Mauribix Posted May 21, 2007 Share #1 Posted May 21, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi forum, here is my question: in getting the best quality image (censidering costs anyway) would you buy the New Tri Elmar (considering the 16mm coverage), or the Zeiss ZM 15mm? Have you got pictures to post with these lenses? I'm so curious and i would like to make the best buy (especially considering the prices who don't leave you the chance to make mistakes!). Personally I own a CV 15mm wide heliar, which as we know it's not a bad lens of course, but the more i use it the more i find it's bugs. Vignetting for first, then Loss of definition in the corners and quite a bit of distortion. So, what would you do? And does the T/E or the ZM have this "PLUS" in spite of the CV? This is a question aged as the man, i know, but now that i own an M8 the problem is getting more and more serious! May we make a good and real comparison?? Hope to hear you soon and hope to see you pictures! best regards Maurizio MAURIZIO BEUCCI.com - Official web site Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 Hi Mauribix, Take a look here TE 16-18-21 vs CV 15 vs Zeiss ZM15. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sean_reid Posted May 21, 2007 Share #2 Posted May 21, 2007 Hi forum, here is my question: in getting the best quality image (censidering costs anyway) would you buy the New Tri Elmar (considering the 16mm coverage), or the Zeiss ZM 15mm? Have you got pictures to post with these lenses? I'm so curious and i would like to make the best buy (especially considering the prices who don't leave you the chance to make mistakes!). Personally I own a CV 15mm wide heliar, which as we know it's not a bad lens of course, but the more i use it the more i find it's bugs. Vignetting for first, then Loss of definition in the corners and quite a bit of distortion. So, what would you do? And does the T/E or the ZM have this "PLUS" in spite of the CV? This is a question aged as the man, i know, but now that i own an M8 the problem is getting more and more serious! May we make a good and real comparison?? Hope to hear you soon and hope to see you pictures! best regards Maurizio MAURIZIO BEUCCI.com - Official web site I have a review of these three lenses (plus the CV 12) which may be published tonight. Its one of the most involved lens reviews I've ever written. It sounds like your copy of the CV 15 is not up to par. Corner resolution for a good CV 15 is quite strong, even wide open, and distortion is minimal. I've been living and breathing these ultra-wide lenses for the past few weeks. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boilerdoc Posted May 21, 2007 Share #3 Posted May 21, 2007 I can hardly wait for Sean's review. He has an amazing site. I am constantly checking it and i also have a WATE on order and am wondering if it is worth the cost! Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest leicawanabe Posted May 21, 2007 Share #4 Posted May 21, 2007 Here are some with the Zeiss 15. Some were with a coded lens some without. Zenfolio | Jorge Torralba | Leica M8 and the Zeiss 15mm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted May 22, 2007 Share #5 Posted May 22, 2007 I can hardly wait for Sean's review. He has an amazing site. I am constantly checking it and i also have a WATE on order and am wondering if it is worth the cost!Steve Thanks Steve. The WATE is definitely worth owning. I just published the review. Best, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nryn Posted May 22, 2007 Share #6 Posted May 22, 2007 Sean, thanks for your hard work on getting that article up early. It's going to take a day or two for me to digest, but my 30% offer is hinging on your remarks. So thanks again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lensblur Posted May 22, 2007 Share #7 Posted May 22, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Owning both Zeiss 15 f/2.8 and the WATE, getting the WATE is definitely better value for money. Not because the IQ is better (Zeiss is superb lens), but because you get more than a 15!!!. But if you are hooked to f/2.8 and need to have any meaningful depth of field on at 15mm, Zeiss is the way to go IMO. At f/4 (i.e. WATE wide open), you don't get that much of an out-of-focus background... If I have to choose only one, I will go for WATE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted May 22, 2007 Share #8 Posted May 22, 2007 Love the WATE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted May 22, 2007 Share #9 Posted May 22, 2007 When I got my WATE I sold my 15mm Heliar. The WATE is far better and also gives you the 18 and 21 in the same package. I did get a 12mm Heliar for going extra wide -- coded with a Milich adapter. Never considered the Zeiss, as the difference of one stop was not compelling and extra focal lengths of the WATE were. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted May 22, 2007 Share #10 Posted May 22, 2007 Interesting...in what ways did you find the WATE far better? Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffreyg Posted May 22, 2007 Share #11 Posted May 22, 2007 Can't beat ths size of the CV 15. The WATE may be amazing (and it that!), but it still has some size to it. The CV 15 is a wonderful point/shoot/great image lens. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/24740-te-16-18-21-vs-cv-15-vs-zeiss-zm15/?do=findComment&comment=262258'>More sharing options...
teehas53 Posted May 22, 2007 Share #12 Posted May 22, 2007 ... The WATE is far better ... Not my experience at all. My copy of the CV 15 is a great lens by any measure. I picked up a WATE mainly for location & travel work, where it replaces two other lenses in the bag (and gives me a nice 24mm equivalent to boot!) It's excellent, and the rangefinder coupling is a plus over the Heliar. But for anyone on a budget craving a 21mm look on the M8, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the CV. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted May 22, 2007 Share #13 Posted May 22, 2007 The Wate is a great lens but if on a budget and work at around F8 all the time than the CV is a prize no question. I love the WATE but I still recommend the CV 15mm also . I'm waiting on my 12mm to show up. okay have not read the review been a crazy wonderful day overall Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted May 23, 2007 Share #14 Posted May 23, 2007 Yeah, but what do you do if you already have the Leica 21? I still have the M8 30%-off letter, and haven't ordered the WATE because I keep thinking maybe I should go for the Zeiss...it's driving me nuts. Tony Rose has suggested to me that I should try the WATE, because if it turns out that I don't use it, I can easily get the cost back (assuming I use the 30% off letter.) But then, I'm really only buying two focal lengths (since I already have the 21) at a stop slower than the Zeiss... Is there are difference between the size of the two lenses? JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted May 23, 2007 Share #15 Posted May 23, 2007 Here is a WATE shot yesterday . I added the vignetting for effect. The Wate is thinner than the 21mm but just a little longer than a 50mm lux. I sold the 15mm and 21mm for the WATE and i don't regret the decision but it really is a tough call. I gues I like to focus the Zeiss and the CV you can't. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/24740-te-16-18-21-vs-cv-15-vs-zeiss-zm15/?do=findComment&comment=262309'>More sharing options...
marknorton Posted May 23, 2007 Share #16 Posted May 23, 2007 I think you can excuse the CV 15 for not being rangefinder coupled on the grounds of cost - it's exceptional vavlue - but I would find it hard to justify the cost of the Zeiss and still not have a rangefinder coupled lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest leicawanabe Posted May 23, 2007 Share #17 Posted May 23, 2007 The Tri is a great lens but I think the corners are soft. Maybe it's just the pictures I have seen . Here is a shot from the Zeiss 15. I have never had an issue with soft corners even when shooting wide open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted May 23, 2007 Share #18 Posted May 23, 2007 Corners are good Jorge. That shot above is the minimal focusing point and at 5.6 which is what i was after but it does do a nice job in the corners . i would not mind having the Zeiss 15mm either and looks like a nice lens but I do wish it was coupled , bummer about that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted May 23, 2007 Share #19 Posted May 23, 2007 You know your still getting cyan corners from the minimal IR filter on the sensor. Is that coded . You may want to turn the IR on if it is Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest leicawanabe Posted May 23, 2007 Share #20 Posted May 23, 2007 Yes it is coded. Even so, there is still some cyan in the corners but not as bad as without the filter. I should have the tri next week. I am getting it for my backpacking trips. which will mean only 2 lenses for the long hauls into the mountains. For me that is the main advantage of the tri. Need to lose weight in gear and have various focal length without extra gear. This is big when you hike 25 miles and climb 7000 feet. I did this without the cyan filter on the zeiss and used a digital velvia action in PS. The 15/16 FL is great for close up work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.