TS 17mm/24mm, ZM 18/21mm, and WATE

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I enjoy visiting old churches, but none of my lenses seem wide enough. The widest is ZM 25mm. The cheapest next step is ZM 21mm or 18mm.

 

While I'm not sure whether 21mm or 18mm fits better, WATE comes into my mind, and then Canon TS-II 17mm. For the price of WATE, I can get both ZM 21mm and 18mm, or 6D + TS-II 17mm.

 

TS-II 17mm has the advantage of perspective correction, if I'm wiling to carry the (extra?) 6D, it also may require tripod, which is likely inconvenient or prohibited in many situations, particularly for indoors.

 

Between ZM 18/21 and WATE, it's also mainly the convenience. I think I can take the image difference (for now, before I really have them, maybe not, don't know yet).

 

Any experience with any of these lenses?

[Advertisement]

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

[jdlaing]

I enjoy visiting old churches, but none of my lenses seem wide enough. The widest is ZM 25mm. The cheapest next step is ZM 21mm or 18mm.

 

While I'm not sure whether 21mm or 18mm fits better, WATE comes into my mind, and then Canon TS-II 17mm. For the price of WATE, I can get both ZM 21mm and 18mm, or 6D + TS-II 17mm.

 

TS-II 17mm has the advantage of perspective correction, if I'm wiling to carry the (extra?) 6D, it also may require tripod, which is likely inconvenient or prohibited in many situations, particularly for indoors.

 

Between ZM 18/21 and WATE, it's also mainly the convenience. I think I can take the image difference (for now, before I really have them, maybe not, don't know yet).

 

Any experience with any of these lenses?

 

WATE.

 

Having the three lens choice without changing lenses is all the difference in the world to me.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Have you considered a Nikkor 35mm shift lens on your M? Probably useful for church photography and used examples cost less than £250 . And used Russian Arsat shift lenses cost c. £150.

 

dunk

[Einst_Stein]

Have you considered a Nikkor 35mm shift lens on your M? Probably useful for church photography and used examples cost less than £250 . And used Russian Arsat shift lenses cost c. £150.

 

dunk

 

I have used Hartblei Super Rotator 45mm, I think it's the same quality as Arsat. It's pretty crappy toy. Not worth to waste my films,..., or battery power.

 

No direct experience with Nikkor 35mm, but 35mm is not wide enough. For my usage, 21mm without shift works better than any 35mm with shift.

 

Price does matter, but not the only matter.

[Gabriel66]

A good lens is 35 shifts ZUIKO om, really sharp even in the corners af ending 8/11. It can be mounted on both the Canon and the M9 (or the new M) by means of adapter rings. Really good.

The 17/4 Canon is gorgeous, but mounted on a leica M presents flare in the presence of soft light or side lights.

Gabriele Caproni photographer

[pgk]

I enjoy visiting old churches....

 

While I'm not sure whether 21mm or 18mm fits better, WATE comes into my mind, and then Canon TS-II 17mm. For the price of WATE, I can get both ZM 21mm and 18mm, or 6D + TS-II 17mm.

 

TS-II 17mm has the advantage of perspective correction, if I'm wiling to carry the (extra?) 6D, it also may require tripod, which is likely inconvenient or prohibited in many situations, particularly for indoors.

 

Between ZM 18/21 and WATE, it's also mainly the convenience. I think I can take the image difference (for now, before I really have them, maybe not, don't know yet).

 

Any experience with any of these lenses?

Firstly, the difference between a dRF using RF lenses and a dSLR using a shift lens is that the shift lens really require mandatory use of a tripod to use effectively (yes, I know some will say that its possible to use handheld, but what is the point of having a precision set-up and using it imprecisely?).

 

So your choice is simple enough - do you want to carry a bulky dSLR/shift lens/tripod or a dRF and lens? From your first sentence I would suspect that carrying and using the dSLR set-up might just detract from your enjoyment......

 

The WATE or 18 SE would be my choice.

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know some will say that its possible to use handheld, but what is the point of having a precision set-up and using it imprecisely?

And what exactly makes a shifted lens a "precision set-up"? Using a shifted lens hand-held is just exactly as precise or imprecise as using a non-shifted lens hand-held.

[pgk]

And what exactly makes a shifted lens a "precision set-up"? Using a shifted lens hand-held is just exactly as precise or imprecise as using a non-shifted lens hand-held.

You are being pedantic 01af! It isn't and if you can't see that there is no point adjusting a lens for shift if you can't make precise use of that shift then so be it.

[01af]

You are being pedantic 01af!

*I* am!? Because I don't agree with your pedantry?

 

 

... if you can't see that there is no point adjusting a lens for shift if you can't make precise use of that shift then so be it.

I cannot see that there was no point indeed. I used my 35 mm shift lens shifted and hand-held always with good success. It's no harder than shooting a non-shifted 35 mm lens hand-held. There is absolutely no reason why shooting a shift lens hand-held would be pointless.

[pgk]

There is absolutely no reason why shooting a shift lens hand-held would be pointless.

Ok. perhaps not pointless, but how about compromising on it being imprecise as it is after all the aim of a shift lens to allow for more precise adjustments to be made (alternatively tilt the enlarger baseboard or adjust in PP;)).

[Einst_Stein]

Firstly, the difference between a dRF using RF lenses and a dSLR using a shift lens is that the shift lens really require mandatory use of a tripod to use effectively (yes, I know some will say that its possible to use handheld, but what is the point of having a precision set-up and using it imprecisely?).

 

The WATE or 18 SE would be my choice.

 

While tilt is indeed more demanding on the precision due to the nature of the 5-dimensional movement (horizontal leveling, focusing, the amount of tilt, and the angles of the tilt (2D),

shift requires the similar precision as the regular lens. With shift and regular lens, the precision is about 3-axis (horizontal leveling, focusing, and the amount of shift (1D). If you really want to be picky, you can add the orientation of the shift, but that is rare to me.

 

But I do agree I would carry the tripod if I end up with TS-E. As I mentioned, this factor should be considered.

 

I foresee all the possible troubles one way or the other. What I don't know is, does it give enough benefit to justify the troubles. This has to be subjective, and it varies person to person and case by case. I am asking people who have real experiences.

 

This might be like asking which wine is better. I do not think there is an absolute golden answer. Nevertheless, I want to hear people's sharing.

[pgk]

What I don't know is, does it give enough benefit to justify the troubles. This has to be subjective, and it varies person to person and case by case. I am asking people who have real experiences.

Your problem is deciding on the ratio of effort/'demandingness' to result. If you really want precise, accurate architectural interior images then tripod/shift lens/dSLR is the way to go but you will risk it dominating your visits because it is demanding and time consuming to use properly. If on the other hand you want a light handheld system which will still yield very good results but will only impinge on your visits as much as you let it then the dRF is a better route in my experience. Personally I prefer not to have to carry loads of gear around if I can help it and when I don't absolutely need it my Canon gear stays at home. There is no absolute answer. What you have to do is make a decision that you can live with;).

[Guest]

Let's not forget, that Ein_Stein is looking for something wider than 35mm, if I understood him right.

Otherwise I would have suggested a 35mm for the Pentax 645 on a T&S adaptor for a FF DSLR. It can keep up with the Zeiss 35mm for the Contax 645 on a T&S adaptor at a fraction of the cost. The 35mm for the Contax I've bought a decade ago, because it has tilt also, versus my 2.8/35PC for the Contax, which has shift only. The IQ for architecture of these two Zeiss Contax 35mm lenses is for me on the same level as the M-2/35 Asph. So the bigger size (with EOS adaptors for the Zeiss lenses) add shift, or tilt & shift to my M9&2.0/35mmA combo.

 

A while ago I added a 24mm T&S Version II. In my experience you are both right:

out-doors it is possible to work without a tripod. Orientation is less the problem imo than low ISO at medium f:stops and hence long exposure times, which can't be achieved hand-held in-doors.

When in doubt, use a tripod (while i try to display knowledge mildly on the forum). Being free of doubts is of cause a blessing.

[Einst_Stein]

you will risk it dominating your visits because it is demanding and time consuming to use properly.

 

I think you hit the right button. I didn't thought about the cost of "ruin" by trip if I have to pay too much attention to the photography. Very very valid point.

 

I will keep me reminded about the priority, the perfect trip experience/memroy or the perfect picture.

[Einst_Stein]

Let's not forget, that Ein_Stein is looking for something wider than 35mm, if I understood him right.

Otherwise I would have suggested a 35mm for the Pentax 645 on a T&S adaptor for a FF DSLR. It can keep up with the Zeiss 35mm for the Contax 645 on a T&S adaptor at a fraction of the cost. The 35mm for the Contax I've bought a decade ago, because it has tilt also, versus my 2.8/35PC for the Contax, which has shift only. The IQ for architecture of these two Zeiss Contax 35mm lenses is for me on the same level as the M-2/35 Asph. So the bigger size (with EOS adaptors for the Zeiss lenses) add shift, or tilt & shift to my M9&2.0/35mmA combo.

 

A while ago I added a 24mm T&S Version II. In my experience you are both right:

out-doors it is possible to work without a tripod. Orientation is less the problem imo than low ISO at medium f:stops and hence long exposure times, which can't be achieved hand-held in-doors.

When in doubt, use a tripod (while i try to display knowledge mildly on the forum). Being free of doubts is of cause a blessing.

 

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42834934@N03/11108347503/

Attached is hand-held under low light. It is taken by ZM 25mm, but I set the lens type on M9 to Leica 28m version VI. This picture is one of the rare occasions that the tilted distortion is OK to me.

 

Yes, I'm looking for much wider than 35mm, something 16~21mm.

 

I have the Contax 645 35mm, I didn't know I can get an adapter to any 35mm DLSR. Are you talking about Zoerk shift adapter? It's very hard to find, and I don't know how could it control the aperture. Anyway, were it to go with this lens, I might as well just get the TS-E II 17mm.

 

I actually also have Hasselblad Flexbody and both 50mm and 40mm FLE. Very light and portable, but definitely need tripod. Worse, it does not have "live view" capability, I have to put on the dedicated viewfinder, compose and focus, then remove it, and replace with the digital back, cck the shutter, shoot, cover the digital back and remove it, replace with the view finder again, ..... After a while, I surrender.

 

Before flexbody, I did tried Hartblei Superrotator 45mm. It's absolutely waste money and time, ..., and film, and battery. I ended up gave away that lens to a not very closed friend (no, not that I don't like him, it's just not close enough for him to hate me).

[Guest]

 

 

ely_bw2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Attached is hand-held under low light. It is taken by ZM 25mm, but I set the lens type on M9 to Leica 28m version VI. This picture is one of the rare occasions that the tilted distortion is OK to me.

 

Yes, I'm looking for much wider than 35mm, something 16~21mm.

 

I have the Contax 645 35mm, I didn't know I can get an adapter to any 35mm DLSR. Are you talking about Zoerk shift adapter? It's very hard to find, and I don't know how could it control the aperture. Anyway, were it to go with this lens, I might as well just get the TS-E II 17mm.

 

I actually also have Hasselblad Flexbody and both 50mm and 40mm FLE. Very light and portable, but definitely need tripod. Worse, it does not have "live view" capability, I have to put on the dedicated viewfinder, compose and focus, then remove it, and replace with the digital back, cck the shutter, shoot, cover the digital back and remove it, replace with the view finder again, ..... After a while, I surrender.

 

Before flexbody, I did tried Hartblei Superrotator 45mm. It's absolutely waste money and time, ..., and film, and battery. I ended up gave away that lens to a not very closed friend (no, not that I don't like him, it's just not close enough for him to hate me).

 

Nor do I.

But the IQ is impressive at 3.5.

 

I'm looking for the Flexbody myself. Lots of patience here.

[Einst_Stein]

Nor do I.

I'm looking for the Flexbody myself. Lots of patience here.

 

Oh yes, you need a LOT of patent (after you get it)

I till have my Flexbody, but the 40mm is about 28mm in 35mm format. That's the widest it can go. Alas, I don't have more friend .

 

It's on the cold bench, but it's a lovely excellent craftmanship.

[plewislambert]

And what exactly makes a shifted lens a "precision set-up"? Using a shifted lens hand-held is just exactly as precise or imprecise as using a non-shifted lens hand-held.

Years ago I used my 6x9 Plaubel monorail for architecture (of course) and the rising front and the spirit levels combined to give good shots of exteriors of buildings. A tripod was mandatory and this stopped me using it inside cathedrals etc.

Using a shift lens (initially an Olympus 35mm, now a Nikon 28mm) on an M9 involves guess work (the M240 would be better) but I find that with experience I can get one satisfactory handheld shot per three attempts. Using a 21mm Voigt. viewfinder will show me the upper limit of the image when shifted 6mm but quite often I need the full 11mm shift, so resort to the guess method, inspecting each fresh image until I get it right. If I carried a tripod and made a succession of shots, progressively increasing the shift, I would get it right sooner but my camera bag is quite heavy enough and adding 2-3kg of tripod is too much, apart from making me unpopular inside public buildings.

I hope somebody finds this helpful.

Philip:)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[plewislambert]

" If on the other hand you want a light handheld system which will still yield very good results but will only impinge on your visits as much as you let it then the dRF is a better route in my experience. Personally I prefer not to have to carry loads of gear around if I can help it "

 

I used a 21mm CV (very light in the holdall) as a moderate wideangle for room interiors (and cathedrals) using Cornerfix to address the vignetting and edge discoloration issues. This leaves obvious digital noise at the edges.

I am currently testing a Nikkor 20mm f2.8AF on my M9 and the initial results are better than when using the CV21mm on the same subject. No need for Cornerfix, no noise problem, probably the lens finish is more durable. Rather more weight if you add a Nikon/M9 adapter (but I carry one anyway for the 28mm PC), cost (used) a little more than the CV21mm.

My subjective impression is that the image from the Nikkor stands greater enlargement on my monitor than the CV21mm.

Philip