21/4 Color Skopar or 15/4.5 Heliar

[Fred]

I have both these lenses and I must say that the 21 gets slightly more use. Both very good lenses. I found reasons to own both and very pleased that I did.

 

[Pherdinand]

15mm is extremely wide compared to 21. I mean it must be extremely wide, since my 17mm is already rather scary.

 

[kb244]

Congrats, KB!! Is free shipping (RF forum special) still being offered?

Really would not know, I did not get an email back this morning so I just went ahead and got it at B&H for about the same price + UPS 2-day. I'm an impatient ******* like that.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I'm going to vote with those who say that the 21 will get a lot more usage. For years a 20mm was my widest lens for use on my Nikons and it really did the job for street photography. I have both the 21 and the 15 for CV, and I have to say I view the 15 as a really special purpose lens.

OTOH - if you are really asking whether the 15 is a capable performer, I would say that like many of the C/V lenses, it just cannot be beat from a price-performance perspective. That's why I bougth mine; for the amount of time that I use a lens that wide, the price (particularly compared to the stratospheric prices of the competition) was just about right.

 

[kb244]

The reason I get so wishy-washy on the this or that, is because I rarely get even that much money to get a lens. For example my Canon P was bought by means of trading a 50mm nikkor lens + selling my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 EF lens and then using that money to pay towards the Canon P + J-3. My Jupiter-12 was received by trading a Zenit-11 + Helios 44M SLR. And this latest purchase of the 21/4 was afforded by selling my Tamron 180mm f/2.5 + 2X TC adaptall lens. Most of the stuff I have for trade/sell is stuff I got when I had a higher income. And it's a matter of luck to find a buyer who will either pay for the price you need, or trade you the item desired.

Now I gota see if I am lucky enough to get a Jupiter-3 traded for a telephoto LTM lens lol (or a seagull TLR).

Thanks for the information, I Was seriously considering the 15mm, but after hearing most of you, it would seem in my best interest to get the 21/4 first, then if possible down the road pick up the 15mm (though that 12mm looks juicy, but was hard enough to come up with 300$)

... photography is a damn expensive hobby and I just been lucky to have as many cameras and such that I have...

I guess the game now is to consolidate/liquidate the bulk of the little things into a peices for the system I am starting to love (LTM setups).

 

[drewbarb]

Greetings Karl- I think you will be well pleased with your purchase. I own both of these lenses, too, and concur with most folks here that the 21mm is the more useful lens. I have 16x20 prints that look great from shots I did wide open on this lens. It's resolution is remarkable, and the angle of view is just right for an all 'round wide.

I had the 15mm years ago, and once I got over the novelty of it, I found it sat unused much of the time. So I sold it, and soon bought the 21mm. But after seeing some good shots done with the 15mm, I began to miss it, so I bought another one. I still don't use it much, but I do find it invaluable in those odd situations where nothing else will get the shot I have in mind.

Bottom line, if you can only have one of these lenses, the 21mm is certainly the one to have. But in the long run, if you can swing it, get them both. Enjoy!

 

[sharpf8]

I'm thinking bout getting the 15mm then. I sent him an email regarding shipping and such. I'm hoping that he's one of those people that send out the lens within a day after receiving payment either by paypal or other kinda like I do at the store I work at.

It would be the first time I've ever ordered anything from cameraquest.

-Karl

I can say this with certainty, based on my experience, Cameraquest ships fast, unlike other dealers that I know of.

 

[kb244]

I can say this with certainty, based on my experience, Cameraquest ships fast, unlike other dealers that I know of.

I don't doubt it. I was impatient to wait for an email back about shipping cost (which I have not received yet still) for the items. And being as impatient as I am I just went to B&H looked at the various shipping cost, picked which lens I wanted and went from there. In the future I'll most likely look to getting the 15mm from cameraquest.

 

[Bryce]

Well, if the 21 shows you need a wider lens, don't fool around. There's a 12mm available and it's reportedly a dandy.

 

[dazedgonebye]

12mm, that's scary wide.

 

[kb244]

12mm, that's scary wide.

Ditto, I seen shots from that, very scary lol (and twice the price). When I told my co-worker I passed up the 15mm to get the 21 first, he gave me this death look. God knows he woulda gone for funky distortion, he lives for it. He would find the best way to get the lens to show it's most distorted image.

 

[Bryce]

These lenses don't actually distort anything. If you hold the camera level and keep nearby things away from the corners of the frame, all is well. For architecture (where distortion is more intolerable than any other common form of photography) they excel- if you use them with the camera level.
Of course they are useful when you just can't step back any farther, also when you'd like to exagerate distance to highlight something nearby without losing the context of its surroundings. Sort of the opposite of using shallow depth of field to eliminate surroundings.
Here are some examples, taken with the VC 15mm.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Here's one hot off the scanner with the 21mm...with some perspective correction thrown in.
Handheld on the chair. 1/4 sec. Kodak 400UC

 

[kb244]

These lenses don't actually distort anything. If you hold the camera level and keep nearby things away from the corners of the frame, all is well. For architecture (where distortion is more intolerable than any other common form of photography) they excel- if you use them with the camera level.
Of course they are useful when you just can't step back any farther, also when you'd like to exagerate distance to highlight something nearby without losing the context of its surroundings. Sort of the opposite of using shallow depth of field to eliminate surroundings.
Here are some examples, taken with the VC 15mm.

Yea I understand that, but I figured I might not be shooting 100% level all the time, and if I had to pick just one right now, I'd like to go with the 21mm for now.

 

[kb244]

Here's one hot off the scanner with the 21mm...with some perspective correction thrown in.
Handheld on the chair. 1/4 sec. Kodak 400UC

I like... you decided to do some B&W conversion though? (400UC is ultra color, kinda defeats the purpose going B&W with it, unless you mean T400CN)

 

[dazedgonebye]

No, I don't care for the chromogenic films. I shoot everything in color and scan...doing my conversions in photoshop.
I get beter black and white files from color negatives. Channel mixer is my friend.

 

[kb244]

No, I don't care for the chromogenic films. I shoot everything in color and scan...doing my conversions in photoshop.
I get beter black and white files from color negatives. Channel mixer is my friend.

I hear ya, was just curious why not just shoot gold, Fuji Reala, or something other than a bit more pricey 400UC if you are gona do conversion later. Or is the contrast or saturation in the color an aid for your conversion.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Actually yes, the saturation does help, but mostly I like the lack of grain in the UC. It all just looks much smoother. More than just the lack of grain really. It seems that the tonal transitions are very smooth as well and I see a good full range of greys after conversion.

I may just be jibbering. Comes down to, I didn't like the look of the cheap stuff, but UC scans beautifuly.

 

[kb244]

Actually yes, the saturation does help, but mostly I like the lack of grain in the UC. It all just looks much smoother. More than just the lack of grain really. It seems that the tonal transitions are very smooth as well and I see a good full range of greys after conversion.

I may just be jibbering. Comes down to, I didn't like the look of the cheap stuff, but UC scans beautifuly.

Will keep that in mind. You ever tried the Reala 100 stuff, or even the new Portra Kodaks been giving out like the 400VC? I'm thinking one of the first rolls I might run behind the 21 is PanF+ and Maybe Reala.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I've never tried the Reala.
Porta VC was my favorite until 400UC.
I just today received my porta samples. 2-400VC rolls, 1-160NC and 1-400NC

Frankly, they'll have to go some way to beat the 400UC. I do like the 160 iso films though. I shoot them rated at 100.