CV SWH 15/4.5 in LTM, a big disappointment

[noimmunity]

My CV 15 sucks as well on the M8/M9. Fine for film, but trash for digital. I use a Voigtlander LTM adapter.

If you can afford it, the 18/4 ZM is excellent. I had the mount changed to a Milich brass one for proper coding.

I used to have one of those ... a wonderful lens!

 

[Debusti Paolo]

I USE A HELIAR 15MMM MODIFIED BY zOERK ON MY G2 AND I'M HAPPY,,,,,,,,,

 

[thegman]

The reality here is that you get what you pay for. This lens performed quite poorly on my M9.
RIch

Isn't it more the case that the M9 performed poorly with the lens? As far as I know, the lens was made for film cameras, if it does not work on digital, then that's the failing of the camera not the lens.

 

[raid]

I don't have this lens, nor do I own an M8 or M9. From what I have read above, there seems to be a mismatch between lens type and the sensors. The lens may still be excellent with film cameras, for which it may have been intended.

 

[Doug]

The M9 has problems using wide lenses with optics close to the sensor, moreso than the M8 because the M9's larger sensor means a steeper angle for the light rays to reach the edges. The Distagon formula works better because its design ("reverse telephoto"... "telecentric" or whatever) leads to a less steep angle for the light reaching the edges.

The C-Biogon 21/4.5 is another that doesn't work well on the M9, with Zeiss suggesting it's not suitable for it. It works great on my M8 though. As does the 15/4.5 Heliar though with notable vignetting.

It seems in general that we need to be more particular in our choices of wide lenses for the M9 to avoid the tinge of red on the left and tinge of green on the right...

On the M8, I think my use of the 15 Heliar has been limited mostly to f/5.6 and f/8. Even at those apertures it's not the sharpest lens, but the corners are only slightly less sharp than the centers, from what I can see on full-size jpegs. The lens is handy in close quarters, for instance when we were looking at houses to buy, but I think I'd choose a better lens for landscapes, or whenever more detail rendition is needed. The 18 Distagon is better.

 

[tofagerl]

I never understood that. The sensor is the same distance from the lens as the film is on an older camera, right? So what's different in the mechanics of it?

Edit: Actually curious, not doubting you!

 

[Livesteamer]

The sensor is the same distance from lens flange as the film,mostly. The problem is that sensors want light to strike at a 90 degree angle. It does in the center but not out at the edges.

Last summer I got a CV 15mm in ltm with finder off of e bay and since I'm a film guy I have found it to be incredible/wonderful/delightful and well worth the money spent. It sounds like it's not well suited for digital. Joe

 

[noimmunity]

Here is a comparison of the LTM 15/4.5 mounted on three different LTM to M adapters. #1 is a CV 2nd generation 35/135 adpater. #2 is a Rollei adapter that came with the Rollei Sonnar. #3 is a Milich brass adapter. The shots were taken at f/8, with the M8 on a cement wall, on 12 sec self timer. No coding or UV/IR filter applied.

#1 and #3 are roughly comparable, with #2 producing obviously less sharp images.

 

[noimmunity]

For comparison, here is a corner crop of a shot taken at the same time with the ZM C Biogon 21/4.5, the clear (and sharp) winner.

 

[noimmunity]

Here is a comparison of center crops.

 

[noimmunity]

Finally, for reference, a center crop from the ZM C Biogon 21/4.5 again at F/8.

Even on center, the ZM C Biogon is way sharper than the SWH.

 

[noimmunity]

I don't have this lens, nor do I own an M8 or M9. From what I have read above, there seems to be a mismatch between lens type and the sensors. The lens may still be excellent with film cameras, for which it may have been intended.

Yes, I will try the lens next on film, which I still use, more often in fact than the M8.

I was, however, looking for an affordable and compact WA with corner-to-corner sharpness on the M8.

 

[noimmunity]

The C-Biogon 21/4.5 is another that doesn't work well on the M9, with Zeiss suggesting it's not suitable for it. It works great on my M8 though. As does the 15/4.5 Heliar though with notable vignetting.

Unfortunately my C Biogon 21/4.5 is an early version with the incorrect mount for the M8 code recognition. In order to code the lens I would have to change the flange.

Doug, what kind of difference, if any, would you notice using the lens uncoded vs. coded?

 

[raid]

Yes, I will try the lens next on film, which I still use, more often in fact than the M8.

I was, however, looking for an affordable and compact WA with corner-to-corner sharpness on the M8.

I would search on Flickr for M8 images with wide angle lenses.

 

[Mister E]

1. Why do your corners need to be sharp?
2. http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/15mm.htm read - "WARNING: Although wonderful on film, this lens is awful on the LEICA M9 because its rear nodal point is too close to the sensor."
3. The 21/4.5 is one of the sharpest wide-angle lenses ever, comparing anything to it will make the competitor look like crap.

 

[bob338]

Hi Jon. I never had any sharpness problems with this lens on my M8 or any film cameras, but maybe I just don't see that well.
I bought that lens new from Cameraquest in August of 2006 and used it often enough to spot any potential problems it may have had.
The only thing I can imagine wrong would be the adapter. I got it recently and only used it a few times before sending it to you. But again, I don't see any problems with the pictures from that 15mm Heliar or my 2.8LTM Summaron that I also used it on.
The reason I sold it was because I needed the focal range of the WATE for a book project. I always thought the 15mm was a good lens for film and M8...

Bob

 

[noimmunity]

1. Why do your corners need to be sharp?
2. http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/15mm.htm read - "WARNING: Although wonderful on film, this lens is awful on the LEICA M9 because its rear nodal point is too close to the sensor."
3. The 21/4.5 is one of the sharpest wide-angle lenses ever, comparing anything to it will make the competitor look like crap.

I'm aware of the problems associated with using the 15 on the M9, but had heard a different story about the M8. Ironically, the M8 with its cropped sensor enjoys certain advantages over the M9.

Sharpness in the corners is desirable, to my eyes, for wide open vistas at infinity.

No doubt about it, the 21/4.5 is a fantastic lens. Even in the center, the SWH doesn't come close (at least on the M8, given the adapters at my disposal). I am considering having DAG change the flange.

I just shot a roll of film comparing the two...

 

[noimmunity]

Hi Jon. I never had any sharpness problems with this lens on my M8 or any film cameras, but maybe I just don't see that well.
I bought that lens new from Cameraquest in August of 2006 and used it often enough to spot any potential problems it may have had.
The only thing I can imagine wrong would be the adapter. I got it recently and only used it a few times before sending it to you. But again, I don't see any problems with the pictures from that 15mm Heliar or my 2.8LTM Summaron that I also used it on.
The reason I sold it was because I needed the focal range of the WATE for a book project. I always thought the 15mm was a good lens for film and M8...

Bob

Bob,

I just shot a roll of film to compare, so I'll post back in a couple days when I get the scans of the prints. I'm sure it's a fine lens; perhaps this sample is best used on film. Not sure I'll keep it, since I have never felt like I needed or knew how to use such a wide lens on film.

Hope your book project is going well!

Jon

 

[tofagerl]

I get it, so ideally the sensors need to change according to the lens mounted, or there should be some optics in front of the sensor...
Lookit me, mom, I'm learning!

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

this past week, i brought the vc 15/4.5 ltm on a trip. This lens was attached to a CL with a broken RF. Focused at 2m, everything was sharp from 0.92m to infinity.

i am still struggling with how to take pictures without the wide distortions but other than that, I am quite happy with it. Sharp at the edges or not

slightly cropped. fuji 100 film. c-41 processed.