Super wide and Ultra wide heliars M vs L39

[MilMascaras]

Hello,

I want to buy one of these two (still undecided) but I was wondering if any of the CV less experts know if there are differences worth mentioning between the L39 and M mount versions of each, other than the obvious size difference.

I'm leaning towards using the L39 with an adapter (on a Zeiss Ikon) as I have been offered the 15mm super wide at a really great price. I am also not sure if this is a focal length that I'd end up using a lot so I don't want to spend a lot of money on an expensive set that I will barely touch (in fact, this is what happened to the person who offered this to me), but the M mount version lenses just look so cool. 🙂

Thanks!

 

[ddutchison]

A L39 mount lens can be fitted to a wider range of cameras.

 

[ruby.monkey]

The screw-thread versions come with the matching accessory finder; the M-mount ones have built-in filter threads (and will probably cost more overall). Up to you which is more important.

Whichever way you go, you'll have a fine lens with which to play.

 

[haempe]

Hello,

I want to buy one of these two (still undecided) but I was wondering if any of the CV less experts know if there are differences worth mentioning between the L39 and M mount versions of each, other than the obvious size difference.

At best, the differences are described here.

I, personally, (own a LTM 15/4,5) have no problems with scale focussing, but that's probably a individual decision.

 

[Tom A]

One distinct advantage of the M-mount superwides is that both the 12 and the 15 can take screw-in filters (52mm on the 15 and 67 on the 12). The benefit of coupled focus is not huge - but it really comes in handy for close-up work and wide-open. I have both LTM and M-mount 12/15's (as well as F mount 12/15). Image wise there is not much of a difference - but the convinience of the M mounts filter and coupling wins out here.
Both lenses are cutting edge optics - BUT they have a bit of a learning curve - they are really wide!!!!! Many years ago I had the Hologon 15f8 - mainly because at the time it was the only 110 degree lens you could get for a M. The Heliar are vastly superior, less fall off, proper infinity focus and actual f stops. The Hologon was a fixed f8 and became a f16 with the center filter and it did not focus to infinity.

 

[MilMascaras]

Thank you all for your answers. I didn't even realize that the LTM version wasn't RF coupled.

That makes a difference, but I'm glad to know that both versions of the lens are great optics.

 

[literiter]

I have the 15mm LTM version of this lens tied onto my Leica iiif.
This is a nice lens, I'm sure what Tom says about the M mount is right on but I'd like to add another thing:
The LTM version's distance indicator dot will not necessarily line up perfectly vertical. You will have to remove the 4 screws at the base of the lens and reposition the lens base. This is not in the manual for some reason, I had to find out by searching the net.
Now that this is done, I find that I wanted it dedicated to one camera in this case my IIIF because I feel that removing the lens and reinstalling so the dot is vertical it requires I torque on the lens a bit. Not good! The same issue with my late Bessa L.

I have a M adapter which requires a completely different setting on the base.

Once the silliness has been taken care of, the LTM 15mm Heliar lens is quite magnificent.

I'd go for the M mount if I were to do it again.

 

[ampguy]

I've had both, and prefer the LTM version. It is smaller, focuses closer, and comes with a VF.

The M mount version does take filters, but I'd be very careful. On my sample, it appeared that if I screwed a Nikon brand 52mm filter on fully, it would touch the front element. Even if it didn't, it wouldn't be an ideal filter/front element position for flare, etc., IMHO.

 

[umcelinho]

for full frame, I'd go for a 15/4.5 Heliar in LTM. It will come with the viewfinder and you can get an M mount adapter ring for a few bucks. Same optics, better price.

I personally never had any issues regarding uncoupled focusing, as the DOF is so deep in both 12 and 15. The new viewfinders with brightlines (not sold with the LTM version) are an interesting improvement, as the lines will aid framing and keeping the camera horizontal. I've missed some shots with the 15 due to misframing.

The 12 has click stops on the two major focal spots, 0.5m and 1m. centered at 0.5m, the lens will have everything from 0.35m to 1m, which covers all close distances. centered at 1m, the focus are will be from 0.5m to infinity... which is pretty sweet! 🙂 I'd say the 12 needs extra attention as it's not hard to get a weird shot due to bad angle or having heads/arms/people close to the edges: they will come out very distorted. The 15 is much more friendly in that matter. I loved the 15mm, only sold it because the 12 will work better on my R-D1 and I like the fov in full frame.

 

[ruby.monkey]

If you get either of the LTM lenses, don't forget to pick up a 25mm f/4 Snapshot-Skopar to keep it company. Sometimes crazy-wide is too wide.

 

[Tom A]

I've had both, and prefer the LTM version. It is smaller, focuses closer, and comes with a VF.

The M mount version does take filters, but I'd be very careful. On my sample, it appeared that if I screwed a Nikon brand 52mm filter on fully, it would touch the front element. Even if it didn't, it wouldn't be an ideal filter/front element position for flare, etc., IMHO.

I use filters on my 15f4.5 M version all the time. No problem with either falre or touching the front element. OK, it is very close and a wayward fly would be squashed when you put on the filter (I use stock 52mm Nikon filters - left over from decades of shooting with F/F2's).
The 12 mm M mount is the same thing. Filter is very close - but does not touch the glass.