Jump to content

Leica Tri-Elmar vs Voigtlander 15mm Super Wide-Heliar III on the SL


Vieri

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just posted a review of the Leica 16-18-21mm Tri-Elmar used at 16mm tested against the Voigtlander 15mm Super Wide-Heliar III on the Leica SL. The new Voigtlander surprised me with an incredible performance at infinity all over the frame - and no colour casts to be seen.


 


To read the article, click on the link below:


 


https://vieribottazzini.com/2016/07/leica-16-18-21mm-tri-elmar-vs-voigtlander-15mm-super-wide-heliar-iii-review-leica-sl.html


 


Enjoy. Best,


 


Vieri


  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great review, thanks! I do have the Tri-Elmar's and enjoy them a lot on the M, I am getting an SL soon and I think this kind of lens will be even more leveraged with a proper EVF.

I also like the Leica warmer colors even if they come with a bit less long distance resolution.

I see also the steeper roll-on as a characteristic of Leica lenses that I really like.

But indeed if I had not of these 2 lens, the voigt would definity be on my list :-). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just posted a review of the Leica 16-18-21mm Tri-Elmar used at 16mm tested against the Voigtlander 15mm Super Wide-Heliar III on the Leica SL. The new Voigtlander surprised me with an incredible performance at infinity all over the frame - and no colour casts to be seen.

 

To read the article, click on the link below:

 

https://vieribottazzini.com/2016/07/leica-16-18-21mm-tri-elmar-vs-voigtlander-15mm-super-wide-heliar-iii-review-leica-sl.html

 

Enjoy. Best,

 

Vieri

 

 

Cool, thanks for putting so much work into it and sharing the results. I already own that CV and was always curious if need to save up for the WATE. You've saved me a lot of money with this review :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a big variations on VC15 iii. I have M version of VC15, while it is good, its center sharpness is no better than my WATE and the corner is not nearly as sharp as WATE. I find consistant result whether using A7r ii or SL. However, I agree that for best performance of WATE, you really need to step down at least to f8. I guess if you get a good copy of CV15 iii, there is not much need for WATE unless you need the flexibility. Unfortunately, I have not been able to get a greaet copy of CV15 yet so I am sticking to my WATE :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

With my VC 15iii, the center sharpness is very slightly better (compared to my WATE).

However, the WATE holds the sharpness over the whole frame (at F8), while with the VC15 iii, the edges clearly suffer.

 

On the SL I realized that the WATE focuses past infinity if the lens is set to infinity. 

In order to reach peak performance at infinity, especially in the center of the frame, I have to set the WATE to about 5m.

Edited by anickpick
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

On the SL I realized that the WATE focuses past infinity if the lens is set to infinity. 

In order to reach peak performance at infinity, especially in the center of the frame, I have to set the WATE to about 5m.

 

or put a shim in the M-T adapter ........ 0.09mm brings the infinity setting on most M lenses back into coincidence with sensor image. 

 

....... apparently it's common practice with adapters to ensure enough leeway for all lenses to be focussable.... hence most end up with infinity before the stop. As most Leica lenses are very well adjusted for infinity and the various surface tolerances fairly high it has always seemed to me to be overkill ..... so I adjusted my adapter and no problems to date .....

Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With my VC 15iii, the center sharpness is very slightly better (compared to my WATE).

However, the WATE holds the sharpness over the whole frame (at F8), while with the VC15 iii, the edges clearly suffer.

 

On the SL I realized that the WATE focuses past infinity if the lens is set to infinity. 

In order to reach peak performance at infinity, especially in the center of the frame, I have to set the WATE to about 5m.

 

 

I mentioned this on another forum where I saw Vieri's review. It's good to see others with similar behavior. 

 

I don't have the VC15III to compare against, I have the Super-Elmar-R 15mm. Both WATE and SER15 are very very good; the WATE is sharper at corners and edges. However, I find the SER15 easier to focus critically. It does much more 'focus past infinity' compared to the WATE. 

 

Ultimately, I like both and find both perform very well. They render rather differently. The WATE works best on the M, the SER15 is my preference on the SL. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used the Voigtlander 15mm III on both, MP240 and SL and have always been extremely impressed by its performance. Have the 12mm and 10mm pre-ordered as well.

Thanks for posting this review.

Helmut

 

You are very welcome Helmut, I am glad you enjoyed the review. I am very curious about the new 12 and 10mm as well, and will probably get the 10 or both once they are out. I wish Voigtlander added a filter ring to them, though, for the life of me I can;t see a reason for them not to, but they didn't... :(

 

Great review, thanks! I do have the Tri-Elmar's and enjoy them a lot on the M, I am getting an SL soon and I think this kind of lens will be even more leveraged with a proper EVF.

I also like the Leica warmer colors even if they come with a bit less long distance resolution.

I see also the steeper roll-on as a characteristic of Leica lenses that I really like.

But indeed if I had not of these 2 lens, the voigt would definity be on my list :-). 

 

You are very welcome. You are going to love the Tri-Elmar on the SL, focusing it perfectly is a breeze with the wonderful EFV of the SL and its focus magnification.

 

Cool, thanks for putting so much work into it and sharing the results. I already own that CV and was always curious if need to save up for the WATE. You've saved me a lot of money with this review :-)

 

You are very welcome, I am glad you enjoyed it and that it made you save some money :D If you don't know what to do with it, let me know ;):D

 

I think there is a big variations on VC15 iii. I have M version of VC15, while it is good, its center sharpness is no better than my WATE and the corner is not nearly as sharp as WATE. I find consistant result whether using A7r ii or SL. However, I agree that for best performance of WATE, you really need to step down at least to f8. I guess if you get a good copy of CV15 iii, there is not much need for WATE unless you need the flexibility. Unfortunately, I have not been able to get a greaet copy of CV15 yet so I am sticking to my WATE :)

 

That is very possible, and it always have been a bit of a problem with CV. I got lucky and got a great copy of the Heliar III on my first attempt :)

 

With my VC 15iii, the center sharpness is very slightly better (compared to my WATE).

However, the WATE holds the sharpness over the whole frame (at F8), while with the VC15 iii, the edges clearly suffer.

 

On the SL I realized that the WATE focuses past infinity if the lens is set to infinity. 

In order to reach peak performance at infinity, especially in the center of the frame, I have to set the WATE to about 5m.

 

Thank you for sharing your findings; with my WATE, things were a bit different. Perhaps it is because it focuses past infinity at the infinity mark, but the CV was definitely better all over the frame when focused at infinity. Close focus was a different story though, so this might explain your findings.

 

or put a shim in the M-T adapter ........ 0.09mm brings the infinity setting on most M lenses back into coincidence with sensor image. 

 

....... apparently it's common practice with adapters to ensure enough leeway for all lenses to be focussable.... hence most end up with infinity before the stop. As most Leica lenses are very well adjusted for infinity and the various surface tolerances fairly high it has always seemed to me to be overkill ..... so I adjusted my adapter and no problems to date .....

 

My (original Leica) Leica M-to-L adapter has no leeway, play or creep of sorts, on either side of it (lens side and camera side). It is impressively well made :)

 

I mentioned this on another forum where I saw Vieri's review. It's good to see others with similar behavior. 

 

I don't have the VC15III to compare against, I have the Super-Elmar-R 15mm. Both WATE and SER15 are very very good; the WATE is sharper at corners and edges. However, I find the SER15 easier to focus critically. It does much more 'focus past infinity' compared to the WATE. 

 

Ultimately, I like both and find both perform very well. They render rather differently. The WATE works best on the M, the SER15 is my preference on the SL. 

 

Indeed, Godfrey. Let me quote my reply to you here as well:

 

As far as the thing you question, I think that when testing lenses I have to "level the field" as much as possible between the lenses I test. Same adapter, same infinity position on the lens; if the results are different due to the optical design of the lens, i.e. one is better than the other by design, so to speak, then the test will show it. If one looks worse than the other because its hard infinity stop is not exactly where it should be, and there is a workaround that makes it perform better, well - it would not have been fair to test it in the "corrected" position, IMHO, since if there is an infinity stop on a lens I expect it to be at infinity where it is supposed to be at infinity, not somewhere else. Especially for a Leica lens, which I expect to be the pinnacle not only of optical design but also of construction and precision - and I pay for that excellence, princely, so I have the right to expect it. To me, if the problem is caused by the infinity stop being off, well - this too is part of a test result. More, suppose for a second that rather than being off on the side of infinity that you report, the lens were off on the other side: in that case, there wouldn't be any possibility of getting perfect focus at infinity... so, I think that my methodology is correct (as possible, we all are humans of course), and if you are right then Leica should pay better attention during their QC.

 

 

Best,

 

Vieri

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 IMHO, since if there is an infinity stop on a lens I expect it to be at infinity where it is supposed to be at infinity, not somewhere else. Especially for a Leica lens, which I expect to be the pinnacle not only of optical design but also of construction and precision - and I pay for that excellence, princely, so I have the right to expect it. To me, if the problem is caused by the infinity stop being off, well - this too is part of a test result. More, suppose for a second that rather than being off on the side of infinity that you report, the lens were off on the other side: in that case, there wouldn't be any possibility of getting perfect focus at infinity... so, I think that my methodology is correct (as possible, we all are humans of course), and if you are right then Leica should pay better attention during their QC.

 

 

Best,

 

Vieri

 

 ....... yes but not with the M-T adapter needed to use these lenses on the SL

 

the adapter is deliberately designed to be slightly too thin to ensure ALL lenses can focus at infinity .... but the side effect is that for MOST lenses 'infinity' needs to be focussed manually and you just can't set the lens to infinity on the barrel. 

 

with w/a lenses like the 15mm it probably makes little difference...... but is very obvious at 50mm and above at wide apertures ...... as I found out to my cost with the Leica T .... a whole days landscape shots out of focus as I set the lens to infinity and assumed it would be. 

 

my M-T adapter was sent back to Leica for checking as a result ...... and it was only after a long thread about this that it became apparent it was a design feature ...... and present in most adapters.

 

Assume the infinity setting on the lens is wrong in ALL lenses you use with an adapter until proved otherwise. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only support thingslapper's observation - do not trust the infinity-mark on lenses! Yes, some lenses are close to spot on, others are quite off. And as thingslapper report, adapters may alter the info given on the lens engraving. So might the working temperature.

 

When doing tests, for instance for wide angle astrophotography, every single lens has to be accurately focussed on something really far away (the moon or a bright star, say) - with full EVF magnification or by enlarging test images on the screen - in order to nail the focus. Otherwise the stars will, in general, be out of focus when the lens is used wide open or close to wide open.

Manual focus with a good EVF or on a decent LCD - as is the case for the SL - ensures that you get what you see irrespective of what is engraved on the barrel...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I wonder what a professional thinks, when he puts the lens to infinity. (to the infinity mark) (if the mark is correct or not)

For the layman I am this sounds simply not clever - giving away a large part of the DoF. Especially if mainly wide-angle lenses are used for landscape photography. And I think nobody needs lengthy discussions with specialists (Leica) to grab the essentials/basics.

Amazing !!  This is probably one of the first thoughts when planning to manually focus.  Sorry !

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

 ....... yes but not with the M-T adapter needed to use these lenses on the SL

 

the adapter is deliberately designed to be slightly too thin to ensure ALL lenses can focus at infinity .... but the side effect is that for MOST lenses 'infinity' needs to be focussed manually and you just can't set the lens to infinity on the barrel. 

 

with w/a lenses like the 15mm it probably makes little difference...... but is very obvious at 50mm and above at wide apertures ...... as I found out to my cost with the Leica T .... a whole days landscape shots out of focus as I set the lens to infinity and assumed it would be. 

 

my M-T adapter was sent back to Leica for checking as a result ...... and it was only after a long thread about this that it became apparent it was a design feature ...... and present in most adapters.

 

Assume the infinity setting on the lens is wrong in ALL lenses you use with an adapter until proved otherwise. 

 

thighslapper,

 

so you are saying that the adapter "with w/a lenses like the 15mm it probably makes little difference" with the 15mm, but my results of the 16mm are wrong because of the adapter? Interesting logic. If the adapter is off, it should be equally off for both lenses. Or, if a lens as wide as the 15mm should void the off-ness of the adapter, this should be true for the 16mm as well (nearly same focal and field of view).

 

My point is, the field was level, and I stand to the results of my test.

 

I can only support thingslapper's observation - do not trust the infinity-mark on lenses! Yes, some lenses are close to spot on, others are quite off. And as thingslapper report, adapters may alter the info given on the lens engraving. So might the working temperature.

 

When doing tests, for instance for wide angle astrophotography, every single lens has to be accurately focussed on something really far away (the moon or a bright star, say) - with full EVF magnification or by enlarging test images on the screen - in order to nail the focus. Otherwise the stars will, in general, be out of focus when the lens is used wide open or close to wide open.

 

Manual focus with a good EVF or on a decent LCD - as is the case for the SL - ensures that you get what you see irrespective of what is engraved on the barrel...

 

Again, whatever tolerance the adapter adds into the mixture, it adds them for both lenses. The field was level, and so I stand by my point: the results are valid.

 

Sorry, but I wonder what a professional thinks, when he puts the lens to infinity. (to the infinity mark) (if the mark is correct or not)

For the layman I am this sounds simply not clever - giving away a large part of the DoF. Especially if mainly wide-angle lenses are used for landscape photography. And I think nobody needs lengthy discussions with specialists (Leica) to grab the essentials/basics.

Amazing !!  This is probably one of the first thoughts when planning to manually focus.  Sorry !

 

This is probably because you cannot separate test work from real world use :) Which I found amazing in turn.

 

I (almost) never use a lens focussed at infinity for my work, of course, but it is customary to test lens performance at infinity, close focus, etc.: this is not just me, MFT charts are made at infinity and close range, etc. Just check Leica's MFT charts for examples of what I am saying. So, now you know what a professional thinks - hope this helps. 

 

----

 

More, as clearly specified in the review, I didn't focus at the infinity mark on the lenses, I focused at the infinity hard stop on the lenses, and as we know there is a difference between the two. The infinity hard stop of a manual focus lens such as those in the test should be where infinity is, unless there is a problem with the lens.

 

I am out and about until Friday, but when I'll get back home I will test again both lenses on the M (Typ 240) without any adapter to see if the problem was in the adapter or not and add my results into the review. I will most definitely use the hard infinity stop again, since I do believe that a lens such as those tested must be built in such a way that infinity is at the hard infinity stop; if such is not the case, there is a problem with the lens. Until then, I'll say it again: since my review was a compared review, and since the field was level, I stand by my results.

 

Best,

 

Vieri

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not criticising at all, Vieri.

 

The lenses are almost certainly Ok and adjusted accurately for infinity. The tests as a comparison are perfectly valid. 

 

I was just pointing out that when using the M-T adapter you cannot rely on the lens barrel markings and the end stop at infinity for accurate focussing. 

 

The M-T adapter is deliberately constructed 0.09mm too short. Not much of an issue with ultra w/a lenses where DOF is enormous, given the modest apertures of most of these lenses. 

 

ps. I have the Voigt 12/5.6 and it an excellent lens on both M and SL. If I didn't already have a WATE I would be tempted by the Voigt 15mm ...... my Leica 21/3.4 is miles better than 21mm on the WATE, so I tend to use it only for 16mm. 

Edited by thighslapper
Link to post
Share on other sites

Vieri,

 

In point of fact, the field is not "leveled" by setting the lenses at the hard stop or the focus calibration mark at infinity. All lenses have some variability in both focal length and mount calibration, so by setting everything to a particular arbitrary reference rather than finding the true infinity focus point all you're testing is how accurately a particular example of a lens is calibrated to hit infinity on the M Adapter T mount adapter. 

 

This is exactly why the M Adapter T is manufactured to be slightly shorter than the ideal, perfect mount registration would suggest: because individual examples of a lens will have variances from the specification. It's also why most M mount lenses focus cam can be calibrated, so that what the rangefinder says is perfect focus in fact matches the actual focus point. 

 

Your WATE may indeed be slightly off on center sharpness compared to your CV15iii, others have reported similar results. It's certainly not a big deal ... my lenses are almost never focused to infinity at all anyway. My only concern is that you are not actually testing the lens(es) properly focused at infinity if you are simply racking the lens to the stop and assuming that is a perfect infinity calibration. It might or might not be, depending upon the specific, individual lens. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon the observation made by various members here, I decided to expand my review adding a couple of new sections dealing with the adapter problem; as well, I added a new series of images taken manually focusing both lenses on the SL. More, while I was at it, I added a new section quickly testing both lens on the M-P (Typ 240), again focused both manually and using the lenses' infinity hard stop, again with new images to go with it. While I was at it, I checked out wording and fixed a couple of spelling mistakes etc - no matter how careful you are, these crawl in by the millions! :D

 

I can now say that the review is complete, thank you to everyone that pointed out the adapter-related issues to me.

 

You can find the review here:

 

https://vieribottazzini.com/2016/07/leica-16-18-21mm-tri-elmar-vs-voigtlander-15mm-super-wide-heliar-iii-review-leica-sl.html

 

I hope that my results will be useful to everyone wondering about getting anyone of these lenses. Best,

 

Vieri

Edited by Vieri
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for expanding your test! It now seems fine and fair.

 

The WATE performs at such a high level of quality it is somewhat thrilling to see that the much less expensive Heliar can compete with it. Of course the WATE is a zoom and the Heliar is a prime, therein might lie some of the differences as well as in what Leica considered as best for optimization vs Voigtländer. Certainly some of the price differential is there as well—and as light justification, the WATE works as an excellent 18 mm and an excellent 21 mm lens as well.

 

At any rate, for what I use it for, the WATE is delightful and produces super results. For what you use it for, the Heliar probably is the better performer. It is grand to have two such excellent choices!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for expanding your test! It now seems fine and fair.

 

The WATE performs at such a high level of quality it is somewhat thrilling to see that the much less expensive Heliar can compete with it. Of course the WATE is a zoom and the Heliar is a prime, therein might lie some of the differences as well as in what Leica considered as best for optimization vs Voigtländer. Certainly some of the price differential is there as well—and as light justification, the WATE works as an excellent 18 mm and an excellent 21 mm lens as well.

 

At any rate, for what I use it for, the WATE is delightful and produces super results. For what you use it for, the Heliar probably is the better performer. It is grand to have two such excellent choices!

 

Godfrey,

 

Thank you for you message. I think now the review is much more complete indeed, and I thank you and others here to stimulate me to do the extra work. As you could see, the relative results at infinity didn't change and the Voigtlander is still the sharper lens (especially on the side and on the corner of the frame), but now the Tri-Elmar got a much better representation of its capabilities and, focused manually at infinity, performed as the great lens that it is. Still, I think that it shouldn't focus past infinity on the M, and that this shows a bit of lack in QC on Leica's part. Of course, it's still perfectly usable, in fact (ironically) much more so on the SL thanks to the focus magnification than on the M. Anyway, infinity focus is just a small part of the use a lens gets, even if you do landscapes as I do, and the Tri-Elmar performs beautifully at close focus and in between.

 

M240_0399_FM.jpg

An example with the Tri-Elmar on the M-P (Typ 240) at Mesa Arch.

 

Of course I agree with you on the WATE being an extremely good lens, and offering the extra flexibility of being a tri-focal lens! However, as you said, to me it is interesting to see how today other brands (see Sigma with their new A series, or the new extreme wides from Voigtlander for instance) are able to compete with the "big guys" offering great lenses at very reasonable prices.

 

Good times to be a photographer! :D

 

Best,

 

Vieri

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 years later...

Thank you for this useful post. I was wondering, have you ever used the canon 16mm to 35mm (latest version) at 16mm on a Canon camera (DSL 94R) vs Voitlander Helliar 15mm 111 on a Leica M camera?

I wonder which would be sharper etc.

thoughts?

thanks, mark

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...