Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
willemvelthoven

Distagon 15 M8 IR filter test

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Need to see that 21 /24 test my friend.

 

We'll do it Monday afternoon

 

 

Before everybody gets their knickers in a knot, I'm not claiming the 21 Asph is better than the 24 Asph! This is kind of an inside joke based on a long discussion Guy and I have been having offline regarding the ideal set of wides... The short version is I've owned and tested a bunch of them pretty extensively and the 24 is excellent as is the 21. As for comparisons, on copntrast the 24 is a bit brighter overall. On resolution (M8), the 21 actually is better in the corners at f2.8, the 24 a bit better in the center at f5.6, and everywhere else they are pretty similar... The nut is if one owns and loves the 28 Cron, the 24 is pretty close in focal and the 21 may make a better spacing. For sure, the 21/24/28 have probably too much overlap to consider having all three of them in your bag at the same time... Probably the ideal choice depends on your other glass, i.e.; 21/28/50 or 24/35/50.

 

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to the 15mm. Now i am lazy sometimes and going in and changing the UV/IR setting is something i do NOT want to change. i would rather shoot with the IR on. So maybe the best solution is not code this lens at all put the IR filter on than use cornerfix.

 

 

I had another question , there is a center filter for this lens. Are folks using this without that center filter or with it because i would think this controls the vignetting on this lens and with it maybe a better idea but than you have a IR filter also and running 2 filters not such a great idea. Thoughts on this

 

Hi Guy,

 

See the review for comparisons of no filter, center filter, etc.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at 2.8 and 5.6 there is not a big difference at all.

 

So now comes the options . i could stay pat and use cornerfix and make the profiles and be done with it with the B+W filter and not code the lens and just run Zeiss 15mm and batch it with profiles and be good to go and you may even be able to get away with a f4 profile for every aperture, not sure have not doneit yet but i am always looking for a way to cheat on this kind of stuff to make the process faster.

 

 

Option number 2 , Since the 72mm to 67mm stop down works as you have just seen than we could actually Code the lens for the WATE and try the Leica 67mm filter and it may clean up as well as the WATE at 16mm , maybe still a touch of cyan cast for the 1mm difference . This is something we don't know yet becuase no one has tried the Leica 67 coded for a WATE .

 

OPINION now for WATE owners sitting there going what the hell is Guy doing with a Zeiss 15mm when he has a WATE. It's a excellent question , i don't have a answer but the first thing is speed and the rest we will figure out. LOL

 

I'd go with option 1. You'll have one more batching step in post but the correction will probably be better.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The WATE looks like it may have very slightly less distortion but there is a 1mm difference also .

 

Biggest difference for work where resolution is important....the WATE can be focused accurately. Otherwise the Zeiss is an excellent lens.

 

To all:

 

The review I keep mentioning is called "Ultra Wide-Angle Lenses on the M8" or something like that. Its very extensive and covers the CV 12, CV 15, WATE and Zeiss 15.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You dog. LOL

 

I knew you would say that. LOL

 

Need to see that 21 /24 test my friend.

 

The 15mm is pretty apealing . The size and weight again does not bother me much. Sean that lens you tested those corners were bad , i got equal or better with the WATE so far. I was exteremly careful in my focusing too measured it , LCD it and checked it against the WATE. The killer is there both screaming good and the WATE has 18 and 21mm to boot. This is NOT a rash decision by any means. BTW I'm glad you do the lens testing stuff, i still hate it. LOL

 

I wondered if the sample I tested was off (bad sample or dropped at a trade show, etc.). I'll send them an e-mail tonight and ask for another copy to test.

 

Yes, to be honest, the lens testing can get tedious at times (because everything has to be "just so" for the comparisons to be useful). I've often had to reshoot a whole comparison set because some little thing was off. But, I'm used to it and it can be fun.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the WATE photo looks better. Since the 15mm is not rangefinder coupled, any extra resolution it may have on the WATE is lost in out of focus pictures.

 

The Zeiss also has a lot more distortion. You shoot a lot of people. Shoot the same scen with one of your kides on the edge of the frame and see which lens makes them look more streached. I bet it would be the Zeiss.

 

Hi Rob,

 

You're right about the focus and you may recall that I wrote about that quite a bit in the review. Ironically, a lens that is perfectly rectilinear will show quite a bit of edge object stretching if a lens is wide enough. Mathematically, it isn't distorting but your eyes and mine still read that as a sort of distortion (considering the term in a broad sense). I actually like lenses with a touch of barrel distortion just because they lessen that appearance of stretching.

 

The Zeiss actually has just a touch of barrel distortion.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Without regard for the pros and cons of the Zeiss Distagon15mm I still recommend you try the Leica R 15 with the novoflex r to m adapter. I have had super good results with it. I have the 15 2.8R model which must be one of the best super wides ever. Try it, you'll like it.

 

Woody Spedden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Wooody the 15mm 2.8 leica is 5k used too but hey you can use it on the R10 coming . Now that is pretty handy.

 

 

This is just a interesting area on the lens side becuase there are options both expensive and also cheap , you give some here and take some on the other. Really tough choices.

 

BTW Sean your article on the ultra wides is very good BTW and i actually did read it throughly the other day. For me i am got tot try it myself guy so not taking anything away on what you have down. I like to figure it oiut by how I work. I would love to try the Leica 67 and hand code it but i have a feeling the cyan drift would still come up short. So option one actually maybe the best . The good news is you can use a step down from 72 to 67 without issues and go with any of the filters and just make profiles correctly for it. okay still off to play around with this thing i have it for Yosemite to give it a whirl and see what it can do. But i wanted to updat this thread about the step down so for owners they know they can do this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

BTW Sean your article on the ultra wides is very good BTW and i actually did read it throughly the other day.

 

Hi Guy,

 

Thanks very much, glad to hear it.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For sure, the 21/24/28 have probably too much overlap to consider having all three of them in your bag at the same time...

 

...unless you are Guy

His foot-zoom seems not to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

LOL now trying to make a profile for the Zeiss 15mm. Jack made me a temp one to try. Here is a 12mm which went to far but i cn use it on my 12mm.

 

 

This is a 12 mm one. Over corrected but getting there . maybe i will try a 15mm helar and see what happens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the inside of the cupboards is in the same state as the work-surface, taping a piece of newspaper over the doors to keep them shut is not going to stop the contents bursting out...

 

Seriously, I'm interested in your findings with this lens, but we need a lens which doesn't have the workflow compromises of the WATE or indeed the Distagon. I'd certainly like to understand the Zeiss rationale for omitting rangefinder coupling and, as I've previously said, there's a bunch of changes required to it and the M8 support for it before it become a mount and forget lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

I agree Mark if it can get to a mount and forget lens . It is a good choice the quality is certainly there and the corners are better than what I expected after reading Seans review, I think Sean had a bad copy . I know i nailed the focus because the center is equal to the WATE or better. BTW this lens i have is for sale by a forum member . Just has not listed it yet. Going to put it in real action today. i'm not even going to try the center filter because if i have to use that it is not worth being a F 4.8 lens than . I do like the idea of just leaving it uncoded and run cornerfix which BTW is a sweet little program thanks to Sandy and pretty fast on my Mac. Let's go play more and see how it does

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree Mark if it can get to a mount and forget lens . It is a good choice the quality is certainly there and the corners are better than what I expected after reading Seans review, I think Sean had a bad copy . I know i nailed the focus because the center is equal to the WATE or better. BTW this lens i have is for sale by a forum member . Just has not listed it yet. Going to put it in real action today. i'm not even going to try the center filter because if i have to use that it is not worth being a F 4.8 lens than . I do like the idea of just leaving it uncoded and run cornerfix which BTW is a sweet little program thanks to Sandy and pretty fast on my Mac. Let's go play more and see how it does

 

I spoke to Zeiss about this again today. There's only one in the press pool at the moment (the one I tested) but various Zeiss people are looking at that article and I'm hoping they'll send another one to the US for me to test.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Shooting them side by side today of course sharing my Zeiss finder so that was a pian between the two bodies but anyway. The Zeiss is obviously big as a Nocti maybe a bit short but very pleasant to focus. i think i found the markings pretty accurate too need to check the files but 3 , 7ft seem on the money. the question is 7 to infinity where to stop at 15ft just like it wouldbe with the CV 15 so there is some guess work focusing with distance . The WATE wins that battle easily since it is RF coupled but handling seems very natural and really all you need is a 21 finder and shoot. I don't have a 21mm finder handy so i am using my Zeiss 25/28 and guessing but i would buy the Zeiss 21mm finder if i go this route. But handling seems pretty good and not a oddball thing. From the LCD the colors between the two look identical , i do suspect the Zeiss to have more bite in the contrast area. okay processing and i bought a poster board to shoot for cornerfix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Hmmm cornerfix did a nice job it seems

 

Top Zeiss

Wate is second same at f4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Damn Sandy that corner fix works better than i thought it would. That is really close to the WATE WB is off a little but that is me

 

BTW i handheld this so nothing is straight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Sandy if one profile is off slightly with a touch magenta in the corners on final image which way do you go on the profile . i mean slight too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy,

 

Easiest way to fix that without generating a new profile is to go to the "Chroma" slider in Preferences, and take it down a bit, to 0.9 or 0.95. Usually, that's caused by the lens being slightly optically off center. Or, if you're using a profile from someone else, the lens they used not quite matching the one you have.

 

Sandy

Share this post


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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...