Going wide - 15mm vs 21mm

[Phantomas]

Hi everyone! Recently I’ve become a proud owner of a Bessa R3A set, acquired from a very nice member of RFF. It came with 40mm Nokton 1.4 SC and thus far I’m quite pleased with its performance and find the focal length very useful. Still, I’m starting to ponder what my next move in the expansion of this set should be. I already own various Jupiters and Industars (contemplating to get M-adapter) – all 50mm. Eventually I’ll go for 75mm, but for now…

I’ve decided to start by going wide. Obviously there are several choices of lenses with various build and optical qualities; however, I narrowed down my choices to 15mm Heliar and 21mm Color-Skopar (both – M-mount and LTM), mostly to fit my budget (if there are other lenses in this focal and price range, do let me know, but I won’t pay much higher).

I’m now struggling to decide between these two lenses. I’ve searched specs, seen hundreds of photos, still can’t tip the scale in favour of one. The fact they’re both priced almost identically doesn’t help either. What I’d like to primarily do with such lens is not so much landscapes, but primarily streetshots where the subject is placed in the corner of the frame and the rest shows the scene in wide perspective. Also a bit of architecture. I will purchase either lens with the external viewfinder.

I’d like to ask you to discuss your experience with these two lenses and hopefully some suggestions will help me decide between the two. Here’s a short list of pros and cons I’ve made for myself:


15mm Heliar

Pros:
-Really WIDE!
-Compact and light

Cons:
-LTM (need m-adaptor, not a big con)
-Non rangefinder coupled (not a huge cone as I doubt I’ll have much time to focus and then recompose through external finder)




21mm Color-Skopar (both versions)

Pros:
-Natural wide (I like the fact that wideness is not overpowering and lets the viewer concentrate on the contents of the photo rather than wide effect only)
-LTM and M-mount both available
-Rangefinder coupled (or not) (doesn’t matter for the same focus-compose lag reason, but nice to have)

Cons:
-err, some unimportant stuff


So, dilemma! Do I go for wide-wide where everyone says “oooooh, that’s wide” or do I go for more natural wide. Please discuss both lenses and maybe some comments will help me decide. Build quality, image quality, general experiences, etc. In case of 21mm – which version?

Thanks a bunch!

PS: and if you’ve got one of those lenses for sell… make me an offer 🙂

 

[Chris101]

It's really hard to read your colored text, but from what I can get, it looks like you lean toward the 21mm. Let your photography be your guide. I find the 90 degree diagonal view of a 20-21mm lens to be good for lots of photos.

 

[Thardy]

The 21 is wide but not dramatically so. Of course you may have different results.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Welcome to the club! There are lots of shots with me in the corner of the frame on the web. Try scrolling through my blog thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com or go to photo.net and do a search for my portfolio. I hold the camera in one hand or the other, winding and releasing with just the one hand. If you can see the finder eyepiece through the front of the finder then you're in the picture. The rest is just acting.

Bothsites have some of my shots I took with the 19mm Canon back in the late 1960's. The Canon 19 was stolen from me and for several years I got by without. When the 15mm Heliar came out I grabbed one soon as possible. More recently I also got a 21mm Super Angulon.

http:/photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6344/1997/1600/blog%071%20e.jpg

was shot about 1968 using the 19mm Canon with an orange filter on E-2 Ektachrome Infrared.

I guess the choice comes down to a matter of how you see, or if you can learn to see both lens's angle of coverage. I usually compose in my head ~ when I raise the camera to my eye I already know what will be in the picture. It's like I have frame lines imprinted in my brain.

The ability to rangefinder focus the Super Angulon is a curse! Just because I can do it I always seem to waste time focusing. The 15mm stays set at one meter, even when I'm shooting wide open at f/4.5.

There's really quite a difference between the 21 and the 15 in coverage. You'll probably end up with both ;-)

 

[mfogiel]

I think you should actually limit yourself to a 28, max 25mm - on a 21mm the faces in the corner will look like rugby balls, on 15 mm they will look like chewing gum when you stretch it... BTW the Heliar 15 is a great lens, but the corners are definitely soft. Think it over.

This one is with a 28mm - look at the face of the guy on the left:

This one is with a 25mm - idem:

This one with a 21mm- The C Biogon, probably the most rectilinear 21mm around:

And now the 15mm - look at the lady on the left:

 

[Al Kaplan]

Chewing gum and rugby balls? Who cares! It's a fun lens, more than sharp enough, a LOT cheaper than the Zeiss 15, and tiny compared to SLR 15's. I hardly use anything else these days. It paid for itself and then some on the first commercial shoot I did with it.

 

[ruby.monkey]

The only problem with buying the 15mm VC is that you will eventually realise that you really wanted the 12mm. 😉

 

[Tom A]

Among boat owners there is a disease known as "twofootitis" - whatever boat you have, you want one that is two feet longer. Among photographers it is "wideitis" - however wide your widest lens is - you want something a couple of mm wider! The Heliar 15f4.5 is very much to blame for this - at least among Rf users. Initially we had a lot of shots of knuckles on our hands and our shoes, but after a while we figured out how to hold it. Once that was achieved, out came the 12mm f5.6!
As an initial add'l lens I would suggest the 21f4 in M-mount (the P version) - the focal length is 1/2 of the 40 - a natural step. Shooting wides takes a while to learn and once the propensity of having HUGE foreground has worn off, you can start thinking of the 12f5,6 - or if you are more modest, the 15f4.5.
Personally I like the 12/21/35-40/75mm as a 4 kit package. there are few shots you cant accomplish with that kit. Buy each lens and allow at least 6 month (or 100+ rolls) to get comfortable with it. Thus it would take you about another 18 month to accumulate the kit and the cost would be spread out over a longer time - and the "pain" is less noticable.

 

[kxl]

If this is going to be the last WA lens that you ever buy, then get the 21mm, since it is more useful on a day to day basis; having said that, how many RFF members have sworn to a "last lens purchase ever" statement right before they look at the classifieds?

The 15mm is A LOT more fun. Period. Get it. Later on, you will get a 24/25mm anyway.

I used to have a 15, 21 and 25. Sold the 21 (with an R4A), but kept the 15 and 25.

BTW, my 4-lens kit is slightly longer than Tom's -- 15 / 25 / 50 / 85-105

Have fun!

 

[Phantomas]

Thank you people! Some good advice here.

28mm - not so keen. I've got one on my G1 and it's a good focal length for straight landscapes. So I've got 28 covered in that set.
I've also had my share of fun shooting wide, the widest being 14mm on Canon 5D (sorry comrades, I don't really own digital, just borrow from work for extended periods of time 🙂

mfogil - those photos actually turned me on more to those lenses 🙂 nice work.

Tom A - the 12/21/35-40/75 combination all of a sudden sounds very logical. hmmmm... very good point, but will I want to shell out more for 12mm and go ungodly wide? That's the question. At this point I'd like to maintain some conservatism in the photos and 12mm, wow, yeah, that would be a lot of fun.

At the moment I'm holding a 50D (yes, long term loan again) with a 16-35 lens. Very cool focal range (25-55 after crop factor). But that's what's making me think of going just a bit wider.

I think it will come down to finding an offer I can't refuse for either lens.
Is there a good reason I should give strong preference to M mount 21mm Scopar as oposed to ltm? What are the main differences (other than obvious mount, shape ones)?

 

[Al Kaplan]

The main advantage of the M mount is that you'll save the cost of a bayonet adapter. The advantage of the thread mount is the bigger choice of used bodies available, from old Leicas to the recently discontinued finderless Bessa L, plus you can still fit it with the adapter and pop it on your M

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

i have the 15 and 21 and must admit I use my 28 the most. i always thought I am a wide angle guy. But it seems 28 is wide enough for me. i do carry the 21 with me it is small enough but hardly use the 15. It is just too much for me.

Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema

 

[chris00nj]

Go with the 21/4

Go with the 21/4

I posted an earlier question & poll this year as I had the exact same dilemna!

I ended up going with 21mm and I have been very happy. I recently went on holiday to Italy and never once thought, "I wish I had a wider lens". I could easily stand in front of a monument and get the whole thing in the frame. I never found myself needing to go across the street to get further back like I did when I only had a 35mm. It works great inside churches in order to get the whole thing. When I was in the Pantheon, I could take from eye level to above the center of the domed ceiling.

However, you still can take photos of people with it (as long as they are not at the edge of the frame. Then they will look huge 😎)

Initially I was concerned about rangefinder coupling, but I only think I've used it once. Otherwise I just set the infinite to the aperature I was using.

I won't sell mine, but Jack's Camera has one and an adapter for $295.

 

[Spider67]

The RF-coupling is not an entirely useless feature....and yes the 21 is very good for street photography.
the ltm + M adapter would be a great choice. I have a IIIc an R2 and an R and it's good to know that I can use it with every one of these Cameras. Even with an FSU body

 

[Tom A]

An other advantage with the M-mount (P version) is that the hood is modified so that you can use 39mm filters with it - and still keep the hood on. It surprising how much "hot spots" a 21 picks up!
On the LTM version of the 2 you can put 39mm filters on, but you have to screw the small hood on to the filter and that can cause it to protrude into the field covered by the lens. Of course, if you buy a LTM 21 - you should get the finder with it! On the P-version, the finder is extra.
I am not advocating buying the 12 now - first get the 21 and that day when you wake up one morning and say to yourself "That 21 is awfully narrow view" thats the day when you spring for the 12!!!!!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Or 18mm...

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/reviews 18 zeiss.html

No-one can tell you. It's too personal. Which is part of the message of the review in question...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Phantomas]

Roger - very nice review and beautiful photos. Compliments! Yes 18mm would be nice, Zeiss is a beauty, but I'm keeping to a strict budget, so all the lenses named Carl will have to wait.
Agreed that the lens choice is a personal matter and I'm not asking for simple advice "get this or get that" I'm listening to peoples experiences with both lenses to flag some points I might have missed in order to make the choice a bit easier.
I think I've seen some good arguments and photos to lean towards 21mm a little more at this point. One downside to P version is that the viewfinder is not included (as standard) so I'm hitting the internets in search of a good affordable package.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes 18mm would be nice. . . .

I'm always deeply suspicious of people who say, "Neither! Try this instead!", and the only reason I mentioned the 18mm is that it does indeed split the difference, and Frances really prefers it. Point fully taken about budget.

Personally, in your situation, I'd go for the 21mm first.

Cheers,

Roger