Jump to content

Zeiss ZE 2.8/15mm on Leica SL


Ivar B

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I bought a Zeiss Distagon ZE 2.8/15mm and did not really consider the possibility of compatibility problems with the Leica SL. I just tested it our a little but it was much too dark outside to get any meaningful shots, but everything seemed to work perfectly. The camera never froze, and it also appears that the lens is identified as 2.8/15mm.

 

Based on reviews, this seems to be a stellar lens. Does anyone else have user experience with Zeiss ZE lenses on the SL? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica SL Type 601 + Novoflex adapter + Carl Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 T* ZE .....................

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a Zeiss Distagon ZE 2.8/15mm and did not really consider the possibility of compatibility problems with the Leica SL. I just tested it our a little but it was much too dark outside to get any meaningful shots, but everything seemed to work perfectly. The camera never froze, and it also appears that the lens is identified as 2.8/15mm.

 

Based on reviews, this seems to be a stellar lens. Does anyone else have user experience with Zeiss ZE lenses on the SL? 

 

... "it also appears that the lens is identified as 2.8/15mm."

 
The Leica SL recognizing Zeiss lenses???  Which mount?
 
Guy
Edited by gvaliquette
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would work just fine, but the lens would not be identified in EXIF automatically. Best regards,

 

Vieri

I use M and R lenses in that order on SL all the time so have some idea how non native lenses registers in Exif.

I am trying to hear what esteemed experts have to say how ZM 15mm lens works, i.e. performs on SL, so no infamous Italian flag in the corners? Post #5 implies it works fine as it is or despite being ZM , any evidence for this, much appreciated to see some evidence to support such claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use M and R lenses in that order on SL all the time so have some idea how non native lenses registers in Exif.

I am trying to hear what esteemed experts have to say how ZM 15mm lens works, i.e. performs on SL, so no infamous Italian flag in the corners? Post #5 implies it works fine as it is or despite being ZM , any evidence for this, much appreciated to see some evidence to support such claim.

 

Chill. You asked: 

 

All ZMs are Ms mechanically but are you suggesting that ZM 2.8/15 would work on SL601?

 

You didn't ask:

 

I am trying to hear what esteemed experts have to say how ZM 15mm lens works, i.e. performs on SL, so no infamous Italian flag in the corners? 

 

I just answered the question you asked. I am glad to hear that you know how non native lenses work on the SL, no need to get all worked up. However, since I cannot read your mind, I answered the question you asked, not the one you thought about asking but didn't :)

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chill. You asked: 

 

 

 

You didn't ask:

 

 

 

I just answered the question you asked. I am glad to hear that you know how non native lenses work on the SL, no need to get all worked up. However, since I cannot read your mind, I answered the question you asked, not the one you thought about asking but didn't :)

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

Appreciate your response, also you good spirits.

Yeah, I think I know the answer, I wish it was different, and you are absolutely right we can’t read each other minds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All ZMs are Ms mechanically but are you suggesting that ZM 2.8/15 would work on SL601?

 

Beware that the Zeiss Distagon 15mm ZM vs. ZE/ZF.2 are different optical calculation. Whereas the ZE/ZF.2 work well on the SL, the ZM version does NOT (lot of CA, some corner smearing). It is one of the very few M lenses, which do not work well on the SL. Unfortunately, the ZM version performs optically better (see MTF on the Zeiss homepage), but the ZE/ZF.2 verion is still a stellar performer.

 

All of them can be mechanically coupled to the SL, but will not be recognized (of course).

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Beware that the Zeiss Distagon 15mm ZM vs. ZE/ZF.2 are different optical calculation. Whereas the ZE/ZF.2 work well on the SL, the ZM version does NOT (lot of CA, some corner smearing). It is one of the very few M lenses, which do not work well on the SL. Unfortunately, the ZM version performs optically better (see MTF on the Zeiss homepage), but the ZE/ZF.2 verion is still a stellar performer.

 

All of them can be mechanically coupled to the SL, but will not be recognized (of course).

 

My SL reports that the Zeiss 15mm indeed is a 15mm lens in use, but perhaps it confuses it with a Canon lens or something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The folloqing picture of the Leica park in Wetzlar was taken with the SL and the Zeiss Distagon 15mm ZM @ f/2.8, just stepping outside of the building. The picutre is jpeg straight ooc, just downsized for posting (no profile, no pp).

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

My SL reports that the Zeiss 15mm indeed is a 15mm lens in use, but perhaps it confuses it with a Canon lens or something?

 

I would have to check, but I think the Novoflex adaptor tells the SL which Canon lens is mounted. My Canon EF 70-200/2.8 is recongnized as such. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The folloqing picture of the Leica park in Wetzlar was taken with the SL and the Zeiss Distagon 15mm ZM @ f/2.8, just stepping outside of the building. The picutre is jpeg straight ooc, just downsized for posting (no profile, no pp).

That’s why I sold mine. Shame, as it’s otherwise a fabulous lens. I hope Leica makes a wide fast prime in SL mount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Leica Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5, which is in fact a Zeiss Distagon 15mm f/3.5 produced with Leica R lens mount and coatings to Leica's spec. The SL provides the proper lens profile for it. It performs beautifully, producing excellent color, no color shifting, and excellent rectilinear correction across the entire field of view. It's not quite as sharp deep into corners and edges as the Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH (WATE) and is a good bit larger, heavier in addition, but its ergonomics on the SL make it my preferred ultra-ultra wide for this camera. The SER15's imaging qualities are nothing short of beautiful. 

 

The Super-Elmar-R 15mm was later updated by the Super-Elmarit-R 15mm f/2.8 lens, designed and manufactured by Schneider for Leica. This is supposed to be one of the most superb 15mm lenses available for 35mm, but I preferred the slightly less 'clinically accurate' look of the older lens (never mind that it was quite a bit less expensive). 

 

I'm not sure how these lenses compare with the ZE/ZF and ZM versions of the Zeiss Distagon 15mm f/2.8. But I'm very happy with the SER15 and the WATE: they're my two most prized specialty lenses. I look forward to seeing the dedicated SL ultra-ultra wide zoom lens that is due to be available someday soon, but I honestly doubt I have enough need/desire for it to warrant the cost.  :)

Edited by ramarren
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

You may want ot consider the spectacular Voigtländer Super Wide Heliar III f/4.5 for M mount (note that version III performs much better than its predecessors).

 

 

Laowa has just announced a 15mm wide angle, which also looks interesting (Loawa 15mm f/2). It is much faster, but also bigger and heavier. Due to coma it may not really be interesting for astrophotography:

 

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/rolling-review-laowa-15mm-2-0-zero-d/

 

 

For the M the Zeiss Distagon 15mm f/2.8 ZM is still a stellar performer, maybe the best 15mm ever. It is incredibly sharp, fast, focusses down to 30cm and it produces very nice saturated colors. I always enjoyed it a lot.

 

However, for the SL I am also very happy with the Voigtländer Super Wide Heliar III f/4.5. It is very sharp, renders nicely, has nice colors - and it is tiny and light. It works both with SL and M.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You may want ot consider the spectacular Voigtländer Super Wide Heliar III f/4.5 for M mount (note that version III performs much better than its predecessors).

 

...

 

However, for the SL I am also very happy with the Voigtländer Super Wide Heliar III f/4.5. It is very sharp, renders nicely, has nice colors - and it is tiny and light. It works both with SL and M.

 

And what about the 12mm Voigtlander (last version) on SL? Is it as good as the 15?

 

I use extensively the Voigtlander 15mm Version III on the Leica SL, and I can say it that is an amazing performer - both generally, and especially so considering the price point.

 

The 10mm is also incredible, considering how wide it is.

 

The 12mm Version III is also an extremely good lens, but I preferred to keep the 15mm and the 10mm and sell the 12mm: the 15mm is better optically than the 12mm, and once you settled that, the 10mm is a much wider and more fun wider alternative to the 15mm than the 12mm. Keeping all three didn't make much sense - too close to each other.

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

Edited by Vieri
  • 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...