16mm, 18mm or 11-23mm

[bencoyote]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One of my best friends is an architect and every so often he asks me to casually shoot one of his projects. At the time I only had the Leica T and so I bought the 11-23mm Super-Vario-Elmar T so that I would have something wide enough to shoot his projects with.  One thing that I noticed doing this is almost all of my shots of his projects are shot at the 11mm end of the zoom range. As a secondary use, I also have used it for casual astrophotography. 

 

Over the past year or so I've been drifting more and more to the M and so I was considering adding a very wide angle lens to my M collection. 

 

What I had been planning to do is get one of those CV Super Wide Heliar 16mm f/4.5's and I was debating version II or version III.

However, I also realized that I may be able to trade in my 11-23mm at the Leica store and pick up 18mm for not that much more money. Hopefully around the price of picking up the CV 16mm version 3.

 

So what do you guys think for internal architecture and occasional astrophotography plus the general "have this new toy, I should try to use it". I've been really inspired by: http://photoncollective.com/voigtlander-15mm-f4-5-heliar-iii-lens-review Should I just stick with what I've got and be fine with it? Do I have GAS? ;-)

 

Does 16mm vs 18mm really matter that much? I was trying to play around with the 11-23mm and the difference between 11mm (16mm FOV) and 12mm (18mm FOV) and it is pretty small.

 

Yes I know that the M is not the best camera for astrophotography, Yes I know that that even with LV it doesn't take well to very wide lenses. I find with shooting my friend's architecture it is mostly a trial and error process on a tripod anyway. The things that he cares about are things that I can easily see on even the LV on the screen. I don't think I need a viewfinder.

 

What are your general thoughts and opinions?

Consider me an inexperienced newbie. What haven't I thought of?

 

Other misc things that have crossed my mind:

• I really am not enthusiastic about the WATE, it is too big and too expensive for occasional use.
• My next widest lens is a 28 cron should I go all really crazy and get the 12mm CV instead?
• The ZM 18mm is like half the price of the Leica 18mm but the Leica store probably doesn't have one of those and wouldn't facilitate the trade. I heard it is really good but different than the Leica 18mm.
• Why the heck does the 21 lux even exist? Will I find some sort of magical nirvana with those 3 stops of extra light? Is it worth it when having to do all the extra work trying to stitch things together for my friend's architecture. Is the 21mm lux just amazing for astrophotography? Am I just fetishizing the f/1.4?

[james.liam]

Have you used UWA lenses in the past? Get beyond ~21mm FL and framing becomes a challenge (as in too much in there). You might consider renting a CV 15 for a few days to see if it even suits you.

 

The WATE is unique but nowhere near as good as the fixed FL SEMs @ 18 & 21mm. What you get is 16mm, for which no Leica equivalent presently exists. The latest CV 4,5/15 is a really interesting lens with a good write up and probably as wide as you ought to ponder. Has the added benefit of working on the a7 without the ray angle issues of all other M-mount WA lenses  

 

I remember the 12 v.1 and wasn't especially impressive (except for seeing the shooter's feet in too many shots). One imagines that the new one has a new optical formula. As rarely as you'll find a use for a 15mm, cut that by three-quarter for the 10 & 12mm. I used to own a 14-24 Nikkor and it was one of the least used zooms, although most of my images were made from 14-18mm FLs.

 

18 SEM is available second-hand or QM2 (cosmetic blemish sold at discount--no optical issues) from other vendors; try Popflash in Los Angeles or Tamarkin Camers in Chicago.

 

Presently, the SEMs are optically the finest ultra wides with the least distortion available today from Leica (notwithstanding the slow speeds), less an issue nowadays with improved high ISO performance. .

 

I can't comment on astrophotography.... a7SII + CV 4,5/15 ??? ???

[AndreasAM]

I do prefer a MF-lens on the T for architecture

 

I am using the ZM T* Distagon 18mm./4 mm. as a good 28 mm. equivalent on the T. No complaints here.

Advantages over the SEM 18 mm. are less distortion in the centre, smaller, "normal" 58 mm. filter, lighter and much cheaper. So a good match for the T.

.

For Ultra Wide I use the CV 12 mm. SWH (eq. 18 mm.). Again because I use it on the T, more of the centre of the image circle is used, so no complaints about distortion and CA and with UWA in architecture, you need f5.6 or more for DOF.

 

On the M, quality is a toss up, when you read the several reviews. SEM is a bit better in the corners than the ZM Distagon I believe.

On the M I would use the SEM 21 mm. (21/35/75) unless you use it for architecture, then I would take the SEM 18 mm. Gives you a bit more room in the picture when you want to correct perspective distortion.

 

Of course when using a FF camera like the M, the PC Super-Angulon-R 28 mm./2.8 is a good one (for shift only) in architecture.  No distortion of any importance, nice colors. Will cost you only 1100 Euro's or so.

[bencoyote]

Have you used UWA lenses in the past? Get beyond ~21mm FL and framing becomes a challenge (as in too much in there). You might consider renting a CV 15 for a few days to see if it even suits you.

 

I agree regarding wider than about ~21mm FL for normal shooting. It certainly is not going to be a walk around lens. It will stay at home during most trips unless if I am going somewhere with really interesting architecture like Barcelona or someplace like that.

 

In architecture though UWA wide really is needed. Even with a very wide lens you end up setting your tripod cockeyed in a doorway or backed up against a wall trying to give that feeling of space.

 

Likewise outsize foot zoom doesn't always work. Where you would need to stand ends up being in the middle of someone's house or something. You end up doing crazy things like climbing on top of a parked minivan across the street setting up your tripod to make sure that it is as level as possible on a steep SF hill and hope that you are done shooting before the owner gets back and wonders what the hell you are doing. ;-) It is kind of fun doing architecture photography from time to time. 

[otho]

Maybe CV Ultron 21 f/1.8 = very good image quality & reasonable price, but weight 412g... Little narrow in comparison to 18mm, but ok.

[pico]

Typo - it's a 15mm, and I have version I and version III. The later is hugely improved, very good.

 

Then there is the 10mm CV to spoil our day.

 

For challenging interiors I use a 35mm Grandagon over 6x12cm. With centre filter, of course.

[Peter Branch]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In my experience there is no suitable shift lens for use with a Leica M.  The old 28mm shift for the R is actually not that good by modern standards and the angle of view is not very wide.

 

When about a year ago I was involved in getting quotes for A2 prints for a local museum the companies I contacted, all in east London, were surprised not to say astonished, that I was not using the Canon 17mm shift which I was told "everyone" doing this sort of work uses.  ~£7,500 (GBP) for a Canon body and lens was not in my budget, though I understand it is very good.

 

I bought the Leica 18mm SEM and can't fault it.  Using CS6 with its lens profile the distortion is zero which is very useful.  I've learned that unless one has access to elevated viewpoints that the foreground can dominate the pictures.  However using a tripod and taking several shots and stitching them together, again using CS6, I can get perfect verticals and have sufficient size to crop out the unwanted foreground.  When cropping to the now popular A4/A3/etc. ratio of 1:1.414 this can enable the picture to be somewhat wider horizontally, again a plus in some circumstances. 

 

Not perfect, a view camera with a Grandagon would undoubtedly be better, but I can get A3, or even A2, prints of top professional quality using the 18mm SEM albeit with a bit of work in Photoshop.  

[bencoyote]

In my experience there is no suitable shift lens for use with a Leica M.  The old 28mm shift for the R is actually not that good by modern standards and the angle of view is not very wide.

 

When about a year ago I was involved in getting quotes for A2 prints for a local museum the companies I contacted, all in east London, were surprised not to say astonished, that I was not using the Canon 17mm shift which I was told "everyone" doing this sort of work uses.  ~£7,500 (GBP) for a Canon body and lens was not in my budget, though I understand it is very good.

 

I bought the Leica 18mm SEM and can't fault it.  Using CS6 with its lens profile the distortion is zero which is very useful.  I've learned that unless one has access to elevated viewpoints that the foreground can dominate the pictures.  However using a tripod and taking several shots and stitching them together, again using CS6, I can get perfect verticals and have sufficient size to crop out the unwanted foreground.  When cropping to the now popular A4/A3/etc. ratio of 1:1.414 this can enable the picture to be somewhat wider horizontally, again a plus in some circumstances. 

 

Not perfect, a view camera with a Grandagon would undoubtedly be better, but I can get A3, or even A2, prints of top professional quality using the 18mm SEM albeit with a bit of work in Photoshop.  

 

Thanks for all the professional level advice.

 

Maybe if Troy goes big time instead of buying me dinner after shooting a house for him, he'll buy me a SL with one of those SL-TS lenses which is evidently on Leica's roadmap. ;-) In reality, I'm lucky in that my friend does mostly residential architecture and I don't need to encompass the vast dimensions of many commercial projects. So I don't see a TS lens in my future. Still he is an architect and by nature he likes his lines straight and perfectly vertical and horizontal and really doesn't like keystones or interesting interpretations of perspective.

 

Totally agree regarding elevated shooting positions. It really is good to know that the 17mm is a good architectural lens, It makes 18mm feel much better.

It sounds like the best plan for me is to see if I can trade in my 11-23mm T lens for the 18mm if I can make it reasonably cost effective. Otherwise, I'll hang onto the 11-23mm for the time being. 

[Exodies]

Peter Branch is using 18 SEM and stitching; I wonder why not, say 50mm and a bit more stitching?

The software process is almost painless, especially now with Lightroom doing it to DNGs.

[Peter Branch]

Peter Branch is using 18 SEM and stitching; I wonder why not, say 50mm and a bit more stitching?

The software process is almost painless, especially now with Lightroom doing it to DNGs.

 

The short answer is the perspective settings in Photoshop.  With only 2, or at the most 3 pictures, the photo-merge function preserves the straight lines. 

 

I generally use the Auto perspective setting which works well in most cases because there are only 2 or 3 files. 

 

It's much simpler to take only 2, or 3, shots with the camera moved only in a vertical direction making sure the camera is still level using the artificial horizon.

 

With a 50 or 35mm lens the camera has to be moved in both a vertical and a horizontal direction which makes life a lot more complicated for Photoshop.

 

The quality on prints up to A3, even A2 with some subjects, using the 18mm SEM is as good as, or better, than most situations require.  I'm not attempting bill-boards.

 

Personally I don't merge DNGs, although I could.  I like to do the lens profile first and merge the resulting distortion free Tiff files.  (A3, 120ppcm, 16 bit, Adobe RGB.)