CV Lens: 12/5.6 vs 15/4.5

Calvin

Calvin

Established
Local time
10:51 PM
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
111
These two lens are super-wide enough to capture landscape shots. How's one compared to another? The 12mm one is more expensive. Does it have any distortion thou? :D
 
I have the 15mm and have heard the 12mm is not all it's cracked up to be. I'll stick with the 15 since the extra cost for 3mm isn't worth it to me.

All ultra wide lens are going to have some distortion. You just have to learn how to tame it..
 
Take in account that this 3mm is 20% from the 15, and yes, 25% from the 12.
That means, this must be a real difference.
I have the 15 and hunting for a good priced 12...

nemjo
 
Of course there is a difference!

The difference is the same as between a 35 and 50. Or even 50 and 75.

It's all and only about how much you value shooting wide angle shots.
 
NB23 said:
Of course there is a difference!

The difference is the same as between a 35 and 50. Or even 50 and 75.

It's all and only about how much you value shooting wide angle shots.
Click to expand...

Since most of my wide shots are between 21mm and 28mm I can't justify the extra cost between the 12mm and 15mm. The 15mm is plenty wide enough for me.
 
colyn said:
I have the 15mm and have heard the 12mm is not all it's cracked up to be. I'll stick with the 15 since the extra cost for 3mm isn't worth it to me.

All ultra wide lens are going to have some distortion. You just have to learn how to tame it..
Click to expand...

Really; where did you hear that?

:)
Shop(1).jpg



urban%2Blandscape0027.jpg



_24_0024.jpg
 
personal experience with the 12mm was that its really hard to frame something that wide without either inducing distortion to the subject or including too much empty space. Also, the lens flares very easily. Also, due to the wideness, the contrast in the scene can easily be very great resulting in white patches of over exposure. When it works its brilliant....
 
I had the 15 and later went for the 12. Very good but much more difficult to use (framing, exposing) than the 15. A few samples are in my gallery

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=24161&ppuser=3692

and in the alps album.

robert

PS I confirm what szekiat says: when it works it is brilliant, but be ready to throw away a large number of pics (at least is what happens to me...)
 
When you get down to that space (under 21mm) a silly little mm can make a world of difference. I got a 15 at a good price years ago and am very happy with it. It was a LARGE jump for me, previously the widest lens I had was a 21. I never felt the need to go wider than the 15. Another issue for me was the speed, inside one extra stop would in a few times would have not allowed me to get the picture, it's just too slow.

There are folks who love the 12 and there are some shots where I can envision liking the extra width and not worrying about the speed.

B2 (;->
 
I used to own the 15mm, liked it a lot, used for professional work a couple of times - to my full satisfaction - very good in direct sunlight! Being a true GASer, I ffound some reason to sell it. Later I have bought the 12 and tried it out a bit on a trip to Mexico. vignetting, yes, but else; rather impressive. (Am going to scan a few from that trip this evening). The 15 is however handier, smaller - as is the 15 viewfinder. I could actually imagine having them borh ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom