Ultra wide: Rangefinder vs SLR

[fleetwoodjazz]

Some days ago I was playing with the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 and generally was extremely impressed with this lens. On the market, it is now costing about 1800$.

At first it seems high, but think about it. Leica Tri Elmar is now about 6000$, plus one would have to buy viewfinder for it....say 500$. Similarly should one buy say 3 primes with viewfinder, it makes the Nikkor dirty cheap.

We all know wide angle lens (24mm to 35mm) performs better with rangefinder, but how about ultra-wide? Is rangefinder still better? Does anyone know?

 

[craygc]

The dilemma I find is that although the rangefinder lenses tend to be optically better, at the very close subject distance I work at with these wide lenses, I really need SLR framing ability. This is using 20mm/21mm Nikon SLR/Leica M and 15mm on both. The 20/21mm is not too bad on the Leica for framing but the 15mm is very difficult for close range subjects.

The attached image is from a Nikon F3HP and the Nikkor 15mm f/3.5. I prefer the framing but its a lot of lens and camera to drag around

 

[fleetwoodjazz]

Yes the framing is more precise with SLR but I am skeptical. Distortion is way too much from what I observed, rangefinder looks better in this regard.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Precise framing: SLR or (better still) ground glass.

Image quality or fluidity of working or both: RF.

Frances and I have quite a lot of ultrawides: 14mm Sigma (Nikon F), 15mm Voigtländer (Leica M), 18mm Zeiss (Leica M), 35mm Apo-Grandagon (Alpa 6x9 = 16mm shift lens on 35mm), 110mm Super-Symmar (8x10, just, at least for interiors). The 14mm Sigma probably ties with the Super-Symmar for the least use.

Cheers,

R.