arthury Posted April 1, 2014 Share #1  Posted April 1, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Like all super wide lenses slapped onto an M, there are a couple of things to consider: corner discoloration (as in pinkish) vignetting  How do these 2 lenses play out in these areas? Any thoughts?  Also, which one do you think will hold its resale value longer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Hi arthury, Take a look here 21mm Summilux vs 15mm/2.8 Distagon. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
John McMaster Posted April 2, 2014 Share #2 Â Posted April 2, 2014 I have both, 15mm has more discolouration as no dedicated profile and wide open 21mm will have more fall-off ;-) Very different angle of view, max aperture and only one focusses via R/F..... Â All Zeiss 15mm I have seen a serial number of seem to be in the 15555xxx range which implies a single batch made whereas the 21mm is still current (but more expensive), not that I expect to be selling either! Â john Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted April 3, 2014 Share #3 Â Posted April 3, 2014 I have used the R 15/2.8 and there is no color edge distortion nor corner falloff. The 21/1.4 sometimes gives me vignetting whereas the R 15/2.8 has none. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McMaster Posted April 3, 2014 Share #4 Â Posted April 3, 2014 You keep mentioning the R15 f2.8, chances of finding/affording one are quite low these days ;-) Â john Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted April 3, 2014 Share #5  Posted April 3, 2014 I find my 18mm a very different animal to my 21mm. 15mm is a very, very different lens to the 21, are you looking for both and are you comfortable you know which you will use. The f stop is quite different too  Regarding holding value and resale Leica will be better however a big price difference  Id buy a used Elmarit-M 21mm f2.8 and se how you get on with 21, you can sell on if you want wider Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted April 3, 2014 Share #6  Posted April 3, 2014 You keep mentioning the R15 f2.8, chances of finding/affording one are quite low these days ;-) john  True as I know this lens well and think its rendering is about the best in WA lenses I have seen, including using the 18/3.8 and Zeiss 18/4, 21/3.4, 21/1.4 to keep the lenses I mention in line with this subject thread. Images taken with this lens are viewable under the thread Jaap started called something like "R lenses on the M240".  As for availability, I saw one recently for sale in HK, however the asking was US$9.5k. Not sure how many made.  I see WIKI mentions 420 lenses made. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted April 4, 2014 Author Share #7  Posted April 4, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) True as I know this lens well and think its rendering is about the best in WA lenses I have seen, including using the 18/3.8 and Zeiss 18/4, 21/3.4, 21/1.4 to keep the lenses I mention in line with this subject thread. Images taken with this lens are viewable under the thread Jaap started called something like "R lenses on the M240". As for availability, I saw one recently for sale in HK, however the asking was US$9.5k. Not sure how many made.  I see WIKI mentions 420 lenses made.  Sorry, I am not interested in lenses that are no more in production and have 'magical power'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted April 5, 2014 Author Share #8  Posted April 5, 2014 I have both, 15mm has more discolouration as no dedicated profile and wide open 21mm will have more fall-off ;-) Very different angle of view, max aperture and only one focusses via R/F..... All Zeiss 15mm I have seen a serial number of seem to be in the 15555xxx range which implies a single batch made whereas the 21mm is still current (but more expensive), not that I expect to be selling either!  john  John,  Would you be so kind as to test out the lens profile belonging to Leica 28mm/2.8 ASPH 11606 with your Zeiss ZM 15mm/2.8 on your M9 or M240, please, and let us know how it goes in terms of a brightly lit scene against the sky? I know it's Autumn in NZ so light may be becoming scarce.  -- Arthur Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 5, 2014 Share #9 Â Posted April 5, 2014 I have used the R 15/2.8 and there is no color edge distortion nor corner falloff. The 21/1.4 sometimes gives me vignetting whereas the R 15/2.8 has none. Â What are the main differences between the Zeiss for Contax 2.8/15mm and the R 2.8/15mm? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted April 5, 2014 Author Share #10 Â Posted April 5, 2014 What are the main differences between the Zeiss for Contax 2.8/15mm and the R 2.8/15mm? Â Could kindly start a new thread for this because it's out of the scope of this thread? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McMaster Posted April 5, 2014 Share #11  Posted April 5, 2014 John, Would you be so kind as to test out the lens profile belonging to Leica 28mm/2.8 ASPH 11606 with your Zeiss ZM 15mm/2.8 on your M9 or M240, please, and let us know how it goes in terms of a brightly lit scene against the sky? I know it's Autumn in NZ so light may be becoming scarce.  -- Arthur  Here are some quick snaps with an M (240); uncoded, 21mm f2.8 pre-asph and 28mm f2.8 asph at f2.8 and f5.6  Zeiss ZM 15mm  john Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted April 5, 2014 Author Share #12  Posted April 5, 2014 Here are some quick snaps with an M (240); uncoded, 21mm f2.8 pre-asph and 28mm f2.8 asph at f2.8 and f5.6 Zeiss ZM 15mm  john  Thank you, John, for the effort. I appreciate your contribution and I am sure everyone here on this site appreciates it.  Without opening the individual images, there is not a lot of visual differences between the 21mm/non-ASPH and the 28mm/ASPH lens profile. But, once I opened up the images, and I used the next/previous buttons, it becomes quite clear Zeiss' lab tests are right on the dot when the lens is wide opened.  At f/5.6, it seems like a different story.  Any thoughts from anyone? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McMaster Posted April 5, 2014 Share #13 Â Posted April 5, 2014 Now added (same link) 21mm Summilux (with ND8) at f1.4, f2.8 and f5.6 Â john Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 6, 2014 Share #14 Â Posted April 6, 2014 Why are you trying to compare such widely different lenses? The application does not even overlap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted April 6, 2014 Author Share #15 Â Posted April 6, 2014 Why are you trying to compare such widely different lenses?The application does not even overlap. Â I am thinking more along the line being quite exotic in nature. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 6, 2014 Share #16 Â Posted April 6, 2014 OK, but they are so completely different that a comparison is completely impossible. The only rational thing to do if you are interested in the two kinds of photography is to own both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McMaster Posted April 6, 2014 Share #17 Â Posted April 6, 2014 As was said in #2 ;-) Â john Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted April 6, 2014 Author Share #18 Â Posted April 6, 2014 I already have the 12mm/5.6 VC and the 21mm/2.8 Biogon ZM. So, those focal lengths and their vicinity are covered. Â I may also throw the 24mm Summilux into the mix to consider as I am beginning to see that the 24mm Summilux may be a touch sharper when the subject is closer, just eye-balling the images. But, I guess the 24mm Summilux is not supported by the rangefinder but it also requires an external VF or EVF or LV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McMaster Posted April 6, 2014 Share #19 Â Posted April 6, 2014 If you are talking about the shots I put up, they were all focussed at infinity not the foreground so the 24mm Summilux wide open would be less sharp ;-) Â john Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted April 6, 2014 Author Share #20  Posted April 6, 2014 If you are talking about the shots I put up, they were all focussed at infinity not the foreground so the 24mm Summilux wide open would be less sharp ;-) john  Hi John,  No, I was not comparing your tess images with others. I understand that yours were meant to help me and others about the issues with corner tinting and vignetting under the influence of the lens profile.  I was looking at images posted in Flickr groups specifically dedicated to these individual lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.