The Meaness
Well-known
Yeah, it is an amazing lens - but big (compared to the cv), expensive, and uncoupled. I think the price and how good the cv 15/zm 18 are have limited sales for the zm 15
zhengpeng
Established
zm15 is uncoupled? Is there anything special to it so that it has to be uncoupled?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No. This is German logic at work. It does not need to be coupled (extreme depth of field means scale focusing is fine), therefore it is not coupled.
They are of course quite right. It's just that... well... you expect it to be coupled, especially at that price. Gorgeous les, but huge, and besides, it's a niche of a niche. Few enough people need/want a 15mm. Even fewer need/want a (relatively) fast 15.
Cheers,
R.
zhengpeng
Established
Probably they think that an uncoupled wide lens can save people some time looking at two different viewfinders
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Exactly. But you and I are not being wholly rational. Also, remember that at the 30cm minimum focusing distance, you'd have to scale focus anyway: the rangefinder would have given up at about 65cm. At 65cm, there's still lots of d-o-f for scale focusing.
Cheers,
R.
Hacker
黑客
I don't think that size is really an issue for wide angle lenses. The Leica lenses:
tlitody
Well-known
don't wide angle lenses for M mount cameras exhibit a lot of light falloff. The Zeiss 2.8/15 comes with a centre filter to compensate for this which means that extra speed you get from F2.8, you lose with the filter factor. I don't know exactly what the filter factor is but I seem to remember its around 1.5 stops but someone can tell us I'm sure.
So what is the point of having super wide apertures on a super wide lens? None I think, unless you omit the center filter and like to have heavy vignetting. And I think the falloff is reduced as you close down the lens.
SLR lens designs being retrofocus don't exhibit the same light falloff I think.
[edit]
Yes the filter factor is 1.5 stops so effectively you have an F4.75 aperture lens as far as speed goes when you use the filter.
So what is the point of having super wide apertures on a super wide lens? None I think, unless you omit the center filter and like to have heavy vignetting. And I think the falloff is reduced as you close down the lens.
SLR lens designs being retrofocus don't exhibit the same light falloff I think.
[edit]
Yes the filter factor is 1.5 stops so effectively you have an F4.75 aperture lens as far as speed goes when you use the filter.
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
With SLR, bigger max-aperture means brighter/easier focusing.
With RF, it does not matter.
Also, if you build a 24/1.4 lens for RF cameras, the lens probably will obstruct the viewfinder so badly that it's useless. Of course you can zone focus, but seems like a waste of a good RF to me.
Remember you can use slower shutter speed with RF cameras compared to SLR (although the Contax ST surprised me in this regard). That will compensate for the lost of "speed" a little.
I'd bring the Leica to Taiwan if I were you.
With RF, it does not matter.
Also, if you build a 24/1.4 lens for RF cameras, the lens probably will obstruct the viewfinder so badly that it's useless. Of course you can zone focus, but seems like a waste of a good RF to me.
Remember you can use slower shutter speed with RF cameras compared to SLR (although the Contax ST surprised me in this regard). That will compensate for the lost of "speed" a little.
I'd bring the Leica to Taiwan if I were you.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Check out the 21mm Super Angulon thread and you'll see what a "slow" superwide can do at night or in lower light. I shoot with my 21mm at f/3.4 (wide open) at night all the time and love it. I love the falloff. While I used to think that I needed more light and owned the ZM 21mm f/2.8 at the time, it was too big and then I fell in love with the SA. Alongside the DR Summicron, it's the perfect lens, in my opinion. At the close focus of 16" the SA can exhibit a good amount of selective focus and if one isn't careful, it's easy to get the subject completely out of focus at that distance.
As for the design of the fast wides, an SLR lens is not truly a wide angle before the light hits the negative elements then hits the retrofocal elements. It's almost a lens twice the focal length which is halved by the negative and retrofocus groups in the rear. That's too simple an explanation for an extremely complex system but it basically the nature of retrofocus optics.
I am still thinking of getting the FD mount 24mm f/1.4 then adapting it to M mount and using scale focus. It would be a fun lens to use for some interesting effects.
Phil Forrest
As for the design of the fast wides, an SLR lens is not truly a wide angle before the light hits the negative elements then hits the retrofocal elements. It's almost a lens twice the focal length which is halved by the negative and retrofocus groups in the rear. That's too simple an explanation for an extremely complex system but it basically the nature of retrofocus optics.
I am still thinking of getting the FD mount 24mm f/1.4 then adapting it to M mount and using scale focus. It would be a fun lens to use for some interesting effects.
Phil Forrest
kram
Well-known
I think there is room in the market for a 28mm f1.4. I wonder how much smaller it would be compaired to Leica's 24mm f1.4?