15mm vs 25mm?

I agree with peter n
the 24 and 28 are my favorite wides
take one with the 50 and you cant go wrong.
dont have the 21, but the 18 is too wide for me, so easy to get weird shots
 
I have them both. The 25mm "Snapshot" Skopar is a very nice sharp little lens. I have had no trouble zone focusing it. It is wide enough to encompass a broad scene and "normal" enough for intuitive composition of the shot.

I have kept the 15mm but I haven't even begun to understand how to use it. I am excited about learning.

I also have the CV 35/2.5. I like it but maybe it is too close to the 25? Perhaps I should sell it and pick up a 50mm lens instead? Any opinions.

P.S. wanted to upload some photos from my Mac. How do I do that?
 
Both are among the most excellent CV lenses, and very usefull.

The 15mm covers among 3x the field of the 25mm lens, and 11x the field of a 50mm lens.
 
Austerby said:
If you follow the argument that your lenses should be roughly doubles or halves of a focal length (to get the most versatility with fewest lenses) then as you have a 35mm go for the 15mm.

If you had a 50mm then the principle would direct you to the 25mm (and then the 12mm).

The 15mm plus 35mm combination will offer a lot more variety than the 25mm and 35mm together.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This doubling/halving is my strategy as well.
 
Austerby said:
If you follow the argument that your lenses should be roughly doubles or halves of a focal length (to get the most versatility with fewest lenses) then as you have a 35mm go for the 15mm.

If you had a 50mm then the principle would direct you to the 25mm (and then the 12mm).

The 15mm plus 35mm combination will offer a lot more variety than the 25mm and 35mm together.
Click to expand...

that's a pretty good line of thinking.

i recommend the 15mm as well, it paired very nicely with a 50mm when it was my single lens, bought it as i was craving a wide lens. it takes a couple rolls to get used to it, also the smaller the aperture the less vignetting you get (i used to try shooting at 4.5 most of the time and would rely on camera metering only, and a lens this ultrawide sometimes won't lead to the same metering as one expects).

for shooting in tight environments (narrow streets, medieval towns, closed areas etc) it's really amazing, as well as for street (huge DoF).

i ended up selling mine and keeping the 12mm as it works better on my R-D1 than the 15mm, but for full frame I sure prefer the 15mm, due to both wider max aperture and being less wild when framing.
 
I too LOVE the snap-shoot 25 skopar, it is my favorite handling wide angle period. Great for street, family, everything looks fine.

As you are a 35mm sort of Big Guy I would say go with the 15. It is fun, it makes you think, it opens up new vistas that few other lenses can.

I'm a big believer in less is more. I like big jumps in my lenses so I can see a difference, otherwise why pull it out? My three lens M kit was 15/40/105 and when I added a 4th lens it was a 25 Snap-Shot on a Bessa L body, best rear lens cap and film holder ever made.

B2
 
This thread certainly has brought up some interesting points!

I am a 35mm guy and this is what I shoot with most of the time. I do enjoy travelling and this is my reasoning for getting a wide - to capture some of the vistas/markets/interiors of buildings etc. I've only put 1 roll through the 15mm and it was just on a walk around my neighbourhood after work - perhaps not the best way to get a feel for the lens? It left me rather frustrated.

But as others have said maybe the 25 is too similar to the 35? It's just my gut feeling that I think the 25 might be better.

Here's the only 2 acceptable images I feel I got from that roll:



 
Try a 28. You might conclude you don't need the 35 any more ... less is more.

Anything wider than 28 is for lens tests only :)
 
El Jonbre Grande said:
I do enjoy travelling and this is my reasoning for getting a wide - to capture some of the vistas/markets/interiors of buildings etc.
Click to expand...

I've had composition with ultra wides explained to me this way, paraphasing: use wider lenses to bring the viewer into the picture, not more subject(s) into the picture. In my meager way, I try to follow this insight.

Avoid making any pictures of female backsides at the extremes of the field of view of any true wide, however ;) ... unless you're interested in a certain exaggeration.
 
Last edited:
El Jonbre Grande said:
I have a chance to add a 15mm Super Wide Heliar (screw mount) or 25mm Snapshot skopar (screw mount) to complement the 35mm I normally shoot with.

The question is what would you guys suggest I do? I have the 15mm borrowed at the moment and shooting 1 roll it is mind blowingly wide! My gut feeling is that I should go for the 25mm - which should be easier to use?

Any ideas/comments/suggestions? Cheers!
Click to expand...

Those are TOTALLY different focal lengths... The 25 is a normal wide, and the 15 is an ultrawide...

Get the 25 if you want to use a wider than 35 & 28 for daily street shooting... With the 28 you need to "be there" more than with a 35, so with a 25, even more... But the 25 can be used, although some times "too much" will come into your background...

Get the 15 if you want to get into a new way of seeing the world and composing, where medium distance subjects seem far away, and relatively close subjects don't look that close... Only real close subjects become main subjects, unless medium distance ones are big enough... You can use it to "show" what's close to camera, what surrounds you, or to create wild perspective both with camera leveled or far from that, but it's not easy to use it or to compose quickly with it, though it's a lot of fun. And obviously, being a rectilinear, no distortion lens, it's priceless for small places and architecture. It focuses very close, and is a really sharp lens for its focal length.

As others have said, having a 35, the 15 is a nicer idea than the 25. And in case of thinking of the 21, the game is going wide already, so the 15 makes more sense too...

Cheers,

Juan
 
I just picked up the 25 and returned the 15. I think for my introduction to "wide" photography I'll work with the 25 for now and then most likely pick up a 15 again down the track :) again thanks everyone for your valuable feedback!
 
I would go for the 25/4. I have one and I like it. I actually owned the 21/4 beforehand, but I found the gap between 21 and 35 to be too big.

The 25 is a great walkaround lens. Its wide enough to capture cityscapes and landscape, but still useable to take a portrait.

Here are my 25/4 photos

Edit: Oops didn't read El Jefe's last post
 
Oh by all means keep this thread going - I think it'd be really useful for those in a similar predicament trying to choose between a wide and ultra wide!
 
A really big question is, once you get over the 'really wide perspective distortion and look' of the 15, how many really interesting pictures will you make with it in comparison to say a 35 or 25. I had a 15 (and now have an 18) but to be honest, once I'm past the glitsz, I don't think I've added much of real interest with them:)


Edited to add,. HDR is an amusing effect, but I'm not sure it ads much of lasting value to photography. I suspect that a lot of extreme wide angle work may be similar.

I'll just get me coat now!
 
sojournerphoto said:
A really big question is, once you get over the 'really wide perspective distortion and look' of the 15, how many really interesting pictures will you make with it in comparison to say a 35 or 25. I had a 15 (and now have an 18) but to be honest, once I'm past the glitsz, I don't think I've added much of real interest with them:)


Edited to add,. HDR is an amusing effect, but I'm not sure it ads much of lasting value to photography. I suspect that a lot of extreme wide angle work may be similar.

I'll just get me coat now!
Click to expand...

Get your coat only if you're chilly. It's an honest question. Logically, if all one can get from an UWA is "really wide perspective distortion and look," and one's definition of "really interesting pictures" doesn't contemplate the UWA look for its own sake, then using a UWA doesn't make sense.

The fallacy is in believing that UWAs only offer a "really wide perspective distortion and look." Clearly there are photogs who use UWAs in ways that offer sustained interest. Maybe you're just not one of them. Maybe you find real interest in "normal" lenses - for you they're offer something classic, timely, non-trendy, all consistent with your photographic values. Nothing wrong with that, certainly.
 
I've used this one before on this topic with the 15. I might guess it came from a close focusing 28mm (the biggest telltale to me is that everything is in focus.)

What a lens!

PS: I don't use a single lens for anything. The ultra wides add spice.
CV15mm004.jpg
 
Last edited:
MCTuomey said:
Get your coat only if you're chilly. It's an honest question. Logically, if all one can get from an UWA is "really wide perspective distortion and look," and one's definition of "really interesting pictures" doesn't contemplate the UWA look for its own sake, then using a UWA doesn't make sense.

The fallacy is in believing that UWAs only offer a "really wide perspective distortion and look." Clearly there are photogs who use UWAs in ways that offer sustained interest. Maybe you're just not one of them. Maybe you find real interest in "normal" lenses - for you they're offer something classic, timely, non-trendy, all consistent with your photographic values. Nothing wrong with that, certainly.
Click to expand...


Thanks for bearing with me. You're likely right, though I don't tend to think of classic or timely, but they are consistent with (but not defining of) my photographic values true enough.

Your range of focal lengths, per your sig, seems a nice spread, thogh I've occasionally gone longer.

To the OP - whatever you choose, I hope you enjoy it and make work that you are pleased with.

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom