ymc226
Well-known
Has anyone compared the current 18mm offerings from Leica and Zeiss (Super Elmar ASPH 3.8 and Distagon T* ZM 4.0)? How do they compare in contrast, OOF for B&W?
Also, the only currently faster super wide is the Zeiss Distagon 15mm 2.8. Has anyone used this before and are they satisfied.
I am finding I need more than the 21mm I currently have and would like opinions concerning theses current models.
Also, the only currently faster super wide is the Zeiss Distagon 15mm 2.8. Has anyone used this before and are they satisfied.
I am finding I need more than the 21mm I currently have and would like opinions concerning theses current models.
back alley
IMAGES
for the money it is hard to beat the cv 15.
pics from the zeiss 15 are phenominal but so is the cost of the lens.
i have been tempted by the zeiss 18 but find it hard to justify the cost and size difference from the cv 15.
pics from the zeiss 15 are phenominal but so is the cost of the lens.
i have been tempted by the zeiss 18 but find it hard to justify the cost and size difference from the cv 15.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I've been using the CV 15 almost from when it was first introduced. I'm happy with its performance, contrast, sharpness, etc. and can't see the sense in "upgrading" to a more famous name, or bothering to stick it on one of my M bodies when that cheap and lightweight Bessa L works just fine. It doesn't even bother me that the black is wearing off the lens mount and the chrome is wearing off the body., or that I've been seen in public with a black lens on a chrome body.
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Get the CV 15, buy some film, and maybe take your lady out to dinner.
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Get the CV 15, buy some film, and maybe take your lady out to dinner.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The 15/2.8 is stunning -- I had it on loan for a few weeks -- but it's also huge, heavy and expensive.
If you use 15mm all the time, yes, the f/2.8 easily worth the money. But if (as for most people) 15mm is a little-used length, the f/4.5 is fine.
You can't really compare 15mm and 18mm. I much prefer 15mm; my wife very much prefers 18mm (her standard wide on 35mm). As for out-of-focus areas; well, at best it's a matter of pesonal preference. We'd go for the Tri-Elmar (which we've also borrowed) if we could afford it.
Cheers,
Roger
If you use 15mm all the time, yes, the f/2.8 easily worth the money. But if (as for most people) 15mm is a little-used length, the f/4.5 is fine.
You can't really compare 15mm and 18mm. I much prefer 15mm; my wife very much prefers 18mm (her standard wide on 35mm). As for out-of-focus areas; well, at best it's a matter of pesonal preference. We'd go for the Tri-Elmar (which we've also borrowed) if we could afford it.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I tried the Zeiss 15f2.8 - it is "special case" lens. Tripod, careful alignments etc - it works very well (but once you have it on a tripod - the f2.8 is not that important!!!!). It is also not coupled to the rangefinder - I know its a minor point for most of us - but if you are doing stuff in close at 2.8 it becomes critical!
The Heliar 15f4.5 was a sensation when it came out! An ultra wide angle that a/ would focus to infinity and b/had f-stops and c/cost less than a used finder for a Leica Hologon (which was the only other alternative to the 15f4.5 - and that one did not focus to infinity, it was f8 and needed an expensive filter to correct for edge fall off - and then became a f16!!!).
I also have the new 15f4.5 Heliar in coupled M-mount. It has become my basic "kit" lens - always on a camera in the shoulder bag. The fact that it can take standard 52 mm filters (any Nikon F user has lots of these). It is also shaped in such a manner that you are less prone to have fingers and other body parts intruding in the frame.
I have the Zeiss Distagon 18f4 - it is a big lens (at least compared to the 15f4.5) and it is very good - though it is only 3mm difference in focal length - you do notice it though.
I havent tried the new Leica 18f3.8 - but if it is anything like their 24f2.8 it should be a killer lens - BUT you can buy both a 15f4.5 M-mount, the Zeiss 18f4 and its finder (best one around) + some film ( actually a lot of film) for the same price!!!
The Heliar 15f4.5 was a sensation when it came out! An ultra wide angle that a/ would focus to infinity and b/had f-stops and c/cost less than a used finder for a Leica Hologon (which was the only other alternative to the 15f4.5 - and that one did not focus to infinity, it was f8 and needed an expensive filter to correct for edge fall off - and then became a f16!!!).
I also have the new 15f4.5 Heliar in coupled M-mount. It has become my basic "kit" lens - always on a camera in the shoulder bag. The fact that it can take standard 52 mm filters (any Nikon F user has lots of these). It is also shaped in such a manner that you are less prone to have fingers and other body parts intruding in the frame.
I have the Zeiss Distagon 18f4 - it is a big lens (at least compared to the 15f4.5) and it is very good - though it is only 3mm difference in focal length - you do notice it though.
I havent tried the new Leica 18f3.8 - but if it is anything like their 24f2.8 it should be a killer lens - BUT you can buy both a 15f4.5 M-mount, the Zeiss 18f4 and its finder (best one around) + some film ( actually a lot of film) for the same price!!!
oscroft
Veteran
Out-of-focus areas? I've never had any with my Heliar 15 
mr_phillip
Well-known
I really think that finding the 'right' super-wide focal length for any user is a very personal choice, as evidenced by the fact that Roger favours a 15 while his better half prefers 18. Me, I use an early CV15 and find it suits me just perfectly (so much so that I'm even giving serious thought to picking up the new M version just to go with my collection of old B+W 52mm filters!)
Unless you've got money to burn, why not look at picking up the CV15 to start with. That way if you find it's a bit extreme for you then you can go for one of the 18mm options knowing that at least the focal length should be just what you need. If however you find that 15 works for you, but you'd like a bit more speed, then the Zeiss should be a perfect fit. Or you might just find, like a few of us no doubt, that the CV15 is all the super-wide that you really need.
Unless you've got money to burn, why not look at picking up the CV15 to start with. That way if you find it's a bit extreme for you then you can go for one of the 18mm options knowing that at least the focal length should be just what you need. If however you find that 15 works for you, but you'd like a bit more speed, then the Zeiss should be a perfect fit. Or you might just find, like a few of us no doubt, that the CV15 is all the super-wide that you really need.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Just like they say that it's easier to hand hold a 35 or a 28 than a 50 I find that the 15 is really easy to use at very slow speeds. My biggest problem is subject movement, not camera jiggle. 1/8 second is easily doable. Yeah, that extra exposure applies to an f/2.8 lens as well as it does to an f/4.5. Still, I have the 4.5 and it does nice things for me. It's paid for too! No GAS here.
I sometimes wonder, though, about the direction my photography might have taken if I'd bought a Hologon when they came out. I sure wanted one!
I sometimes wonder, though, about the direction my photography might have taken if I'd bought a Hologon when they came out. I sure wanted one!
FrozenInTime
Well-known
If it's ever a consideration, the Zeiss 18mm is looking like one of the better performers on µ4/3 cameras like the E-P1.
Very little smearing in the corners and no distortion showing on the LHS wall.
100% crop from unsharpened dcraw extracted tiffs.
Very little smearing in the corners and no distortion showing on the LHS wall.
100% crop from unsharpened dcraw extracted tiffs.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
You can't judge full frame performance on a 4/3 camera.
ZeissFan
Veteran
Out-of-focus areas? I've never had any with my Heliar 15
That's what I was thinking. I think you have to be inches away from your subject to have any out-of-focus areas.
I also agree that the Heliar lens is a very fine lens.
Again, I also agree that you can't judge the full-frame performance of a superwide (or nearly any lens, for that matter) on a Four-Thirds camera.
hiromu
Established
I love CV 15 with M mount and I like it very much.
It takes filters. It has focus coupling (don't really need it though). And it is light and small.
I briefly Had ZM 18/4, but sold it as it is larger than what I wanted. And never tried Leica 18... maybe sometime in the future...
but right now, I am happy with CV 15 and no desire for having F2.8 (losing RF coupling...) or filling the gap between 15 and 21...
It takes filters. It has focus coupling (don't really need it though). And it is light and small.
I briefly Had ZM 18/4, but sold it as it is larger than what I wanted. And never tried Leica 18... maybe sometime in the future...
but right now, I am happy with CV 15 and no desire for having F2.8 (losing RF coupling...) or filling the gap between 15 and 21...
back alley
IMAGES
now i want a zeiss 18 again!!!
let's see...ditch the cv 15 and zm 21 and get a zm 18...that would leave with all zm lenses, 18, 28, 35, 50...hhmmm...
let's see...ditch the cv 15 and zm 21 and get a zm 18...that would leave with all zm lenses, 18, 28, 35, 50...hhmmm...
back alley
IMAGES
ha, we both posted at the same time and said the exact opposite of each other...
ymc226
Well-known
Thanks for all of your opinions. As I finally realized that the Zeiss 15 is not rangefinder coupled and BIG, it is not for me.
I am trying to decide on an 18, either the Zeiss 4.0 or the Leica Super Elmar 3.8 ASPH.
From what I've heard, there really is no difference.
I am trying to decide on an 18, either the Zeiss 4.0 or the Leica Super Elmar 3.8 ASPH.
From what I've heard, there really is no difference.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
The Zeiss is probably more practical if you use b&w filters:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/18mm-comparison.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/18mm-comparison.htm
robklurfield
eclipse
I've had my CV 15 m-mount for a week or so now. It is wonderful. I haven't even coded it for my M8 yet, but I already love it.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I had the ZM 18 and thought it had a unique rendition, slightly higher contrast and a little more vignetting than the 21/4.5, producing a greater "pop" . I kept the 21 because it is much smaller, and would like someday to get the new M mount CV 15.
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
Out of focus with the Zeiss 15mm f2.8 ZM lens can be stunning! Here's an example wide open at closest focusing distance. Although these are just weeds near a pond, they take on a monumental feel and seem to dance in space. The second image was shot in Arles last summer at the Place Van Gogh . It's also wide open at minimum focus and at 1/1000 second freezes the droplets in the fountain at the center of the garden Van Gogh painted. I love this lens, but have been trying to sell it lately, somewhat reluctantly, to buy a second MP. As fate would have it, there have been no takers, so I guess there must be more images left for me to discover with it. I owned the CV LTM version previously and though it was great for recording things it did not have the wide open pictorial quality of the ZM lens.
Attachments
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Sometimes I ask myself why I even have a 21/3.4 S.A. when it's the 15 that gets all the use. Sticking an 18 in my line-up? It makes no sense.