Leica (or Rangefinder) Wide Angle Lenses. Your thoughts (as compared to SLR)

[eleskin]

Well we all know the advantages of why Rangefinder wide angle lenses offer us the ability to shoot photographs that have sharper results with much less distortion. What would be interesting is to have opinions here of all those who have used top of the line SLR wide angle lenses, and can compare the quality to the rangefinder lenses. I am a Leica shooter (why I am posting this in the M forum) , but this applies to all rangefinder shooters as well. It would be interesting to see some photos of the same scene taken with SLR wide angle lenses, and the same shot with rangefinder lenses.

I guess this will also illustrate why we use rangefinder M and other cameras in the first place. (and why rangefinders may yet be superior to the latest SLR/DSLR cameras).

Any thoughts?

 

[Roger Hicks]

First, any top of the line lens, RF or SLR, is a better lens than I am a photographer. I am not alone in this: if the quality matters more than the picture, either the technical quality or the aesthetic quality must be REALLY awful.

Second, any differences are unlikely to be visible at a few hundred pixels wide.

Third, who is going to have access to top-of-the-line lenses for both, to make the comparison? Who, indeed, is going to agree on what is 'top of the line'?

Fourth, why is any photographer going to shoot the same scene with RF and SLR lenses, unless he's being paid to compare them (which few magazines do, because comparisons have losers as well as winners)?

I prefer RF lenses because they're a lot smaller than SLR, as well as cheaper or better quality and sometimes both. But basically I prefer them because they go on RF cameras. If I'm going to try for maximum quality or control I'll go to a bigger format.

Cheers,

R.

 

[horosu]

Well, the 21/4.5 C-Biogon has some 0.01% distortion, if I recall correctly. I have yet to see a SLR lens with such distortion levels

 

[Nikon Bob]

I really don't know the ultimate answer but from what I have used in wide angles on both RFs/SLRs and DSLRs there is little difference in the final result for me. Wide angle distortions caused by the lens or by having to tilt it to get it all in are easily corrected in post processing. The only reason I use RFs is because I feel like it or just want to carry a smaller kit. I am just as happy to use my old 20-40 Tamron AF on my D700. Everyone's standards are different but for me it makes no never mind.

Bob

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I sold my CV 15mm because I had, and preferred to use, the Pentax K 15/3.5 Aspherical. The Heliar is the better optic, I think, and way smaller, but I can't stand accessory finders. Evidently the new Pentax-DA 15 is quite spectacular, and small, but you can't use it on film.

Also, the Pentax is a rare lens--I think like 100 made of the aspherical version?--and it's weird looking and has built-in filters, making it a sentimental favorite.

Once we get to 28, RF and SLR are evenly matched, and it all just depends on what you feel like shooting that day.

 

[Tom A]

In most cases a wide or ultra-wide is better in the Rf mount. Less restrictions on design (rear doesn't have to clear mirrors etc.) IF you are shooting very precise, exact corner to corner filling images - the SLR is better (and much bigger!).
I am a wide angle fan, using them all the time and in most cases very satisfied with what I get. However, after having seen my friends 17mm Tilt and Shift Canon - I have to admit severe lust for one. Not really a lens I need (dont do commercial work anymore) - but it is stunning (and the Live View of the DSLR is fun - you see things moving around and shifting).
Of course, my other object of desire is the Summilux 21f1.4. However, I still haven't figured out why I would need one!

 

[payasam]

For many years I used both a Canon FL 35/2.5 and a Leitz Summaron 35/3.5. If I had had to give up one, I would have given up either. This is an absurd thing to say, as the two had different mounts: but what I mean is that both produced satisfactory images. The Summaron was of course much smaller. Even my current Ultron 35/1.7 is smaller than the Canon FL lens, despite being faster, because it is not a retrofocus design.

 

[excellent]

I really don't know the ultimate answer but from what I have used in wide angles on both RFs/SLRs and DSLRs there is little difference in the final result for me. Wide angle distortions caused by the lens or by having to tilt it to get it all in are easily corrected in post processing. The only reason I use RFs is because I feel like it or just want to carry a smaller kit. I am just as happy to use my old 20-40 Tamron AF on my D700. Everyone's standards are different but for me it makes no never mind.

Bob

I say ditch the Rf's and sell them to me if you have no real use for them 😉
There some of out there who like to shoot and get a good picture without photoshop on our side.

 

[Al Kaplan]

It depends on what you use it for. For journalistic work even the scale focusing VC lense are great. I survived over thirty years scale focusing the original non-retrofocus 19/3.5 Canon with the Lens Mount Converter B to get it on a Leica rangefinder camera. I got some of my best photos ever with it. If it hadn't been stolen I'd still be using it.

If your goal is distortion free buildings or boxes of cereal do it the right way. Bite the bullet and get yourself a commercial view camera.

 

[mfogiel]

I have both the Distagon 25/2.8 ZF and the Biogon 25/2.8 ZM. The Distagon is plenty sharp wide open in the center, but you have to stop it down substantially to get equally sharp corners due to the curvature of field, and even at f 5.6 they are not as sharp as what you can get from the Biogon. Apart from this, the Biogon is better close up. it has less distortion, and the sharpness across the entire frame is exemplary. Also the flare, minimal in both lenses, is however more likely with the ZF version due to a larger front element. The final point is obviously the weight and size, and again the RF lens wins. The winning points of the ZF lens are the possibility to focus very close (17 cm) and to use polarising and graduated ND filters with ease, if needed. You can search my flickr for examples.

 

[samoksner]

In regards to modern lens': unless used improperly or using a defective item, modern quality lens' will be far from the limiting factor when it comes to creating quality images. Regarless of whether or not RF lens are superior as a whole, i think they hold an advantage in size and weight which is indisputable, and in the case of Leica M mount, their is a very wide variety of products available that range from screw mount to modern asphericals.

Take a focal length, and aperture, set a budget and have fun.

I use both SLRs, RFs, medium format, digital... I've yet to see image quality differences that i can attribute more to the lens then to technique or anything else.

 

[ampguy]

huh?

huh?

few years ago I had an 18/3.4 M42 SLR lens. Outdoes or equals the 15/4.5 and 21/4 as far as sharpness and distortion. My Nikon 28/2.8 equals or betters all but the best 28mm, the M-Hexanon 28/2.8.

RF lenses are smaller, but not necessarily better.

Well we all know the advantages of why Rangefinder wide angle lenses offer us the ability to shoot photographs that have sharper results with much less distortion. What would be interesting is to have opinions here of all those who have used top of the line SLR wide angle lenses, and can compare the quality to the rangefinder lenses. I am a Leica shooter (why I am posting this in the M forum) , but this applies to all rangefinder shooters as well. It would be interesting to see some photos of the same scene taken with SLR wide angle lenses, and the same shot with rangefinder lenses.

I guess this will also illustrate why we use rangefinder M and other cameras in the first place. (and why rangefinders may yet be superior to the latest SLR/DSLR cameras).

Any thoughts?

 

[f16sunshine]

Last spring I picked up a Contax distagon 2.8/21. Already had the Zuiko 2/21 and really just wanted to be able to see what the big fuss was about the Distagon. Mostly the fuss is about Contrast and Micro-contrast. The Distagon although it vignetted a bit more and was not quite as sharp at (2.8) open as the Zuiko at 2.8 . It did have more pop and a more lifelike look. Last month in San Fran I borrowed a ZM 2.8/21 Biogon from a friend. The lens had all the 3D sizzle and color of the SLR lens with much better corners, far superior distortion control, and comes in at a fraction of the weight (The D21 is a monster lens). The distagon will focus to inches which could give it a nod at times and I will keep it for the 5D. There is an undeniable advantage to a symmetrical non retro focus design in wide angle lenses. Distortion control and even sharpness and illumination primarily. That said, I wonder if some of the retro focus designs are not better performers on Digital RF's. Has anyone done a comparison of one of the ZM Distagons compared to the CV15 or Leica 18 on an M8 or RD1? It seems that the light would hit the sensor at a more direct angle with a distagon type design.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I say ditch the Rf's and sell them to me if you have no real use for them 😉
There some of out there who like to shoot and get a good picture without photoshop on our side.

Why would I want to ditch the RFs? Having choices is good. If you want to handicap yourself, for whatever reason, by not having digital PP in your work flow then I would guess you would have to pay plenty of dough for a lens in order that it is corrected to as near perfect as possible and or get a T/S lens. That would be the opposite approach to what I use but it does work. There are always at least two ways to achieve similar end results. My only point was that it may not be necessary to get an extremely well corrected/expensive wide angle lens to negate to a large part wide angle distortion. For most photos taken with a wide angle any inherent distortion may not matter anyway. Keep in mind also that some distortions can be corrected at the enlargement stage to a certain extent such as keystoning IIRC. Have a nice day.

Bob

 

[raid]

I use a 25/4 CV as my wides RF lens, but I also use SLR wide angle lenses.
The Canon 7.5mm fish-eye lens is unique, and I use it on Canon FD cameras and on Leica cameras via Adapter B. I also use the Canon 19mm non retro focus SLR lens on RF cameras,and the excllent 21mm Rokkor non-retro focus lens via a Leica-Minolta adapter. These wide angle lenses are all excellent.