henryzwartz
Member
Hi all,
I am thinking about getting this lens for my M6 TTL.
Has anyone had experience with it? I'd like to know what you think of it on a full-frame camera.
I'm also curious to see any film photos taken with this lens, as it will be used for film!
Thanks,
Henry
I am thinking about getting this lens for my M6 TTL.
Has anyone had experience with it? I'd like to know what you think of it on a full-frame camera.
I'm also curious to see any film photos taken with this lens, as it will be used for film!
Thanks,
Henry
ruby.monkey
Veteran
I don't have the lens (I went for the 12mm f/5.6 instead) but back alley's thread on 15mm f/4.5 photos would be a good place to get an idea of what the lens can do for you.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
I had the 15mm, but reading about some test and finally made the step to the 12mm, my own experience is that it is a little sharper than the 15mm.
CrisR
Well-known
I have it and use it on both M6 TTL and M9 - what questions do you have?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/crisrose/tags/15mm/
The Body of the Whale by Cris Rose, on Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/crisrose/tags/15mm/
The Body of the Whale by Cris Rose, on Flickr
bigeye
Well-known
There are many threads on it to search here. One of my favorite lenses.
-Charlie
-Charlie
mdarnton
Well-known
I have been debating this question, whether to get the 15mm, or the 21mm from the same line. I've always liked really wide lenses, while admitting they have their own particular problems of too easily creating cliches. When they first came out I had the 15mm, and liked it pretty much, but found it hard to use for my favorite subject matter, which is people.
If you go to Flickr ( http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=voigtlander+15mm ), you'll see that the type of pictures people shoot with it have a certain sameness about them--lots of architecture with dynamic diagonals, gross distortions of common subjects, nature with lots of sky, and various combinations of those things. Lack of a center of interest is a common problem, because often there's simply too much in the picture, and nothing especially prominent, so the pictures lean heavily on composition over specific subject matter. (I realize I'm generalizing, but that's what I'm seeing.) Based on what I see there, most of the time I wouldn't have pushed that button, so the lens would have gone unused.
I have a Sigma 10-20mm zoom (equivalent 15-30) for my Nikon D300, and the only time I find myself using it is when I'm shooting real estate interiors for a friend. Both lenses, the 15mm, which I sold when I dumped a bunch of Leica gear in 2008, and the 10-20 got old for me pretty fast.
So I would say, what do you want to do with it? Make sure it will do that, and that this is worth the money so that you don't end up paying $100 for each of the five good pictures you take with it. As far as quality, the 15mm was pretty good, not fabulous wide open but much better two stops down. My 10-20 is a much better lens. And I think I just talked myself into the 21mm. Thanks!
If you go to Flickr ( http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=voigtlander+15mm ), you'll see that the type of pictures people shoot with it have a certain sameness about them--lots of architecture with dynamic diagonals, gross distortions of common subjects, nature with lots of sky, and various combinations of those things. Lack of a center of interest is a common problem, because often there's simply too much in the picture, and nothing especially prominent, so the pictures lean heavily on composition over specific subject matter. (I realize I'm generalizing, but that's what I'm seeing.) Based on what I see there, most of the time I wouldn't have pushed that button, so the lens would have gone unused.
I have a Sigma 10-20mm zoom (equivalent 15-30) for my Nikon D300, and the only time I find myself using it is when I'm shooting real estate interiors for a friend. Both lenses, the 15mm, which I sold when I dumped a bunch of Leica gear in 2008, and the 10-20 got old for me pretty fast.
So I would say, what do you want to do with it? Make sure it will do that, and that this is worth the money so that you don't end up paying $100 for each of the five good pictures you take with it. As far as quality, the 15mm was pretty good, not fabulous wide open but much better two stops down. My 10-20 is a much better lens. And I think I just talked myself into the 21mm. Thanks!
traveler_101
American abroad
Fantastic lens to walk around a city with. I don't use it so much for landscape. It takes some time to acquire the techniques; however, it is not hard to master.
It is my second most used lens.
Note there are two versions: the new one is M mount and RF-linked, I believe. Why you would need the RF to focus a lens this wide is beyond me. I use the LTM version on a IIIf or on my Bessa-T.
It is my second most used lens.
Note there are two versions: the new one is M mount and RF-linked, I believe. Why you would need the RF to focus a lens this wide is beyond me. I use the LTM version on a IIIf or on my Bessa-T.