suggestions for wide angle (< 24mm) for landscapes? considering zm 18mm

[panda81]

my wife and i are taking a trip to brazil this december. her relatives in brazil will take us around the city and various nature-y hikes while we're there. i'd like to try landscapes on my M9 because i imagine bringing my dslr (d700) will be quite a bit heavier during these long outings.

my wides M lens is a 24mm lens, but i'm also borrowing a CV 21/4 (i think??) lens from a friend right now. however, i would prefer to bring my own lenses just because i don't want to accidentally scratch his or worse.

since i care mostly about landscapes for this purpose, speed really isn't a factor (yet).

price is somewhat of an issue - i don't mind paying a bit more for a lot of bang for my buck. basically, i'm eyeing the zeiss 18mm or 21mm lenses because i feel they have the best price/performance ratio. however, i might be wrong because i'll probably be hovering around f/8 - f/11 for landscapes anyway, so maybe voigtlander will perform just as well in those settings? (btw, what f-stop does diffraction start to play a factor? just read a review regarding the zm 18mm, and they said diffraction already starts to set in at f/8 on the M8?? i usually shoot very fast, so i never looked into this before...) another factor for price is the external viewfinder too. basically, i guess i'm saying the leica lenses will probably be out of my budget - i haven't looked specifically, but i'm assuming the leica equivalents are all more expensive than the zeiss or cv lenses.

one concern regarding the zm 18mm is that diglloyd's article mentions color shift at the corners from photos on the m9. anyone with this lens, have you noticed this before? is there an easy way to correct for it?

alternatively, will bringing my dslr end up being a better choice anyway? if bringing a tripod is a must-have for good landscapes, then i may as well just bring the dslr anyway - it will also end up being overall cheaper. tripod certainly feels more attractive too because it'll give me flexibility for long exposures, which i really love to try.

will appreciate everyone's opinions! thanks!

 

[ramosa]

you may also want to consider the super-elmar 18mm. it's a fine lens, well-made, sharp.

i have one, but haven't used it much. i actually pondered selling it, but figured that i should keep it ... especially for use in nature. that's where it can--i expect--really work some magic. but i use it on an M8, so it's actually a 24mm. it'd be interesting to give an 18mm a try on a FF.

also taking an slr: good question. when i travel, i like to keep it simple and light. so i'd recomming that you take one camera and a set of lenses (plus perhaps a smaller camera as a backup). personally, i wouldn't recommend taking an RF and an SLR, but that's just me.

 

[pagpow]

If you've shot a landscape with 18mm, I'll stay out of this, but if you haven't, I would counsel reconsidering the need for an 18mm. It can be used very effectively, but it requires work and experience. I've found that really wide lenses don't suit my landscape style. YMMV

 

[ampguy]

The CV 21/4 is great, well as long as the sun isn't out, well as long as the sun isn't shining too much 😉

 

[ferider]

Have a look at landscapes from other photographers that you like. Ask yourself what focal length they were shot with. Except for panoramic photos, I predict you will find very few that were shot wider than 35mm (or equivalent for larger format).

To use a super wide effectively, you have to work very hard on finding appropriate foreground, etc. For me personally, and my landscapes they are useless.

A longer focal length (90mm or more) is much more important.

 

[ampguy]

haven't used the zm 18 or 25

haven't used the zm 18 or 25

but have heard not only of the red edges on m9s, but of red edges with the 25/2.8 on the NEX.

In other words, is it a zeiss thing, as opposed to a focal length thing?

The 4/18 Distagon ZM is a fantastic lens. But yeah - it's wiiiiide. The 2,8/21 Biogon ZM is another great lens, just less wide. 😀

The 4/18 does have the "red edge" effect on the M9, but depends on your coding of the lens. I'm still playing with mine to get the best code. The biggest problem here is which framelines the lens brings up... Be sure to get one "for M cameras." Mine isn't, and brings up the 50/75 framelines... Which limits your coding options a bit.

Personally, I'm a huge fan of the 2,8/25 Biogon ZM. Probably the best lens in the lineup and wide - without being "too wide." If you don't wear glasses, you can use this lens (focal length) on a multitude of cameras (i.e. the Ikon and M8) without resorting to an external finder necessarily. I just use the entire VF. It's also a nice step from say a 35mm lens where 28mm might not be enough.

 

[ampguy]

Hi Roland

Hi Roland

I'm not sure which TOP blog mentioned teles for landscapes, or even needing an appropriate foreground, but with a wide, being able to focus close and far, even weeds can fill the foreground:

Teles do have their place in the landscape though. With the compression of about 400-600mm fl, I can scan a complete 300 yard area of a field where the cats hunt mice and birds, in 2 passes from the upper level of the house. This would be impossible with a wide 😉

Have a look at landscapes from other photographers that you like. Ask yourself what focal length they were shot with. Except for panoramic photos, I predict you will find very few that were shot wider than 35mm (or equivalent for larger format).

To use a super wide effectively, you have to work very hard on finding appropriate foreground, etc. For me personally, and my landscapes they are useless.

A longer focal length (90mm or more) is much more important.

 

[back alley]

i might look for a a used cv 15 and 75 for an inexpensive and capable kit.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's a lovely lens. Frances has one and uses it on film; I borrow it and use it on the M9. Only you can judge whether 'red edges' is (a) internet BS by those who shoot only test targets, brick walls, coffee cups and pictures of their cat, or (b) completely irrelevant if you take real pictures. Our review is on http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews 18 zeiss.html

But I'll second those who query the wisdom of ultrawide for landscapes.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JayGannon]

i might look for a a used cv 15 and 75 for an inexpensive and capable kit.

Heh exactly what I was going to say, the 15 will challenge your techique on the wide end and the 75 on the tele end, good if your serious about improving your skills, make it hard and you'll get good.

 

[flyalf]

CV 15 or Z 18?

CV 15 or Z 18?

Hi,

I have used the CV 15mm and recently the Z 18mm with M9 and RD-1. Value for money I would without doubt go for the CV 15mm. For both these you must use Cornerfix to correct. Wit the CV 15mm you have also more to crop at processing.

Best luck!

 

[ampguy]

Hi Roger

Hi Roger

Aren't you French or in France? I thought they loved cats, or am I confused with dogs??

It's a lovely lens. Frances has one and uses it on film; I borrow it and use it on the M9. Only you can judge whether 'red edges' is (a) internet BS by those who shoot only test targets, brick walls, coffee cups and pictures of their cat, or (b) completely irrelevant if you take real pictures. Our review is on http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews 18 zeiss.html

But I'll second those who query the wisdom of ultrawide for landscapes.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Heh exactly what I was going to say, the 15 will challenge your techique on the wide end and the 75 on the tele end, good if your serious about improving your skills, make it hard and you'll get good.

Dear Jay,

Why do you want your technique challenged? What's wrong with learning to take pictures with lenses you're comfortable with? Or buying the lenses that suit your vision? My wfe really likes 18, but is indifferent to both 15 and 21 (we have all three). And why, for that matter, should a 75 challenge anyone's technique unless they're used only to wide-angles?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's not a "Zeiss thing" but rather related to focal length - and the angle of the light rays from the rear element to the sensor. At extreme angles, the microlenses can't deal. The 4,5/21 ZM and CV 4/21 are two lenses that really don't work too well at all on the M9. Problem is, the rear element is VERY close to the sensor - making for extreme angles.

Funny, what makes RF wide angles so good over their SLR counterparts is exactly what's screwing them on the M9. 😉

There's only so much you can do with coding. From there, you'll need to use Cornerfix to process each shot. Which of course requires that you create calibration images. I just can't be bothered, honestly.

Or, which is to a large extent a question of saying the same thing another way, they're much more symmetrical designs.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JayGannon]

Dear Jay,

Why do you want your technique challenged? What's wrong with learning to take pictures with lenses you're comfortable with? Or buying the lenses that suit your vision? My wfe really likes 18, but is indifferent to both 15 and 21 (we have all three). And why, for that matter, should a 75 challenge anyone's technique unless they're used only to wide-angles?

Cheers,

R.

I don't know, when I buy a new lens its generally to challenge myself in a new genre or technique. And I meant challenging in the genre of landscapes whihc the OP was talking about. If your not challenging yourself than pretty much any wide angle lens will suffice for 90% of landscapes no? Was just my reading on it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't know, when I buy a new lens its generally to challenge myself in a new genre or technique. And I meant challenging in the genre of landscapes whihc the OP was talking about. If your not challenging yourself than pretty much any wide angle lens will suffice for 90% of landscapes no? Was just my reading on it.

Dear Jay,

Fair enough. Exact opposite for me. I buy a new lens when it does something I already now I want to do, and can't with what I have available. As I say, this is the exact opposite of challenging: I'm trying to solve a problem, not create one. But what suits one person may not suit another.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JayGannon]

Dear Jay,

Fair enough. Exact opposite for me. I buy a new lens when it does something I already now I want to do, and can't with what I have available. As I say, this is the exact opposite of challenging: I'm trying to solve a problem, not create one. But what suits one person may not suit another.

Cheers,

R.

Heh different strokes for different folks.
I'm a glutton for punishment I suppose.

 

[ferider]

Focal length/Landscape examples; repost from this thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83091; nothing special, but hopefully you see what I mean about perspective. Most often one doesn't want all the sky or foreground that an ultra-wide gives.

28mm (where already you need lots of foreground):

35mm:

50mm:

90mm:

200mm:

And yes, I've shot ultra-wides. More useful for cityscapes and architecture, IMO:

15mm:

Roland.

 

[BillBingham2]

Tom A raved about the ZM 21/4.5. While it's more than the CV, less than the big glass!

B2 (;->

 

[ampguy]

Nice photos Roland

Nice photos Roland

I especially like the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. Was the 2nd one taken in Africa? It makes me think of this song ...

Focal length/Landscape examples; repost from this thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83091; nothing special, but hopefully you see what I mean about perspective. Most often one doesn't want all the sky or foreground that an ultra-wide gives.


Roland.