Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 VM III

[bocaburger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm sure the V3 is a superior lens on digital Leica's.  I'm sticking with my V1 though.  It's so tiny I don't mind packing it even if I may not use it, or only for a few shots.  For that reason I skipped the V2 despite the rangefinder coupling and filter threads. 

[otto.f]

 I have no doubt the new CV would be able to do something similar.

 

 

That is something which is not beyond doubt for me. These images you showed here have a very special rendering and sharpness, which at first sight, would justify the price difference between the the Zeiss and the VC v1 and v2

[Advertisement]

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

[reaperman]

I really like how this lens renders on fine grained film.

Spiral by Stefan Melzer, auf Flickr

[rscheffler]

The summary by Richard Clompus earlier in this thread pretty much covers everything, however, having just acquired the vIII and directly compared it against the vII with the camera on a tripod shooting the same scenes with both, in terms of image sharpness, colour, contrast, etc., I don't see a significant difference between the two. Nor any real advantage with respect to these points, for the vIII. Central sharpness is fine, but does fade off a bit towards the edges. My early impression is that f/8 offers best central sharpness but f/11 is best across the frame, giving up a bit of central acutance due to the onset of diffraction. But as mentioned already, colour shift is nonexistent with vIII when used uncoded, and alone is compelling enough of a reason, IMO.

 

I do dislike the larger size and built in hood. I have vI of the 12/5.6 and it is tiny, just like vI of the 15. As expressed by someone earlier, it's a lens I often bring along because it's so tiny, even if used for less than 1% of my images. The 15 vIII will occupy a 'real' position in my kit bag, meaning greater consideration of the benefits to bringing it along. But I do accept that most of the size increase is likely a tradeoff for eliminating the edge colour shift.

 

In any case, considering the price of the new CV, it's a great performer.

[rramesh]

Just picked up the Voigtlander 15 V3. Do I code it as a WATE or a 21/2.8? 

[rramesh]

Should have searched more. Found the information I needed. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/242718-6-bit-coding-voightlander-15mm-f45-vm-iii/ 

[Mornnb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just picked up the Voigtlander 15 V3. Do I code it as a WATE or a 21/2.8? 

I don't think it requires coding, it has absolutely no corner colour shift.

[bocaburger]

I succumbed to GAS and picked up a VIII despite the size.  I intend using it mainly for "effect" photos of cars at shows, probably will still travel with the tiny v.I. And will definitely use the v.I on my Nex6 as the area of color shift is outside the crop of the sensor.  The v.III definitely feels better made than the v.I (never owned a II).  I did some experimenting and find that my v.III performs better un-coded than with the camera set as a pre-ASPH 21/2.8.   YMMV.

Edited August 22, 2015 by bocaburger

[Adam]

I got a V III and it performs great on my Safari. I use it un-coded, camera lens not set. I see no color shift. The quality is fantastic, especially for the price.  It is a fantastic lens.  I guess they fixed the issues that V II had.

[Hannes Lummes]

I don't think it requires coding, it has absolutely no corner colour shift.

 

It does, for sure. Not a lot, might go unnoticed in most scenes, but there it is.

Funnily enough when I tried to find the best coding with controlled tests, I noticed (pretty easily) that there is some problems in general with the coding in my M240 at least: Left and right extremes get different hues. So, with some codes one side got overcorrected while the other side was still undercorrected. Checking with lightroom tool the hue was a couple of % different. This is NOT the lens problem of course, but either the sensor or the code is imperfect.

[jmahto]

I succumbed to GAS and picked up a VIII despite the size. I intend using it mainly for "effect" photos of cars at shows, probably will still travel with the tiny v.I. And will definitely use the v.I on my Nex6 as the area of color shift is outside the crop of the sensor. The v.III definitely feels better made than the v.I (never owned a II). I did some experimenting and find that my v.III performs better un-coded than with the camera set as a pre-ASPH 21/2.8. YMMV.

How do you find difference in corner sharpness for infinity compared to your V.I? Can you share the sample of the same scene with 100% crop or preferably DNG? You can send PM for DNG if you want.

[bocaburger]

How do you find difference in corner sharpness for infinity compared to your V.I? Can you share the sample of the same scene with 100% crop or preferably DNG? You can send PM for DNG if you want.

I haven't done such a test (not really into testing lenses unless I suspect a defect).  And I don't recall ever taking a shot with the 15 where corner sharpness at infinity would be critical.  If I want a wide expanse for a landscape I'll shoot a stitched pano with a 50mm.  Wide angle lenses make the background subject look artificially small compared with the foreground.

 

Do you suspect the vIII sacrifices infinity corner performance to the vI/II?

Edited August 23, 2015 by bocaburger

[jaques]

On my own V2 example the red fringe is not so bad as all that. And for B&W it's great. from the old M9, uncorrected for red edges- just fiddled with in LR :

 

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!

 

 

 

 

[jmahto]

I haven't done such a test (not really into testing lenses unless I suspect a defect). And I don't recall ever taking a shot with the 15 where corner sharpness at infinity would be critical. If I want a wide expanse for a landscape I'll shoot a stitched pano with a 50mm. Wide angle lenses make the background subject look artificially small compared with the foreground.

 

Do you suspect the vIII sacrifices infinity corner performance to the vI/II?

In exactly two shots (out of maybe hundreds) for my v2 I needed sharpness across the frame therefore I asked out of curiosity.

See below (the trees on the left side could be sharper)

https://flic.kr/p/oHSWqD

 

If v3 is sharper and not too bad in terms of size and weight, I might consider the upgrade for those extreme cases. The color issue doesn't bother me on m240 and on my nex6 it is non issue due to crop.

 

BTW, this lens practically lives on my Nex6 for random shooting. It is also awesome with Nex6 for timer shots for stars trails and odd thunderstorms... I wish I could do it with my M but on second thought I am happy to let Nex6 do the dirty job.

 

See below

https://flic.kr/p/x268HY

 

 

Edited August 29, 2015 by jmahto

[bocaburger]

I shoot jpegs so Cornerfix is not a good option.  I have to use Panotools radial luminance tool, or correct the color cast with CS using the color picker.  It's not a huge process if I only have a few shots, so I may still travel with the tiny V1.  But otherwise I think the VIII will come in handy.  And definitely I will be using the V1 on the Nex6 as there's no purpose to burdening myself with the added weight and bulk of the VIII.  

 

I have not had a chance to check the corner sharpness at infinity yet, but honestly in your example the foreground predominates, so the sharpness of the trees on the left would most likely not even register with the majority of viewers.  That the detail in them is lost in blocked-up shadows stands out more to me than sharpness.

[sblitz]

i have two questions -- does v3 really matter for a film shooter? it seems most of the improvement addresses sensor/digital issues. second, i have been told by someone who should know that wider (larger, as in filter thread size) are going to be less sharp that a smaller lens of same focal length. has to do with physics, at which point the discussion brought me to another oban. wondering, is the v2 as sharp or sharper at 4.5 vs v3?

 

thanks in advance for the answers

[mirekti]

It would be nice to see few more shots with CV 15mm III.

Thanks!!!

[Adam]

Here is a shopping mall in NYC with keystone correction.

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!

[rscheffler]

i have two questions -- does v3 really matter for a film shooter? it seems most of the improvement addresses sensor/digital issues. second, i have been told by someone who should know that wider (larger, as in filter thread size) are going to be less sharp that a smaller lens of same focal length. has to do with physics, at which point the discussion brought me to another oban. wondering, is the v2 as sharp or sharper at 4.5 vs v3?

 

thanks in advance for the answers

 

For film, I would probably look for the tiny original version in LTM mount, simply for the much smaller size. It has the same optics as the second version. In my informal digital comparisons of v2 vs. v3, I didn't notice much of a difference in edge or overall sharpness between the two. I have read elsewhere that Sony users shooting the v3 on the a7 cameras are seeing better peripheral sharpness compared to v2. This could be related to the v3 optics being optimized to compensate for the glass that covers the sensor, which does degrade image quality if the lens is not designed for this. This is the case for all film-era RF lenses, and why many perform poorly on the FF sony sensors. In theory, a digitally optimized lens may somewhat underperform, in comparison, on film. But I have not seen any tests yet to confirm this. Given that the digital M cameras so far are the best performers with film-era RF lenses, and that I didn't notice a noteworthy difference between the v2 and v3 on the M240, I would suspect there will not be a significant difference between the two on film, in respect to overall sharpness.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[rscheffler]

Here are a few photos I did with the 15/4.5 vIII on the M240 of a guy in a server room. The challenge here was that he's fairly tall and rather round guy in a very cramped environment. Normally using an UWA results in quite undesirable distortion of body parts, but was able to get some good results here. Was shot using off-camera strobes, triggered by radio slave, and the M240 in live view in order to effectively compose. Focus was done by RF, since UWAs are quite difficult to effectively focus with live view, either with peaking or magnification.

 

For the first one below, I intentionally played on the extreme perspective distortion for the desired effect, but the other two were shot to minimize convergence of verticals.