stephengilbert Posted January 29, 2007 Share #1 Â Posted January 29, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Having decided I didn't want to buy a wide angle Tri-Elmar, someone suggested I look at the Zeiss 15mm. Since one reason for my objection to the TE was its large size, this may seem silly, but I'm interested in the 15mm anyway. (Maybe 'cause it's just a cool lens. You Noctilux addicts will understand.) Â Has anyone out there any experience with this lens, on an M8 or otherwise? I read the LL review, which was quite admiring, but would still like to know more. Â Thanks, Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 29, 2007 Posted January 29, 2007 Hi stephengilbert, Take a look here Anyone Familiar with Zeiss 15mm ZM?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
carstenw Posted January 29, 2007 Share #2 Â Posted January 29, 2007 Do you really need the f/2.8? The CV15 is cheap and really sharp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbmay Posted January 29, 2007 Share #3 Â Posted January 29, 2007 I own the lens and it is very sharp, corner to corner. Try it out! It is somewhat expensive but in my opinion worth the money. Â George Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted January 29, 2007 Share #4 Â Posted January 29, 2007 Even for a 15mm, I find it hard not to be rangefinder coupled when shooting at f2.8... Â Giulio Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted January 29, 2007 Share #5 Â Posted January 29, 2007 I have a test copy of that lens on its way. Â Cheers, Â Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
devils-advocate Posted January 29, 2007 Share #6  Posted January 29, 2007 Michael just reviewed the ZM15 on Luminous-Landscape. It's a gorgeous lens, but ridiculously large and spectacularly expensive.  Zeiss M-Mount Lenses  Do you *really* need that extra 5-10% of quality over the CV? My suggestion is to buy the CV and see if it falls short of your needs. I doubt it will.  The WA Tri-Elmar is a lot more lens for the money than the ZM15. It's also a lot smaller than the ZM15 which really is big.  I would add that the 15 f2.8 will not give you anything like the shallow DOF effect of the 50mm Noctilux, so don't let that influence you. Moreover, the ZM15 is not rangefinder coupled (unforgiveable at the price) so it's a big hit-and-miss wide-open on an M8.  - N. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronJ Posted January 30, 2007 Share #7 Â Posted January 30, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'd love to see some shots with the 15mm on full-frame film. Half the point in evaluating an ultra-wide is seeing how it handles corners and vignetting -- two issues partially obscured by the M8's 1.33 sensor. Oh well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grantray Posted January 30, 2007 Share #8 Â Posted January 30, 2007 It's no more ridiculously large or expensive than a Noctilux. It's shorter than a 90 summicron. Weighs about the same or less than a 75 summilux. The quality difference is more than 5-10% when compared to the CV. Feels REALLY good in your hand. Â Wide open dusk/dawn landscapes or outdoor product shots? Unbeatable. Â -grant Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted January 30, 2007 Share #9  Posted January 30, 2007 It's no more ridiculously large or expensive than a Noctilux. It's shorter than a 90 summicron. Weighs about the same or less than a 75 summilux. The quality difference is more than 5-10% when compared to the CV. Feels REALLY good in your hand. Wide open dusk/dawn landscapes or outdoor product shots? Unbeatable.  -grant Grant My interest is in starting with the best image quality in an ultra wide. Assuming that the glass is best in class, do you feel that the lack of rangefinder coupling is affecting the quality when you shoot wide open? How does the image quality compare to your other lenses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoff Posted January 30, 2007 Share #10 Â Posted January 30, 2007 Stephen, Â I cannot comment on the lens, but I will be acquiring one soon. I already use the Voightlander Super Wide Heliar 15 as my primarily indoor lens. Additionally, I plan on acquiring the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21. So, altogether I will eventually have three lenses with overlapping, or near overlapping, focal lengths. Â Why three? Well, I tend to shoot wide-angle a lot. Almost always for indoor work in tight settings and where I prefer to get up close and personal with my live subjects. Â The Voightlander Heliar was a no-brainer given the price and quality. The Tri-Elmar is going to be intended as an all purpose traveling wide-angle solution, mainly out on the street, when I need more than one fixed focal length but prefer not to cart around three lenses and deal with lens swapping. The Zeiss, while big and heavy, will be allocated for my most demanding work where absolute sharpness, minimal geometric distortion and lens flare are utmost concern. Â The Voightlander is almost perfect. Yet, there are times when I need more flexible in wide-angle focal lengths and other times when I need be sure I am doing the best at addressing flare. Â I shoot a lot with a handheld flash that I direct around at will over and under my subjects. Sometimes almost within lens view. These are extreme situation for most people, but it is ending up being the norm for me. I want to make sure I am doing all that is possible, lens selection wise, to facilitate this type of work with minimal possibility of flare. Additionally, in the near future I will be experimenting with multiple, handheld, radio-controlled, flash units in which an assistant or two will be choreographed to move in tandem with me through live environments in and around subjects. Something like a living moving studio setup transported into the real world. Yes, flare will be a concern. Â Additionally, even though my indoor work is currently done with a flash, in a take no prisoners shooting style, there are times in which I would only be able to capture the moment and survive by way of a less intrusion available light approach. Here, the Zeiss is intended to address this need as well. Â As far as lens coupling and rangefinder focusing, I don't have time. Everything is zone focused for me. Â And for the umpteenth time, to peak at some of my recent work with the Voightlander Super Wide Heliar 15 go to: Â www.myspace.com/geoffotos Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grantray Posted January 30, 2007 Share #11 Â Posted January 30, 2007 Grant My interest is in starting with the best image quality in an ultra wide. Assuming that the glass is best in class, do you feel that the lack of rangefinder coupling is affecting the quality when you shoot wide open? How does the image quality compare to your other lenses? Â To be honest I don't really consider this lens for quick street-style work wide open. Although that sounds like a wonderful creative challenge! For me, the lens represents a faster variant of the Hassy SWC. Of course getting one of those new with a mere film back will set you back over 7 large from B&H. And I damn near went that route over the M8. (As a maker, I like placing boundaries in order to instigate creative momentum.) But with the image quality of the M8, I figured I could have my cake and... Â -grant Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJL Posted January 30, 2007 Share #12 Â Posted January 30, 2007 Not to hammer too hard on the "other option", but as Carsten and Nick and some others have commented, the CV 15/4.5 is pretty incredible for such a compact little lens. Â That being said, I can appreciate some of the things that Zeiss has done with some of their lenses. I do not have the ZM 15/2.8, but I was starting to lust for it when first talked about. That lust has abated for two reasons....one is the overall cost of the lens. It is right up there with the exotics of Leica. And that brings up the second point.....if you have glass that fast (f2.8) not being rangefinder coupled seems like a bit of set-back. Yes, you can zone focus, just as with the CV 15, but if shooting wide open, one will have to be a lot more careful for things close in, where distances do matter. Zeiss has some amazing sharpness to the edges, which is really nice to see on superwides. That greatness becomes a penalty if you miss you focus on short distances. Â I think Geoff's point about wanting and needing different lenses is valid if you do shoot that wide a lot. If you do not, or are not into really serious architecutral shooting (where a MF or something with tilst shift would matter more), then the ZM 15/2.8 seems like a bit much for many applications. Would I want one? Sure. Would it do an awful lot more for my work than the CV 15? Probably not as much as I wish it could with a few more features....like rangefinder coupling, or some way to ensure closer in shooting at wide apertures (its strength) would be in focus more often than not. Â The argument about lower light panos and stuff I think is valid, and I do think it will shine nicely there, but focus will be much less of an issue too. Just some thoughts. Â LJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted January 30, 2007 Share #13 Â Posted January 30, 2007 The other option is Zeiss has a 18 f4 coming out also, which for some maybe a good option instead of the 15 C/V a little longer and F4 but still a option. The WATE does appeal to me for some things. From the images we have seen it looks good . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 30, 2007 Share #14 Â Posted January 30, 2007 Call me a grumpy old thing, but given writing is what he does, you'd think Michael could pass his output through a spell-checker. Rigerous? And Leica lenses haven't been made in Wetzlar - or Wetzler as he likes to spell it - for many years. At least he doesn't think they are still made by a company called Leitz. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted January 30, 2007 Share #15 Â Posted January 30, 2007 Thank God i don't call myself a writer , I would be very poor now. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjon Posted January 30, 2007 Share #16 Â Posted January 30, 2007 Call me a grumpy old thing, but given writing is what he does, you'd think Michael could pass his output through a spell-checker. Rigerous? And Leica lenses haven't been made in Wetzlar - or Wetzler as he likes to spell it - for many years. At least he doesn't think they are still made by a company called Leitz. Â "Grumpy" nor "old" woulld not do justiss to my thowts or your conntribusion to this thredd (and others). It is such an attitude which cause me, and no doubt others, to rarely bother to contribute on this forum. Â PS I have this lens and its results on the M8 are excellent in my view; especially for making panoramas. If anyone wants more feedback they can send me a private message or email. Make sue you speel check your message first..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macusque Posted January 30, 2007 Share #17 Â Posted January 30, 2007 As Guy pointed out, the upcoming Zeiss 18/4 could be very interesting. Â 1 stop slower and 20% longer focal lenght, but rangefinder coupled, much smaller and lighter and I bet much less expensive... I don't think the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is of paramount importance here, considering that it is quite easy to get steady shots handheld with the CV 15/4.5 @ 1/8 sec and thereabout. It's only that the CV 15 is rather soft wide open, it needs to be stopped down 1 stop, but if the Zeiss is sharp at f/4, then I'd be happy with its max aperture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephengilbert Posted January 30, 2007 Author Share #18 Â Posted January 30, 2007 Thanks, all. I think my interest in the Zeiss lens is based too much on it being a beautiful object. I really value small lenses when they are available, and think the 500 gram weight and large dimensions of the 15 is too much for me. (I think the Tri-Elmar is too big.) I think the suggestion to wait for the 18mm is a good one. Or maybe I'll go in the other direction and get a VC 12. I appreciate the help. Â Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 30, 2007 Share #19 Â Posted January 30, 2007 The LL review of the WATE has an interesting picture of the WATE side by side with the Zeiss. The Distagon is huge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted January 30, 2007 Share #20  Posted January 30, 2007 "Grumpy" nor "old" woulld not do justiss to my thowts or your conntribusion to this thredd (and others). It is such an attitude which cause me, and no doubt others, to rarely bother to contribute on this forum. PS I have this lens and its results on the M8 are excellent in my view; especially for making panoramas. If anyone wants more feedback they can send me a private message or email. Make sue you speel check your message first.....  Speaking generally, I wouldn't let anyone keep you from posting here. Just do your thing and don't worry about it. Most of us here are able to put things (and individual posts) in their proper context so if you post and someone else insults you, just keep rolling. I speak, unfortunately, from vast experience, having been insulted on forums, in PMs, by e-mail, carrier pigeon, etc. If one can muster it, it's best to just ignore and keep rolling (my third cliche in just one post!) <G>  Cheers,  Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.