Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is one of the draft shots I took at Sycamore Gap, on Hadrian's Wall recently. My widest lens is a 24mm Elmarit-M ASPH, and I have been very happy with it, over the years.

 

But, I having looked at the ones taken with the wide angle on my iPhone, thinking that I really NEED to get something wider than the 24. I don't. I really don't. BUT...

This is 13mm FF equivalent. I find myself drawn to this lens on the phone more and more. Maybe a cheapish Voigtlander is the way to go? Leica don't make anything that wide.

Any ideas, for someone who doesn't have five grand to spend on a 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!

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

For static shots, stitching, even handheld works in a lot of situations ; though for non-panoramic situations ultra-wide still trumps it.

12mm VC MkII on M10

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!

 

After that day, I did not use the lens again for several years, so ended up selling it.

Changing lenses also leads to more sensor dust; another reason, aside from saving money, to stitch.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In my experience, 10 mm (Voigtländer) or even 9 mm (Laowa) is too much on 35-mm format. With lenses that wide, projective distortion becomes overwhelming and hard to make good pictorial use of ... not totally impossible but really hard. I'd rather use a fish-eye.

The shortest wide-angle that makes sense, in my opinion, is 12 mm. So my recommendation for Leica M would be Voigtländer Ultra Wide Heliar 12 mm 1:5.6 VM and Super Wide Heliar 15 mm 1:4.5 VM. Also the Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 mm Asph is as wide as anyone will need ... well, except for bragging rights.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 01af said:

In my experience, 10 mm (Voigtländer) or even 9 mm (Laowa) is too much on 35-mm format. With lenses that wide, projective distortion becomes overwhelming and hard to make good pictorial use of ... not totally impossible but really hard. I'd rather use a fish-eye.

I agree with this. In preserving angles at all costs the very wide lenses give pretty extreme distortion away from centre which will often result in odd-looking images. Fisheyes can also clearly give odd images, but the strangeness can be quite easy to tame in many circumstances by keeping them level.

TTartisan 11mm fisheye on M10d examples:

 

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!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If your widest, now, is 24, 15 can be the right "jump" ... and the CV 15 last version is imho a good buy.

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 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't use ultrawide lenses much- but I am pretty happy with my voightlander 21mm and 24mm skopar lenses.

 

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 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2022 at 11:53 AM, andybarton said:

This is one of the draft shots I took at Sycamore Gap, on Hadrian's Wall recently. My widest lens is a 24mm Elmarit-M ASPH, and I have been very happy with it, over the years.

But, I having looked at the ones taken with the wide angle on my iPhone, thinking that I really NEED to get something wider than the 24. I don't. I really don't. BUT...

To be serious, having owned a nuber of ultrawide (<20mm fl) lenses over the years (the 15mm Nikkor for example) I would say this: ultrawide lenses are useful but tend to get used less than you might think. I am happy to shoot with lenses at fls down to around 20mm mush of the time (my usual carry around set is 21/35/75 or 90) but below about 20mm lenses really become 'specialist' and the law of diminishing use seems to come into play for most photographers. So, unless you are sure thatyou will use an ultrawide a lot I would be cautious and but something relatively cheap to see just how much it gets used prior to paying out a lot for what may well be a better lens but which will still get limited use.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pgk said:

To be serious, having owned a nuber of ultrawide (<20mm fl) lenses over the years (the 15mm Nikkor for example) I would say this: ultrawide lenses are useful but tend to get used less than you might think. I am happy to shoot with lenses at fls down to around 20mm mush of the time (my usual carry around set is 21/35/75 or 90) but below about 20mm lenses really become 'specialist' and the law of diminishing use seems to come into play for most photographers. So, unless you are sure thatyou will use an ultrawide a lot I would be cautious and but something relatively cheap to see just how much it gets used prior to paying out a lot for what may well be a better lens but which will still get limited use.

I agree. I remember when a 28 was considered ultrawide and folks had to be shown how useful it was. I've always considered 21 (or 20) my ultrawide, and as I don't use it much keep a VC 21f4 tucked in my kit as it is tiny but gives nice results when I need it. In film years I preferred an SLR for lenses below 35 and used a tiny Pentax 20mm on an also tiny Pentax MX that I carried for short and long lenses. My Leica M4 was my main camera for 35/50/90. Now with M10 and Liveview or EVF the VC 21 serves the same purpose.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy - I have the Voigtlander 15mm III - really a great lens. Small, sharp and fun to use. Does need a little de-fringing when pixel peeping. I use the ‘TriElmar at 16mm’ manual coding in the M10 and M10R. 

If you don’t have the EVF and don’t always want to use Live View, allow for the Voigtlander metal peep viewfinder (really excellent quality), don’t fall for the plastic one...

Focus goes ‘off the cam’ at about 0.65m and gets down to 0.5m - when you’re that close Live View is the way...

 I shoot a lot of architectural stuff with this lens (normally on tripod and f/8 or f/11) and alongside a 21mm SEM.

Got mine from Robert White and am very happy with it. 

If you’re down near the New Forest anytime, let me know - you can try it and have a beer....!

 

p.s: You must get the III, not the earlier iterations. 

Edited by PCPix
P.s.
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried shooting with 15, 21 and 24 on numerous occasions and have end up selling, giving away or having a lens stolen and not replacing it.  Having said that I just picked up a  15f4.5 Version 3 Voigtlander for an upcoming trip to Vietnam.  I plan on using the lens on film and it is my second time trying this focal length.  The nice thing about Voigtlander lenses is the price to performance ratio.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 17 Stunden schrieb PCPix:

... the Voigtländer 15 mm III — really a great lens. Small, sharp and fun to use. Does need a little de-fringing when pixel peeping. I use the ‘Tri-Elmar-M at 16 mm’ manual coding in the M10 and M10R.

That's the worst choice, as the Tri-Elmar-M is a retrofocus design and the Super Wide Heliar is not. Better use the code for Elmarit-M 21 mm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2022 at 10:07 AM, 01af said:

That's the worst choice, as the Tri-Elmar-M is a retrofocus design and the Super Wide Heliar is not. Better use the code for Elmarit-M 21 mm.

The third version of the Voigtländer 15mm f/4.5 is in fact a retrofocus design. The two earlier versions were made for film (and not retrofocus designs), but the III is made for digital and is even available in Sony E mount. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...