Jump to content

Go fisheye or UWA?


w44neg

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know this is two totally different types of lens but I'm trying to stop myself buying both, and therefore struggling to decide between them.

 

I have an MP240 with currently 35mm f2, 50mm f2 and 90mm f4 lenses. All of these are Leica lenses and seem to have similar colour reproduction, plus they're small and fit nicely in to my bag.

 

I do want something wide angle though, so I've set myself a budget of around £1000GBP. I did pick up a Zeiss 18mm f4 recently but found it had a lot of colour shift, and the f4 aperture wasn't giving me enough speed. So looking around, I've narrowed it down to three lenses, although I'm open to other opinions.

 

Either...

 

- Leica R 16mm FishEye f2.8 with adapter to M cameras

 

...or...

 

- Zeiss 21mm f2.8 UWA lens

 

...or...

 

- Voigtlander 21mm f1.8 UWA lens

 

...there's also another option of perhaps the Leica Fisheye alongside a Voigtlander 10/12/15mm lens but the speed of the Voigtlanders is slow again.

 

I'm going on a trip to America and we will be spending some time in desert locations, so the thought of capturing some starry skies is nice, as it's something I've never tried before. I also want to create some interesting shots within the cities we're visiting (Las Vegas, San Francisco and Los Angeles).

 

I guess I'm just looking for your expert opinions and which choice you would choose. Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've owned a couple of fisheye lenses. They're great.....for about a month.

 

Unless you're travelling constantly, once you've captured the few local things that work really well in a fisheye perspective the "look" starts getting old pretty fast. Before you know it you'll rarely, if ever, use it.

 

In your position and given the options you outlined, I'd nab the Voigtlander 21mm f1.8. Super lens. It was my first M ultrawide. I've since moved to a combination of the Leica 21mm f2.8 Elmarit ASPH and/or 18mm f3.8 Super Elmar, but the Ultron is very, very good on an M.

 

L1000294-X3.jpg

 

L1000765-XL.jpg

 

L1000412-XL.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, imho is SURE that a 21 is much more useful than a fisheye... and a very good fit for going wider than 35; same way, a 15 stands fine next to a 21... is significantly wider, and still is more useful than a fisheye (and the last CV 15 is much praised). If I were you, I had no hesitation to buy one of the two 21 you quote : haven't any of them (my 21 is the "old" Elmarit asph) so can't give an advice about. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fisheye gets a bad rap for being a "one-trick pony" - but in creative hands it can be pretty powerful. From W. Eugene Smith's documentary on mercury poisoning at Minamata, Japan:

 

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/a6/9e/76/a69e7681e07f83c8e966b9893bd05fb4.jpg

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jPhceBYiIaI/TTeGobUPRNI/AAAAAAAAAIw/LVx4rKseoDU/s1600/minamata%2Be.smith%2B3.jpg

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HEMuCbtzuSI/UHTOBoGA3EI/AAAAAAAAAFA/hRD_XWUYJwM/s1600/blog+09+-+c.jpg

 

BTW - Smith was using the exact same Minolta 16mm f/2.8 that Leica badge-engineered for the R system. Exact same glass.

 

In my Nikon days, I always had a 16 f/2.8 within reach.

 

BUT - since I switched to Leica and a rectilinear 21mm, I've never really missed it. If you have nothing wider than a 35 now, I think a 25, 24 or 21 would be more useful right off the bat. You can always look into a fish down the road, if you're adventurous or have a creative need in mind.

Edited by adan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies. I had a real hard think of what I want to achieve with my images whilst away, and I've just ordered two lenses.

 

I don't use my 50mm all that much, so I've decided to sell that and go for a used 12mm Voigtlander III ASPH and the 16mm Fisheye. Thoughts were the 12mm will give me great options with vistas and cityscapes, but the faster 16mm fisheye will force me to be creative in darker scenes.

 

I can return them if I change my mind but I think have a 12, 16 fisheye, 35mm f2 and 90mm will work well, and not be too heavy which is very important.

 

I just need to find an M- R adapter now :-s

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm a bit puzzled about the UWAs "not being fast enough". With such focal lengths quite long shutterspeeds can be achieved even handheld, and they are mostly (except skateboarder shots ;) ) not used for fast action. So what is the problem?

I have both the fisheye-R and a Super-Elmar 18. The SE gets used regularly, the fisheye - virtually never.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit puzzled about the UWAs "not being fast enough". With such focal lengths quite long shutterspeeds can be achieved even handheld, and they are mostly (except skateboarder shots ;) ) not used for fast action. So what is the problem?

 

Thanks for mentioning that. I feel the same way. Perhaps us older users are conditioned to film era speeds. More recent enthusiasts who entered photography in the digital era with enormously faster media have higher expectations. It is all good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit puzzled about the UWAs "not being fast enough". With such focal lengths quite long shutterspeeds can be achieved even handheld, and they are mostly (except skateboarder shots ;) ) not used for fast action. So what is the problem?

I have both the fisheye-R and a Super-Elmar 18. The SE gets used regularly, the fisheye - virtually never.

 

I suppose you're right in some ways with being able to hand-hold for longer; it was more the limits of the MP240's ISO and no stabilisation if I want to freeze action in darker scenes. The 12mm is f5.6 so will probably start getting sharp around f8, therefore it's going to take decent technique depending on the shot I'm looking for.

 

Well... 12 to 35 is a BIG jump... but M240 does support well some cropping... ;)

 

 

It definitely is a large jump but I find I very rarely use anything less than 35mm even when I have a 24-70mm type zoom on other systems so the UWA should work fine I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rectlinear and fisheye lens with the same focal length will give you a very different perspective. I am a big fan of the CV 21/1.8 lens which I use very often. Only con of this lens is its fixed hood which is sometimes a bit tedious to remove added circular filters and doesn't allow to use larger diameter filters with adapter ring. Optically it is an outstanding lens for a reasonable price. If you want to go wider, I recommend getting the CV 12/5.6 rectlinear lens. 

 

Fisheye is tricky with Leica M cameras. I am using a manual focus Peleng 8/5.6 EF lens with Kraft EF/M adapter for this purpose. To estimate the composition, I have my external CV 21/24 viewfinder which gives a good estimate of 12 mm field of view from border to border of the viewfinder range. 8 mm is then still a bit wider but with some experience you can estimate how far the circular view extends. Also you might need to adjust the exposure setting a bit due to the wider frame.

 

Leica M6, Peleng 8/5.6 lens, Kodak Gold 200 film, developed with C-41. 

p2179928507-5.jpg

Edited by Martin B
  • Like 2
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...