Guest Posted January 5, 2014 Share #21 Â Posted January 5, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... Â If you do not yet know, which wide angle focal length should be the right thing, the WATE 16-18-21mm is highly recommended. Not infrequently, I photograph a subject with all three wide angles and decide at home about the better photo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 Hi Guest, Take a look here Ultra Wide Angles 15-21mm ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jdlaing Posted January 5, 2014 Share #22 Â Posted January 5, 2014 If you do not yet know, which wide angle focal length should be the right thing, the WATE 16-18-21mm is highly recommended.Not infrequently, I photograph a subject with all three wide angles and decide at home about the better photo. Â Me too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eprom Posted January 5, 2014 Share #23  Posted January 5, 2014 I owned the CV 21/4. It´s a very sharp little lens with a good value for the money, although it does´t like backlight. You can get it for a good price on ebay. Now I own the Super-Elmar what is more than one class higher but also many classes more expensive;-)  Best, Peter__ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted January 5, 2014 Share #24  Posted January 5, 2014 Anders/ Gerard, thanks. The CV 15mm Heliar, my first non-Leica consideration for an ultra wide, has just nudged ahead of the 18mm SEM ! The sharpness and colour is excellent, and just being very good photographs show what can be achieved with a moderately priced lens (in Leica cost terms). The Zeiss and SEM look equally as sharp on the few links I have found.  The red edge issue appears to have been rectified with the firmware update, albeit from a quick search on this forum. Or is this still a problem ?  Are there any comments/ peculiarities with the CV15mm when using a 35mm film camera (i.e. my M7) ? I note that ffordes state on their website that 'the incredible 110° diagonal angle of view on good old 35mm film makes most wide angle lenses on digital cameras look a bit lacklustre.' I am not quite sure what this means and whether it is just a 'general' comment.  David  David I would not trust online images at all for your requirement. Why not just rent one or two lenses you are contemplating and judge from your own images instead of others images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicakillen Posted January 5, 2014 Share #25  Posted January 5, 2014 Anders/ Gerard, thanks. The red edge issue appears to have been rectified with the firmware update, albeit from a quick search on this forum. Or is this still a problem ?  David Dear David, this is my experience again: I like the Heliar 15/4,5, excellent sharpness but has red edges, is not fixed with firmware, but is manageable with flat-field plug-in in Lightroom. Elmar 24/3,8, one of the sharpest lenses I have, I have never had any problems with red edge with this lens, but others have(?). My lens-bridge is 15-24-35-50-75-90. /Anders Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyalf Posted January 6, 2014 Share #26 Â Posted January 6, 2014 My short answer on CV15 and Zeiss 18mm on M9: Both are good performers, but absolutely need Cornerfix for "Italian flag" problem. Z a bit more detailed and no distortion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newnew Posted January 6, 2014 Share #27 Â Posted January 6, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) My preference has been for the SEM 21 mm. Since the purchase I have zero regrets and a lot of enjoyment. I was able to test the SEM vs the Zeiss 2.8mm. The zeiss's color rendition was not appealing to me. The leica 21mm, free of distortion is still a very manageable lens under many conditions, both for people and landscape. The lens has a special signature. Above 21mm, I believe one becomes very specialized in a type of effects. Obviously, it is then, a personal choice. You can see SEM pictures on Flickr, although the small size does not always pay homage to what the lens is capable of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgc Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share #28 Â Posted January 6, 2014 Algrove, I agree, but it is a starting point at the very least. I will definitely have to try out several lenses, especially if I could be investing in an expensive but seldom used lens. Â At the moment I do not think that either the CV and Zeiss would compromise the M system, for my requirements as an enthusiast, anyway. I think this is the crux of my thread - to determine the best value for money lens given I will, probably, tend to use my 28/ 50mm for the majority of my photography. Â Thanks, David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirekti Posted January 6, 2014 Share #29 Â Posted January 6, 2014 Could someone post few close ups @0.7m with 21 SEM wide open, please? I'd like to see how it renders the background in those cases. I'd prefer portraits, but other examples are welcome too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted January 6, 2014 Share #30 Â Posted January 6, 2014 Could someone post few close ups @0.7m with 21 SEM wide open, please? I'd like to see how it renders the background in those cases. I'd prefer portraits, but other examples are welcome too. Â SEM 21mm on M9, close object ~ 1 meter Cat's Life | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted January 6, 2014 Share #31 Â Posted January 6, 2014 I have CV 15, CV 21 ( 2 copies, one screwmount, one bayonet), and Elmarit-M 21 pre-ASPH. I used to have the ASPH but sold it, not seeing a significant enough difference to the pre-ASPH. All those lenses I have coded as the 21 pre-ASPH and get no issues with red edge on any of them on my M9 under 640. And in those few cases where I have shot above 640, the Elmarit got red edge too. But there's Cornerfix. Â My personal preferences are the 15 CV in screw mount w/adapter ( I see no use for rangefinder coupling on a full-frame sensor, and the M version is quite large on account of the filter mount), and the 21 CV in M mount (although it's the same lens in screw, including RF coupling). I don't care to travel with the Elmarit on account of its size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodor Heinrichsohn Posted January 6, 2014 Share #32 Â Posted January 6, 2014 If you do not yet know, which wide angle focal length should be the right thing, the WATE 16-18-21mm is highly recommended.Not infrequently, I photograph a subject with all three wide angles and decide at home about the better photo. Â I endorse the WATE as well because it is a 3 in one solution; because it is relatively small; because under normal photo situations one of the 3 focal lengths will give you what you want; because it performs excellently (M8.1 M9, M240); because it is listed in the menu for M lenses which is important for picture quality. The disadvantage is its cost, as you should also get the "Frankenfinder". I find the finder very useful although it is large, as it allows you to use the bubble for level holding and it is faster to use than live view with the electronic finder. I have also used it on my M6 and M7 both for negative and slide films. Teddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted January 6, 2014 Share #33  Posted January 6, 2014 Algrove, I agree, but it is a starting point at the very least. I will definitely have to try out several lenses, especially if I could be investing in an expensive but seldom used lens.  At the moment I do not think that either the CV and Zeiss would compromise the M system, for my requirements as an enthusiast, anyway. I think this is the crux of my thread - to determine the best value for money lens given I will, probably, tend to use my 28/ 50mm for the majority of my photography.  Thanks, David  I have no experience with the CV, but I used the Zeiss 18 for many years and it was a superb performer. I never needed corner fix for it on my M9P. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgc Posted January 11, 2014 Author Share #34 Â Posted January 11, 2014 Given all the comments from this and other threads I decided to go with a 21mm and bought the Zeiss 21mm f2.8. So far I am very happy with the focal length (it is only 1 day old), however, there is a slight red tinge at the sides, which reduces when you manually select the lens type in the M240 - better get cornerfix! Â I found the 15mm too wide and would probably require a long learning curve to get the images I wanted. I did not get round to test the 18mm SEM and there appear to be very few available on the 2nd hand market - which suggests how good it is ! Â I bought the lens from Cambrian Cameras, an independent store in Colwyn Bay, North Wales. The service and knowledge was outstanding. They were also keen to be price competitive and so I ended up buying the Zeiss 35mm f2 as well ! The combined package cost considerably less that the Summicron 35mm, which I intended to buy in the near future. Â Have I compromised image quality ? Probably, but mainly when using wide open. Have I compromised the Leica system ? Probably not, but there are other considerations: build quality, sell-on return, corner fix, filter threads etc. Have I compromised my bank balance ? No, I have only spent 36% of a brand new SEM and Summicron. I am still learning, so the balance between cost and 'Leica' quality is a factor. Â Thanks for all your comments. Â David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sisoje Posted January 11, 2014 Share #35 Â Posted January 11, 2014 David, Â Set your Zeiss 21 to "Leica 21 pre-asph" in lens menu on your M240. You should not have ANY color cast! If it does, something is off... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plewislambert Posted January 20, 2014 Share #36 Â Posted January 20, 2014 I used a 15mm Voigtlander on my M4-P to good effect but with occasional flare. On my M9 it suffered from vignetting and red edge which Cornerfix addressed but although the vignetting was adjusted, digital noise visible at the edges needed treatment. I sold the 15mm and bought the 12mm f5.6 which gives good results on my M9 and I like it better. I sometimes use a Tokina 17mm f3.5 which gives good results when stopped down a little. Today I was out in London walking round Bishopsgate with a 20mm AF Nikkor lens on my M9 in place of my previous Voigtlander 21mm. To me the results look an improvement and don't need Cornerfix or coding. Focus is set by scale (or guess) but in practice is mostly left on infinity. It is unlikely these ultrawide lenses are as good as Leica lenses but are good at the price, particularly if you want to experiment.. Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgc Posted January 20, 2014 Author Share #37 Â Posted January 20, 2014 Apologies for asking the obvious, but I will ask anyway ... Â As Philip indicates below, his 20mm Nikkor lens does not even need to be coded or 'cornerfixed', so why do some lenses of the same focal length have red edge issues and others don't ? or is it just an issue with digital cameras and the rate of sensor technology compared to some of the older lenses ? Â I am guessing it is a combination of the number of elements and possibly any lens coating. But then I understand it can also occur with some Leica wide angle lenses, which, surely, Leica would consider in the design of their sensors and lenses. Â David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted January 20, 2014 Share #38  Posted January 20, 2014 Apologies for asking the obvious, but I will ask anyway ... As Philip indicates below, his 20mm Nikkor lens does not even need to be coded or 'cornerfixed', so why do some lenses of the same focal length have red edge issues and others don't ? or is it just an issue with digital cameras and the rate of sensor technology compared to some of the older lenses ?  I am guessing it is a combination of the number of elements and possibly any lens coating. But then I understand it can also occur with some Leica wide angle lenses, which, surely, Leica would consider in the design of their sensors and lenses.  David  Key difference between SLR and RF lenses is in the distance between rear lens flange or rear optical element and film/sensor plane.  SLR lenses must work with SLR mirror in between so distance is bigger than equivalent RF lenses which means that light rays travelling out of SLR lens will hit film/sensor at angles closer to ideal 90 degrees.  On the other hand without mirror in the light path RF lenses can be designed more compact than SLR but than light ray angles can be bigger than 90 deg - especially on wide angle lens. This was never big issue during film days but became major issue in digital age.  Prior to launch of M8 in 2006 Leica was adamant that it was impossible to digitise M system until Epson/Casio launched in 2002-2003 model RD1, camera compatible with M lenses and fitted with DX sensor. Clear example of competitive pressure that butt-kicked M into digital era and probably gave Leica new lease of life.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plewislambert Posted January 20, 2014 Share #39 Â Posted January 20, 2014 Excellent explanation; if you haven't had a close look at a CV 12mm or 15mm you have no idea how close the back element is to the shutter. The light rays forming the edges of the 36mm long image hit the sensor at an extreme angle with adverse effects. The same light rays hitting a film emulsion work just fine. The vignetting that is characteristic of some lenses seems to be aggravated by M9 sensor design. I presume it's not as bad on an M8. Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgc Posted January 21, 2014 Author Share #40 Â Posted January 21, 2014 That is an excellent explanation. Â If I understand this correctly there is insufficient distance between the wide angle lens, on a digital rangefinder, for the light rays to form a 90 deg angle and that the angle of light is so extreme that the light is diffracted by the time it reaches the sensor (I think this is O level physics!). Â Regarding film, I assume these extreme angle rays of light cause vignetting or at least are not a true representation of the actual light when compared to the rays hitting the centre of the film. Â Thanks for your patience. Â David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.