12mm vs 15mm cv

jcline

jcline

Established
Local time
5:44 PM
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Messages
90
Location
sf bay area
View My Gallery
I'm finally gunna plunk down some cash for a decent camera (I've been accumulating $15-$25 dollar wonders) and think I'm stuck on the idea of a bessa r3a mostlikely the 40 1.4 and a super wide. I'm wondering what you get for the extra $200 besides 11 more degrees. I have notice the 12mm seems to vignette a bit more, which I find a plus. (Matter of fact I'm building a camera body out of wood so I can use an argus a2 lens on 120 for massive light fall off, but thats another story) Anyone have some shots with both to compare? Thanks in advance!

--J
 
I own the CV 15/4.5 and can heartily recommend it. I have never tried the 12/5.6 but would like to do so. The 12 can handle filters more readily than can the 15, although there are ways to get filters in from of the 15 as well.

The 15 has a fair amount of light fall-off wide open and at 5.6, which, since you like light fall-off, is a good thing given that the 15 is sharpest at the larger aperatures. I have some shots taken with the 15 in my gallery if you are interested in looking.

Kevin
 
The 15 is a really fine lens. I've owned one for about six years and find it to be the best 15 that I've owned. I've had the 15 zeiss distagon, nikkor 15 3.5 and 14 2.8 but find the CV superior in flare control and overall color and contrast. It's also extremely sharp. The zeiss was probably #2 and the 14 nikkor three with the 15 3.5 in a distant last place. Those big beautiful front elements are begging to make big flare spots anytime a light source hits them.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

www.x-rayarts.com
 
Another strong vote for the 15. I don't use it as much as I thought but it is a fantastic lens in the right hands (someone elses, IIRC Mango has some great images from this lens).

A couple of my tries with it:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=10714&cat=500&ppuser=1521
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=11981&cat=5009

The 15 works better at F5.6 - F8, nice and sharp with more even edge to center sharpness. Above f11 its allegedly pony, stay below that and it will reward you.

I've not tried the 12 but I don't think I can justify one currently, spent out over the winter holiday. 🙂
 
Err... sorry about that, its old rhyming slang as in 'pony and trap' = 'crap', 'apples and pears' = 'stairs'. I really must remember that not every one uses or understands these terms. I apologise for the confusion caused. Crap is not a word I use often. 🙁

Anyway, above f11 its allegedly quite poor or significantly less good than it is between f5.6 and f8 in which case it's really really good. I guess I should have said that in the first place. 🙂
 
Thanks Fred, I understood it was not a positive remark.
Crap is a word I understand though!

btw - I like the 15 a lot. Wish it would have less contrast though.... The photos stick out between the other 50's glass I use.

Rob
 
I've only really used it for B&W really and the scanned prints look less contrasty in life but the lens does err on the contrasty side. Not sure how the 12mm acts though. I can't justify them both. Not sure what the alternatives are that follow a similar price that include the VF.
 
Ironic

Ironic

The 15mm was the first lens I bought with my R3a and returned it for the 25mm as I found it "too wide". I ironically later added the 12mm.

My reasoning was that if you're going to go wide - go ultra wide - and get the most out of the likes of landscapes and images that lend themselves to wide pans. Neither lens is a general use lens, so when that special opportunity arises - make the most of it.

Also, if you buy the 15mm, you'll always wonder how the shot would have looked with a 12mm...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom