Voigtlaender 15mm/4.5 test found - and a question

Kontrapunkt2006 · Mar 2, 2009

Hi!

I don't know if anyone is interested, but I found that Ken Rockwell testet this very special lens:
http://kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/15mm.htm

What quite amazes me is that he states that the lens has virtually no distortion

Is that possible at all? I read (and saw from examples) that Voigtlaenders 21mm lens has quite some distortion, but I thought it should have less??

What are your experiences?

Eike

luketrash · Mar 2, 2009

It doesn't bend vertical lines like a funhouse mirror like SLR lenses do since the back of the lens can rest near the film plane.

But it distorts heavily. I shot with the lens all weekend and was in an old train station:

It creates dramatic, stretched perspectives. But the lines don't bend.

It's an interesting lens and I'm glad I own it.

doitashimash1te · Mar 2, 2009

I second luketrash. (Though I don't think this lens is particularly good for portraits, this was a spontaneous shot I took when I was walking around with just this lens.)

Roger Hicks · Mar 2, 2009

luketrash said:
It doesn't bend vertical lines like a funhouse mirror like SLR lenses do since the back of the lens can rest near the film plane.

But it distorts heavily. I shot with the lens all weekend and was in an old train station:

It creates dramatic, stretched perspectives. But the lines don't bend.

It's an interesting lens and I'm glad I own it.

Um...

That's not distortion. It's viewpoint, and a tilted camera.

Cheers,

Roger

luketrash · Mar 2, 2009

Thank you for correcting me. I'm forever in your debt.

Tom A · Mar 2, 2009

If you put the the 15 on a tripod and carefully align the edges so they are straight verticals - you be surprised how little distorsion it has. It is an amazing little lens - particularly if you take into context what the price is!
I have had this lens for 10 years - got it when it was announced in Tokyo in 1999, together with the Bessa L. Quite a sensation at the time - and still one of my favorite ultra wides. The 12f5.6 is more of a speciality lens, while the 15 can be used as an everyday, carry along just in case lens.

jwhitley · Mar 2, 2009

It creates dramatic, stretched perspectives. But the lines don't bend.

luketrash hits the key point here; the lines don't bend. When they do bend this is called either barrel or pincushion distortion depending on whether they bend in this shape () or this shape )(, respectively.

The CV 15mm is still a rectilinear (vs. fisheye) wide-angle lens, so there will be strong perspective effects because of that. Note that objects near the center of the shot will have relatively little perspective distortion. Portraits with wide-angles are tricky. One approach is to place a face right near the center of the shot and not overly close. The rest of the shot will have the dramatic WA look, but the subject's face will have little perspective warping.

Bob Michaels · Mar 2, 2009

If you want the field of view provided by a 15mm lens on a 35mm camera, there are no alternatives in a reasonable price range.

But one buys that lens because they needs that field of view. Period.

Debusti Paolo · Mar 3, 2009

I've a 15/4.5 heliar modified for contax g2 and it's a terrific combo in my opinion! I bought it instead of the more famous (but with fixed f 8 aperture)hologon because it was 4.5 instead than fixed 8(than add the special 4x filter).!

Kontrapunkt2006 · Mar 3, 2009

Thanks for your answers! That's interesting and really amazing. Still I would like to know: did anyone test it side by side with the 21mm lens? I am just thinking about buying one of them, and maybe the 21mm would be more convenient to use. One the other hand: low distortion is something I am looking for.

A question from a beginner: I didn't quite get the point with the tilted camera. Does it mean that, when I use a water-level for takting photos, and the camera is NOT tilted, then the vertical (also on the photo above) would be straight?

Thanks a lot!!

Keith · Mar 3, 2009

A while ago I saw these for sale on eBay for $299.00 ..... !

Impossible to disagree with what KR says about the Heliar 15mm ... I use mine more and more and it constantly astounds me with it's total lack of distortion and the way it 'sees!' I've been using mine on my R4A without an accessory finder and it's a very usable setup. The funny thing is I originally bought mine to use on my M8 with the crop factor changing it to 20mm ... I figured 15mm would be way too wide for my tastes but I was wrong. It very rarely goes on the M8 now!

I don't recall anyone ever saying they weren't totally happy with theirs on this or any other forum.

Roger Hicks · Mar 3, 2009

Kontrapunkt2006 said:
Thanks for your answers! That's interesting and really amazing. Still I would like to know: did anyone test it side by side with the 21mm lens? I am just thinking about buying one of them, and maybe the 21mm would be more convenient to use. One the other hand: low distortion is something I am looking for.

A question from a beginner: I didn't quite get the point with the tilted camera. Does it mean that, when I use a water-level for takting photos, and the camera is NOT tilted, then the vertical (also on the photo above) would be straight?

Thanks a lot!!

Which 21? Because very few RF-fit 21s have much distortion either. I currently use Voigtländer 21/4 and Kobalux 21/2.8 and have owned or used for extended periods the pre-aspheric 21/2.8, Zeiss 21/4.5 both old and new, and Zeiss 21/2.8. All are excellent, with negligible distortion. The 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar has more distortion but still little enough that I'd own it if I could. Personally, I find that I use 21 more than 15, but you may find that you prefer 15.

You may also care to try either the Zeiss 18/4 (superb, and my wife's favourite 35mm wide-angle) or the Leica 18/3.8 (which we haven't tried yet). There's a review of the Zeiss 18 here:
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/reviews 18 zeiss.html

If the camera back is vertical, then vertical lines won't converge -- you won't get the 'falling over backwards' effect. This is why view cameras gave rising fronts, and what shift lenses are for, too.

sleepyhead · Mar 3, 2009

This lens was NOT a high priority for me as I need/want such a wide field-of-view so so so rarely, but when I saw one for only $120 used at Camera Heaven in San Francisco I couldn't resist. Great lens - very sharp. Wish I have good reason to use it more.

My lens came without a finder, but I use the Voigtlander 21mm finder and ignore the framelines (that is, i use the whole finder view) - works alright.

Monz · Mar 3, 2009

sojournerphoto · Mar 3, 2009

I bought one on a whim when I saw it on ebay, complete with finder and LTM adaptor. I've been very very impressed. As the lens is rectilinear and doesn't distort (noticeably) it turns out to be much easier to use than I expected and gives some great results. The colour is also good.

Mike

Didier · Mar 3, 2009

Eike

As others said, distortion means bended lines (barrel shape for wide angles, cushion shape for teles). Tilted lines have to do with the viewing perspective, only. It needs some practise to handle that issue.

Interesting to know that Ken Rockwell uses a Leica, since he bashed this brand so many times. All in all his Heliar lens review is correct, though I'll probably never get familiar with his writing style, which knows hyping or dooming only. For this lens he choose hyping, so he is logically not 100% correct with some aspects he reviewed too positively:

- Flare and ghosts - he says: "none" but then says he's never seen "ghosts" except on long time exposures by night, but no word about about flare. My 15 Heliar, as well as my 21 Skopar do significantly flare, when I hold them in a certain, approx. 45% angle, to the sun (and sun outside of the picture).

- Falloff ("vignetting" for others) - the vignetting is very significant with that lens, no 14, 15, or 18mm lens I ever used does vignet so much (though I do not mind about it - but just to tell).

- Bokeh: "here is never anything out of focus, so bokeh has no meaning here" - not really true, since the DOF does not cover the whole distance spectrum. I have managed to squeeze some (modest, but cute) bokeh out of it, with close up portraits (f4.5, DOF from 28-70cm).

- Another issue is, that, on many M adapters, the lens is not aligned well at the 12 o'clock position (something which can be repaired, afaik, RFF member Ferider has posted a tutorial for that)

Nevertheless I do also highly recommend the Heliar to all M and LTM users who want to go wide. Can't be wrong with that lens...

Didier

sleepyhead · Mar 3, 2009

Monz, I like "circles and curves" and "the rat race" best - interesting shots from you as usual!

I haven't seen alot of COLOR work from this lens, and have only used it for B&W myself...

Kontrapunkt2006 · Mar 3, 2009

Hi Didier,

thanks for explaining all this - I think after all the answers, I understood well.

I know about the somewhat peculiar style of Ken Rockwell - he was so much a strict Nikonian for many years, and know he is somehow fixed on Leica ...
He does so because he hates RAW-Shooting, and prefers to use Velvia-Films, if he needs superior quality.

On the other hand, many of his ideas are quite reasonable and down to earth. So I like to have a look at his page from time to time. And his review was quite interesting to me, as it gave me a few ideas on the lens.

Again, thanks a lot. I think I will buy the 15mm sooner or later.

reuno · Mar 3, 2009

Kontrapunkt2006 said:
Hi!
kenrockwell[/url]

72 pages...

Olsen · Mar 3, 2009

The Voigtländer 15 mm Super Wide Heliar is a 'standard' lens that should be in every M-camera users bag. Particularly for digital M-users since any form of crop factor will be around for a while. It is cheap compared to just anything else with the same field of view. And it performs well compared even to the most expensive alternatives. The Voigtländer 15 mm Super Wide is the Volkswagen of the M-world.

There is practically no distortion on RF lenses down to 24 - 25 mm. The famous Carl Zeiss Biogon 25 mm (equaliant to the famous Hasselblad SWC 38 mm on MF) draws close to an absolutely flat field. I would say that the distortion on the Voigtländer Super Wide is 'very small', possibly even less than on the WATE (Leica 16-18-21 mm) - which costs 10 times as much (I have both). Distortion - if any, is also less pronounced when used on a M8 with a crop factor.

I would say that 'distortion' is not an issue - at all - with any of the excellent wide angle lenses available for the M-system. This is indeed the advantage of a RF camera compared to SLRs. Which is due to the closeness of the rear lens element to the sensor/film, and all that. Even a 28 mm on a SLR will have more distortion than a 24 - 25 mm on a RF camera.

Voigtlaender 15mm/4.5 test found - and a question

Member

Trying to find my range

Well-known

Veteran

Trying to find my range

RFF Sponsor

Established

nobody special

Well-known

Member

The best camera is one that still works!

Veteran

Well-known

Monz

Veteran

&quot;Deed&quot;

Well-known

Member

Log out, go shoot.

Well-known

"Deed"