new 15mm Heliar M-mount

Great! I hope used LTM versions will become cheaper because of people thinking they need rangefinder coupling.

The 15/4.5 is one of the few lenses I'd consider buying. Either the LTM version, or the Nikon SL version and an adapter. 🙂
 
…a filter. The snag I have with this is: granted, lens threads are great; but if you don't have _any_ 52mm filters, you're going to have to buy a whole new set. With that built-in hood, you won't currently be able to use step up rings for larger polarizers, etc.

That said, I think rangefinder coupling is a great addition, but it's hardly a street lens. Some sense of framing and composition is a pretty nice photographic virtue. 🙂

Keep on engineering, CV!
 
ferider said:
I really like the built of the new M mount CV lenses, and am OK paying a little more for this and the new filter interface.

And the bigger hood might keep my fingers out of shots.

Really cool to have this re-edition. And Keith, if you want high resolution (which you can get with the Heliar) RF coupling is useful, IMO.

Cheers,

Roland.
Click to expand...


Yes I agree Roland, especially about the digits 😉 One thing I would like CV to give to their 15mm VF is a set of defined bright lines.
 
footnoteblog said:
…a filter. The snag I have with this is: granted, lens threads are great; but if you don't have _any_ 52mm filters, you're going to have to buy a whole new set.
Click to expand...
As opposed to the old one, where you couldn't use filters at all, unless you used really big ones (say 77mm or so) and the filter ring for the 12/f5.6 and, as SG suggests, some electrical tape. So either way you had to buy extra gadgetry, and if you didn't have _any_ large filters, you had to buy a whole new set, and if you do have large filters, just use them with the new lens with a step up ring.

BillBingham2 said:
While I agree you do not need an RF coupled 15/4.5, but what about on a 20/4.5 or a 23/4.5 or (thinking way out there) a 30/4.5?
Click to expand...
IMHO you don't need rangefinder coupling on this lens even on a cropped body DOF gets relatively larger as the sensor gets smaller. A 15/4.5 on an M8 has more DOF than a 20/4.5 would on 35mm. And even for the latter you arguably wouldn't need rangefinder coupling. People have been happily using the CV 25/4 without rangefinder coupling. And a 30/4.5 is probably using a G1 which doesn't have a rangefinder in the first place.
 
rxmd said:
As opposed to the old one, where you couldn't use filters at all, unless you used really big ones (say 77mm or so) and the filter ring for the 12/f5.6 and, as SG suggests, some electrical tape. So either way you had to buy extra gadgetry, and if you didn't have _any_ large filters, you had to buy a whole new set, and if you do have large filters, just use them with the new lens with a step up ring.
Click to expand...

I bought the Milich shade, which means I can continue to use 39mm filters. This newer 15mm, so far does not have an after-market accessory. I'm not defending one or the other, just pointing out the relevant facts.


rxmd said:
IMHO you don't need rangefinder coupling on this lens even on a cropped body DOF gets relatively larger as the sensor gets smaller. A 15/4.5 on an M8 has more DOF than a 20/4.5 would on 35mm. And even for the latter you arguably wouldn't need rangefinder coupling. People have been happily using the CV 25/4 without rangefinder coupling. And a 30/4.5 is probably using a G1 which doesn't have a rangefinder in the first place.
Click to expand...

I never said it needed it; though, like I said, rangefinder coupling is handy when you need it, but certainly not mandatory on a lens this wide.
 
I won't pay the extra money for the M mount rf coupled version. I am happy with my LTM one and it is worth every single penny I paid.
 
52mm - perfect for those of us with good old Nikkors or the 35/1.2 and 50 Noktons!

52mm - because of all the AI/AIS Nikon glass out there - is a popular size on the used market, so you could get a useable set cheaply enough.
 
The 15mm is awesome. I only wish it could take an IR filter for the M8. I'll probably end up skipping this lens though. RF coupling really isn't necessary.

autumn.jpg

This is standing about a foot away from her.

elephant.jpg

Another on the M7 with Velvia.

albans.jpg

And with the M8.
 
The current 15 does take a filter

The current 15 does take a filter

It attaches easily with some electrical tape and stays SNUG as a bug. Also easily removed. I have a pic of mine on my site in my review of the Heliar.

The new version looks cool, but I'll bet its going up in price, minus the VF plus you need a more expensive 52mm filter. I'm sticking with my little silver Heliar and silver 39 IR filter. Works like a charm as is!

I may get one of the new ones to try it out though.
 
The filter issue for any lens can be addressed if you're desperate. IR filters aren't cheap and I only have two courtesy of Leica's backpedal handout when they realised their gaff with the M8!

The two I chose don't actually screw into any of the lenses I use on my M8 which is mainly a Nokton 35mm and a 25mm Zeiss Biogon. I hold them in place with little balls of blu-tac at three points around the edge of the filter ring ... looks a little strange but hey, so does purple hair! 😛
 
RF-coupled 15mm? A waste of engineering effort... The decoupled 15mm LTM version is already plenty easy enough to focus and use..
Click to expand...

I dont think so. When you are redesigning a lens you may as well fix those areas commonly complained about and as useless as some may think a coupled 15mm may be, whenever I hear comparisons with the Zeiss 18mm and the WATE, the commonly cited laking feature is " Oh the Voigtlander isnt coupled". Even if you dont use the lens coupled feature it was worth adding just to stop the forum snipes about it not being coupled. I bet they werent expecting the rebound when they added it by a new crowd saying its a waste of time! The other major complaint is the lack of filters so the addition of a commonly available size of 52mm is great. I think the upgrade is spot on. Remember too that the 15mm was the first of their RF lenses and the screw mount 15mm barrel was a bit on the light build side. An improved barrel is most welcome. Yes its a bit more expensive but that was a common response from users that they would pay a bit more for a bit better build quality from the original set of Voigtlanders, I think its worth it.
 
Last edited:
Palaeoboy said:
whenever I hear comparisons with the Zeiss 15mm and 18mm and the WATE, the commonly cited laking feature is " Oh the Voigtlander isnt coupled". Even if you dont use the lens coupled feature it was worth adding just to stop the forum snipes about it not being coupled.
Click to expand...
I'd say that is just a case of Internet whining and non-issues getting blown out of proportion.

Forgive me for being unusually harsh, but whoever has a 15/4.5 and sees the lack of rangefinder coupling as a deficit hasn't used it a lot and doesn't know how to use it. Tell them to shoot a whole roll with it and count the out-of-focus images. I tried to get OOF areas on some shots and it was basically impossible.

In addition, if the lack of rangefinder coupling is the only complaint that Internet gearhead hangouts have about the Voigtländer vis-a-vis the Zeiss and Leica lenses that cost like ten times as much, it's actually a huge compliment for the Voigtländer.
 
I've shot sharp pcitures with the non coupled 15mm LTM even when I was drunk.. THERE IS NO need for RF coupling.. Do not be persuaded by internet nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom