jaredangle
Photojournalist
So I'm not yet a Voigtlander shooter, but I have been planning on investing in the system for a while now, with a particular interest in the wide lenses that it offers. I am also a Nikon shooter and as far as ultrawides go, I have been comparing the voigtlander 15mm and the nikon 14mm. I'm aware of the Nikkor's faster aperture of f/2.8, and also the inability to use filters.
But now, I'm looking for advice drawn from personal experience with the lenses, mainly with regards to sharpness and also any signature looks that they may have. Is a well-used nikkor 14mm @ $1000 worth it over a voigtlander m-mount 15mm @ say, $500?
But now, I'm looking for advice drawn from personal experience with the lenses, mainly with regards to sharpness and also any signature looks that they may have. Is a well-used nikkor 14mm @ $1000 worth it over a voigtlander m-mount 15mm @ say, $500?
gcrawfo2
Member
I just got back from a trip to Chicago and the 15mm Heliar was by far my favorite and most effective lens on the trip. Its depth of field is so large that it was nice to walk around and not have to worry about setting the focus ever shot. It's a little tougher to use indoors that the Nikkor, but I pulled off a couple of shots that worked out well. It's also super, super small and the perfect travel anywhere lens.
Your pictures will have a keystone effect to them if you don't hold it level, and it's a general rule that it needs to be pointing directly at your subject without any tilt -- but rules are meant to be broken sometimes. It's absolutely tack sharp. You won't be complaining about sharpness. (No experience with the 14mm Nikon)
I'd recommend it 100%. I can't imagine the lens getting beat on image quality. Here's a couple of shots I've made with the 15mm Heliar.
Your pictures will have a keystone effect to them if you don't hold it level, and it's a general rule that it needs to be pointing directly at your subject without any tilt -- but rules are meant to be broken sometimes. It's absolutely tack sharp. You won't be complaining about sharpness. (No experience with the 14mm Nikon)
I'd recommend it 100%. I can't imagine the lens getting beat on image quality. Here's a couple of shots I've made with the 15mm Heliar.
Last edited:
Tim Gray
Well-known
I've never used the Nikkor 14mm. The CV lens is tiny compared to most SLR lenses. I would imagine the Nikkor absolutely dwarfs it. I know I sold my Canon 17-40 zoom lens shortly after I got the CV 15, just because it's small size made it SO much more enjoyable to use.
The CV is plenty sharp enough on film. I've never seen any distortion figures from it, but it probably has much less distortion than an SLR ultra wide. It does vignette a fair amount, which is typical of more symmetrical designs.
The CV is plenty sharp enough on film. I've never seen any distortion figures from it, but it probably has much less distortion than an SLR ultra wide. It does vignette a fair amount, which is typical of more symmetrical designs.
umcelinho
Marcelo
The 15/4.5 Heliar is quite a good performer. I've never tried the Nikkor, and maybe the 2.8 would be useful, but even at 4.5 I took handheld photos at night with iso 100/200 and they came out sharp enough. people were blurred, sure, but it works. Also the size is fantastic, it's such a tiny lens! What I don't like that much is that the viewfinder has no framelines, so it is rather easy to misframe if you don't look right through the middle of the finder.
the field of view for 14/15mm is great, it feels like capturing everything you see. it's actually why i got this lens: I wanted to be able to register those scenes where you look around and you feel the mood of the place/scene needs the entire frame to be captured. I got addicted to these ultra wides. Ended up getting a 12/5.6 as well to have a 18mm equivalent on my R-D1, but I've been using it on my M6 as well. The 15mm is having little use nowadays. what I like about the 12mm is that it is as wide as you can go. also it has a tab and a click stop for 0.5m and 1m, which makes focusing even easier. both are LTM, I'd get those instead of the M versions: same glass, only cheaper (unless you feel need for adding filters).
a few of my favs with the 15:
lowlight situation, using superia 1600 (scan is a bit crappy):
i like how it works well with geometric subjects:
when there are people close to the edges it can be a bit weird, they look stretched. but so that you get a feeling of the field of view:
the field of view for 14/15mm is great, it feels like capturing everything you see. it's actually why i got this lens: I wanted to be able to register those scenes where you look around and you feel the mood of the place/scene needs the entire frame to be captured. I got addicted to these ultra wides. Ended up getting a 12/5.6 as well to have a 18mm equivalent on my R-D1, but I've been using it on my M6 as well. The 15mm is having little use nowadays. what I like about the 12mm is that it is as wide as you can go. also it has a tab and a click stop for 0.5m and 1m, which makes focusing even easier. both are LTM, I'd get those instead of the M versions: same glass, only cheaper (unless you feel need for adding filters).
a few of my favs with the 15:
lowlight situation, using superia 1600 (scan is a bit crappy):
i like how it works well with geometric subjects:
when there are people close to the edges it can be a bit weird, they look stretched. but so that you get a feeling of the field of view:
craygc
Well-known
Here's an example of people on the edge getting wierd with the VC 15mm. They become a little like cardboard cutouts
But the VC 15mm certainly is a nice compact lens..
However, apart from its size and weight, I really love the Nikkor 15mm f/3.5 (AIS). A very nice lense with virtually no distortion.
Not quite as much strange-ness on the edge with the Nikkor...
But the VC 15mm certainly is a nice compact lens..
However, apart from its size and weight, I really love the Nikkor 15mm f/3.5 (AIS). A very nice lense with virtually no distortion.
Not quite as much strange-ness on the edge with the Nikkor...
Tim Gray
Well-known
When I was talking about distortion of the CV lens, I didn't mean perspective distortion. Any wide used in up close is going to get that at the edges. I mean barrel/pincushion/mustache distortion.
xxloverxx
Shoot.
Here's an example of people on the edge getting wierd with the VC 15mm. They become a little like cardboard cutouts
But the VC 15mm certainly is a nice compact lens..
However, apart from its size and weight, I really love the Nikkor 15mm f/3.5 (AIS). A very nice lense with virtually no distortion.
Not quite as much strange-ness on the edge with the Nikkor...
Just out of curiosity, where were these photos made?
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
@gcrawfo2: Your second shot, of the fountain, is wonderful. I can't think of a better argument in favor of the 15mm heliar! In the third and last picture: what are those blotches on the left side?
@ Jaredangle: Is the 14mm Nikkor an SLR lens? I don't have it, nor the heliar. I do have the 15mm f/3.5 Nikkor for my SLR and DSLR. I like composing with it in the viewfinder, and the results are great, with excellent color and sharpness. I find it easier, with ultrawide lenses, to see what I'm doing in the SLR finder. Still. mine weighs a ton, and will produce flare/ghost images when the sun is not too far outside the field of view. But all ultrawides are liable to do that. One thing I like about using one on an SLR is that I can easily check for the presence of flare. For travel, I'm not lugging the Nikkor onto an airplane or through airports! If I wanted a lens that wide for such occasions (I don't) I would go with the Heliar!
@ Jaredangle: Is the 14mm Nikkor an SLR lens? I don't have it, nor the heliar. I do have the 15mm f/3.5 Nikkor for my SLR and DSLR. I like composing with it in the viewfinder, and the results are great, with excellent color and sharpness. I find it easier, with ultrawide lenses, to see what I'm doing in the SLR finder. Still. mine weighs a ton, and will produce flare/ghost images when the sun is not too far outside the field of view. But all ultrawides are liable to do that. One thing I like about using one on an SLR is that I can easily check for the presence of flare. For travel, I'm not lugging the Nikkor onto an airplane or through airports! If I wanted a lens that wide for such occasions (I don't) I would go with the Heliar!
gcrawfo2
Member
I've got no idea what those blotches are, I was hoping somebody at some point would be able to let me know. If I had to guess, I would say there was an issue with the film being "defected" in some way. If I remember right, this might've been one of the first frames on a new roll of BW400CN. I picked that one to show, because I thought it best displayed the sharpness of the 15mm Heliar.
And many thanks for the fountain comment.
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
I own the Nikkor 14-24 2.8 AF as well as the 15 Voigtlander 4.5 ASPH for my Leica M system.
First off the Nikkor 14-24 is very nice but does suffer from barrel distortion.
Nikkor 14-24 2.8 AF-D on D3
Voigtlander 15 4.5 ASPH on Leica M7 with 400 ASA sper store film
.
I would hate to say one over the other. Getting the framing on the Leica is a little tricky at first, but Im getting the hang of it now. There both great lenses.
Gregory
First off the Nikkor 14-24 is very nice but does suffer from barrel distortion.
Nikkor 14-24 2.8 AF-D on D3
Voigtlander 15 4.5 ASPH on Leica M7 with 400 ASA sper store film
.I would hate to say one over the other. Getting the framing on the Leica is a little tricky at first, but Im getting the hang of it now. There both great lenses.
Gregory
craygc
Well-known
These are all in Manila, Philippines - although from separate trips over time. Three with the water included, thats Manila Bay, and the other one is in Guatalupe (still Manila)
Last edited: