I don't use it often, when I need an ultra wide, it is good to know it will deliver the goods

[lars_bergquist]

When coded as a WATE, the 18mm Distagon did show quite a bit of "rededge" on the larger M9 sensor. Re-coding as a pre-ASPH 21mm Elmarit did largely remedy this.

 

There is also a corresponding "greenedge" effect opposite the "rededge", i.e. on the right side of the picture, but this is usually less visible, probably because gfreen melts in better with most backgrounds than red. I have yet to see a credible explanation of the phenomenon, especially why it should be asymmetrical.

 

The old man

[lars_bergquist]

Artichoke, I'm glad you like the beast! It is definitely sharp ... but the strong barrel distortion of the lens (which I think I forgot to mention in my caveat list) is quite visible in your shots. How one reacts to that is a very personal matter, of course.

 

When I want something really extreme, I can always slap my Olympus OM 16mm Fisheye on the camera, with the aid of a Novoflex adapter. I like my distortion neat, or not at all.

 

The old man

[j_lir]

i have a distagon, and aside from it not being rangefinder coupled it's the best 15 out there.

 

compared to the nikon 14-24 it's a joke really, that thing's a beasty piece of crap. hah! i do use it when I need it though.

 

i've not used a WATE because i figured i'd only be using the WATE @ 16 so I bought the distagon.

 

I don't have a center filter, no big deal.

 

@ ƒ2.8 it focuses from 1m-infinity. so coupling isn't all that necessary for me personally.

 

the only times i wished it was coupled would be for close focus, as this thing does focus quite close for a M lens. i don't have it near me and don't feel like going downstairs (hah) so someone else can mention how close the thing focuses.

 

i generally use the nikon for wide shots because most of the time i like using the live view for wide crowd stuff.

 

here's a great frame of Major Lazer (Diplo & Switch) @ Coachella Music Festival on the M9.

 

 

here's a couple ZM Distagon + M9 grand central shots, i know incredible original! haha.

 

 

 

that's all i have handy.

 

i did use it in the recording studio a couple weeks ago and it was great.

 

i don't think there's a better 15mm out there - period.

 

cheers, hope this was helpful!

 

jesse

[Artichoke]

Artichoke, I'm glad you like the beast! It is definitely sharp ... but the strong barrel distortion of the lens (which I think I forgot to mention in my caveat list) is quite visible in your shots. How one reacts to that is a very personal matter, of course.

 

When I want something really extreme, I can always slap my Olympus OM 16mm Fisheye on the camera, with the aid of a Novoflex adapter. I like my distortion neat, or not at all.

 

The old man

I don't know that de-fishing would get you as good a result or that the Distagon's barrel distortion should be characterized as "strong"

from the maker's spec sheets the Leica WATE at 16 mm has 3.25 % maximum distortion & the Zeiss 15 mm 3.75 % which is about as good as you get with such a fast wide angle lens

of course this is easily corrected in post and not such a radical transformation of the original image as de-fishing

lastly while the lens is large (particularly in comparison with the CV 15 Heliar which is f4.5,) it isn't all that huge

here is another sample

 

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!

 

in which the size of the lens can be appreciated along with the barrel distortion

this was taken at f3.2 with a much larger version available here pussycat pics Photo Gallery by Artichoke Vinagrette at pbase.com along with more complete shooting information

[lars_bergquist]

i have a distagon, and aside from it not being rangefinder coupled it's the best 15 out there. [ ... ] @ ƒ2.8 it focuses from 1m-infinity. so coupling isn't all that necessary for me personally.

jesse

 

Yes, If you believe in the 1920's-vintage 1/30mm circle of confusion, which the d.o.f. markings and tables are computed for. This was based on the assumption that the 24x36mm Leica neg would never be enlarged more than 3x ... If that's ok by you, so be it.

 

I do seldom use these tables, but in order to get a sharp A4 (or any comparable display size) you must use a c.o.c. of 1/50th--1/60th of a mm. This you get if when working at e.g. f:8, you use the f:4 markings on the scale. Similarly, at 5.6, use 2.8. Reality is grim, but it's the only reality in town.

 

Therefore, I have never scale-focused a 15mm lens at a larger aperture than 5.6. And therefore I vastly prefer the 18mm Distagon. A horizontal angle of field of 90° is plenty for me. If it's not, I can usually move back a pace without risk of life and limb.

 

The wide-eyed old man

[microview]

Enjoyed the pussycat pics:):).

[markgay]

I'm as much use as most folks. Either they have the M9 but don't have the f/2.8 15mm or vice versa.

 

I'm vice versa, about to buy the M9 so I can't speak for the far edges.

 

It is a remarkable lens, with objections often raised, quite acceptably, by those who have decided to pass it by.

 

It is a lens for contemplative photography but very fast in terms of aperture.

 

Its strengths are not, in my opinion, landscape as the horizon is too distant, but perspective, stretching from relative close up into the far beyond. Images which are possible because you are holding a 15mm.

 

And that's my experience with the M8, where the lens is a 15mm but cropped to the aspect of a 20mm.

 

The usual objection is that it is not rangefinder coupled. As are other lenses. You've got an LCD for focus check for heck's sake. What did you do before digital held your hand!! This lens is easy to focus because if you don't nail focus, you chimp, you tweak, you take it again. Just like your average digital photographer does - even with his or her autofocus lens!

 

So you can see I love it. Take a chance on it.

[Artichoke]

thanks

I could not resist this example of the strong barrel distortion from the Zeiss 15 Distagon which I took from the original conversion of the above Antioch file to a tif, without any distortion correction in C1

 

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!

 

I have a full resolution version of this here technique Photo Gallery by Artichoke Vinagrette at pbase.com

if this barrel distortion seems strong to you, you are more wide eyed than I

[kanuck]

Here's a shot with my 18mm ZM

 

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!

 

I did some shadow adjustments in CS4.

[Manolo Laguillo]

This is from yesterday, in Madrid, 1/8 sec handheld, 800 ISO, with the 18 ZM Distagon.

First it went through Cornerfix, then it was processed with L3.

Regards,

Manolo

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Double Negative]

I find the "red edge" issue to be very dependent on your lighting/angles, at least outdoors. My 4/18 is coded as a WATE because it brings up the 50/75 framelines, unfortunately. However, going back to the lighting/angles (here the sun is behind me) there's no red edge, even using a "less than optimal" code:

 

 

The best part is, it's only a stop slower than the 2,8/15, is RF-coupled, about $2k cheaper and also a good bit smaller!