The 10mm f/5.6 CV lens

[Rob-F]

I tried out the voigtlander 10mm and wanted to show the results. Here's a shot of five buildings in a row, taken from across the street. I cropped out the excess foreground.

All the buildings are rendered in the proportions that they are in reality, without stretching at the edges, as far as I can tell.

I took the next shot standing on the same sidewalk that appears in the photo, giving an idea of how wide this lens really is:

again, everything seems to be in the same proportions as in reality.

I have six more shots I will post before long, showing what the lens does in other situations.

 

[Rob-F]

By shooting diagonally, the Posh Nosh is stretched out about twice as wide as it really is:

And the tree limbs are being stretched into the black hole of the corner.

More later.

 

[jsrockit]

It might make some sense to get into some very tight spaces, it could be fun.

 

[Hari]

I've got the 15mm voitlander, the 10mm is WAY more.

 

[raid]

How is the level of distortion? Is it natural looking or is this a special effects lens?

 

[Rob-F]

How is the level of distortion? Is it natural looking or is this a special effects lens?

It's not really distortion, but things can look really out of shape when viewed from an angle much wider than our normal field of vision. Objects that are close to the camera become exaggerated in size. I plan to post some more shots to show more of what I got with it. For instance, this craft beer building is nowhere near as wide as it appears here:

I would say it look easily twice as wide as it really is. This only happens when photographing on the diagonal, so that part of the building is closer to the camera.

 

[Rob-F]

Here's a shot of my basement slide projecting and TV room. Notice the chess board against the wall. In reality, it's square, of course. The photo above it is square, too. The red rug is rectangular, yet appears square in the photo. However, the curvature of the lower masking on my screen is not distortion. I need to re-tension my masking. I haven't noticed any curvilinear distortion in this lens.

 

[Rob-F]

This shot once again shows the stretching effect of this extreme wide angle lens; but in this case, the refrigerator and the TV are grotesquely stretched, even though they are fairly parallel to the plane of the sensor. Did you ever see such a wide TV? Going back to Raid's question, I don't know what what else to call the curvature of the floor but distortion. Our floor in reality is quite level!
The doorway at left is only half as wide as rendered here.

 

[Rob-F]

Here's a shot through the kitchen door way at left, into the dining room. Suzanne, almost perfectly centered in the frame, looks just like her normal self. But the Sidebar at left is stretched loooong! The dining table, which in reality wider left to right than from front to rear, here appears deeper than wide. And in reality, the side window is the same width as the window in front!

 

[Rob-F]

This one is fun. The table looks like something from outer space, and the 10mm covered the entire width of the play area behind.

I didn't use the viewfinder for any of these shots. Instead, I used a bubble level in the shoe because I felt that with a lens this wide, keeping the camera level is probably more important than exact framing.

 

[raid]

Thank you gor the examples, Rob.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I have the CV 15mm III and the now discontinued CV 12mm f/5.6 (which I've only shot for testing purposes). The difference between the 10 and 15 is indeed significant, but the difference between the 10 and 12 is amazingly still significant. I've never been motivated to get the 10; as much as I love super-wides, the 10 is just over-the-top wide.

 

[Rob-F]

I have the CV 15mm III and the now discontinued CV 12mm f/5.6 (which I've only shot for testing purposes). The difference between the 10 and 15 is indeed significant, but the difference between the 10 and 12 is amazingly still significant. I've never been motivated to get the 10; as much as I love super-wides, the 10 is just over-the-top wide.

I feel the same way as Bill. I didn't keep the 10mm. I was tempted to, but the images are so extreme I wasn't sure I could be creative enough to make the best use of it. I was tempted to try longer with it, but afraid of messing it up and not being able to return it.

I bought the 15 at the same time. That one is a keeper--for me at least.

I am still curious about the 12. Like Bill, I was afraid the 10 would be "a bridge too far" for me. Could there be enough of a difference that I'd want to keep the 12, even though I didn't keep the 10?

 

[Bill Blackwell]

... Could there be enough of a difference that I'd want to keep the 12, even though I didn't keep the 10?

On the specs (and according to reviewers) the CV 12mm is better than the 10mm and the corners of the 10mm are soft at every stop, so you may find yourself cropping them out.

How much more do you get with 10mm over 12mm? Look here.

 

[raid]

I have a 16mm lens and a 17mm lens, and both work well for me. When I use these lenses on my M8, the cropped view is similar to that of a 21mm lens, and it also looks very good to me. I don't think that I want to go wider than 16mm.

 

[Hari]

I've got a 25mm/3.5 Canon and the first 15 voigt,
so getting the 10mm is right in step except the price.

 

[Monz]

Thanks for putting up these examples Rob-F. May I ask what camera you are using and if there was any magenta banding in the periphery of the pre-processed images?
I have the CV 15mm versions 1 and 3. The v1 suffers from magenta banding (on M9 and M10) whilst the v3 is much better in this respect.

 

[Rob-F]

Thanks for putting up these examples Rob-F. May I ask what camera you are using and if there was any magenta banding in the periphery of the pre-processed images?
I have the CV 15mm versions 1 and 3. The v1 suffers from magenta banding (on M9 and M10) whilst the v3 is much better in this respect.

I didn't see any banding at all. The photos I posted are full size horizontally, nothing cropped from the left or right. I cropped out excessive foreground at the bottom. Otherwise no post processing. The camera is my M9.

 

[raid]

Older lenses were not designed well for use on digital cameras, but some of the very wide angle newer lenses do an amazing job with digital sensors, but there must be a price for it. Is it digital control of problems in the edges (that vanish)?