Anyone have any experience with this recently introduced super-wide angle lens? It seems to have gotten some good press but I'm concerned with aperture performance as Erwin Puts seems to think the only useable aperture on the 15mm is 5.6 (for acceptable image quality). I'm definitely interested in the 12mm (seeing as the price is right and I like not having to buy a finder). I've always thought that Leica's 21mm finder was a rip-off as it is cheap and flimsy compared to the 12mm finder (metal).

Opinions? (Bad or good).

BTW. Thanks for the help on the 35mm Summicron CLA.

Merry Xmas!!!

John Chan

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), December 25, 2000

Answers

Hi . I've been using the lens on an m2 for almost two months . Metering ( handheld ) takes a while to get used to in some cases because of the wide coverage , but other than that I have been surprised by the sharpness , eveness and lack of distortion of the lens ( I use apertures 5,6 to 11 , never tried the others yet ). My only complaint would be that the viewfinder is too big , which makes stuffing it in your backpack a bit risky .

-- leonid kotlyar (cosworth@mindspring.com), December 25, 2000.

Hi there,

Do you notice alot of barrel distortion with the 12 mm lens (kinda a dumb question I know) and also, is there a lot of light fall-off at 5.6?

Thanks,

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), December 25, 2000.

First of all, f/5.6 might be the 15mm Heliar's peak aperture (the lens' "sweet spot" so-to-speak) but it is certainly not the only usable aperture. Mr. Puts is a knowledgeable, dedicated and enthusiastic Leicaphile and his efforts are to be lauded and appreciated. It is too bad he is the only one around like him because by default his opinions, and that's what they are, have become almost gospel. I have never read a single quantitative, numerical piece of data from his tests. Despite his vast knowledge of optical theory, his reviews amount to one man's conclusions drawn from his own observation of his own photographs with his own eyes. In a word: subjective. And in many cases his opinions of a lens he has tested only briefly run contrary to the experience of photographers who have owned that lens for years and used it extensively. If the 12mm is anything like the 15mm (an unlikely coincidence)it should be one heck of a lens. At roughly double the 15mm's price, the 12mm is not in the same bargain bin, so if I were considering this lens (I am not; 15mm is wide enough for me)I would want to use it myself before I bought it.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 26, 2000.

FYI, the October 1999 issue of Popular Photography (pg.101) published resolution tests for the 15mm/4.5 and at f:4.5, center was 96L/mm and edge was 57L/mm. Same at f:5.6. At f:8, center was 85L/mm and edge was 54L/mm. At f:11, center was 68L/mm and edge was 50L/mm. Light fall off noted at all apertures. There are of course metal versions of the 21 and 28 Leitz optical finders though my experience is that they are more susceptible to impact damage than the resin. The resin designs have an offset in the shoe aligning more on lens axis than the older metal designs. The Leitz viewfinders have framelines that incorporate lead in as well as parallax for near focus. These features are sorely missed on the Bessa Voightlander optical finders. It comes down to how much or how little information you need in optical finder for extremely wide angle finders. Sometimes you get what you pay for.

-- Michael Johnson (mdjohnsonphoto@hotmail.com), December 26, 2000.

John,

I posted some information from SHUTTERBUG magazine when it reviewed the 12mm lens. I won't repeat everything, but article did have some LP/mm for the lens wide open, and it does seem very usable. Go to this thread to read the post, and possibly try to locate the specific issue at the library to check out the shots.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004220

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), December 26, 2000.

I shot some indoor photos with the 15 wide open and they were very sharp and contasty-surprisingly so I might add. I think it is all a matter of degrees here, but the lens is certyainally "useable" at other apertures than f5.6. I also didn't have any problem with poor corner illumination, maybe becasue I shot negative film (Fuji 800) and the prints made don't go to the full frame. I 'd probably notice it more with slide film. By the way, when I used the 15mm, I just left the Minolta CLE on auto and shot away and all the exposures turned out fine.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), December 26, 2000.

Just to follow up, When you consider that a gradiant neutral density filter is necessary to correct the light fall off in the Zeiss Hologon 15mm that was what you had before the Bessa Voightlander 15mm, a little fall off is more than acceptable. With the 21mm or 28mm (or other) Leitz or Leica optics, what you are paying for is the freedom from or negligible vignetting or fall-off. Also as spartan as they are, the viewfinders for the Bessa Voightlander system beat the Canon VFs that were available for the earlier 19mm , 25mm, and 28mm lens for a rangefinder system.

-- Michael Johnson (mdjohnsonphoto@hotmail.com), December 26, 2000.

I have the 12 and the 15 voigtlander lenses and they do act a bit differently. I personally think there is very very little light falloff with the 12. Jan 2001 Popular Photography's "hands on test" with the lens claims 1/10 f stop edge and corner falloff but 2.65 percent pincushion distortion. I tend to agree with this assesment though I have nothing more that picts to look at. On the other hand this is a really wide lens and the corner distortion is what I expected. It really has very little light falloff and may even be less than the 15. I use both lenses at f5.6 or 8, most tests claim sharpness falls off above that. Besides, these lenses focus from 1.5 meters to infinity at that f8. Its pretty much point and shoot, just adjusting shutter speed. I find the 15 more practical (strictly personal preference) than the 12 and think its the best bang for the buck. The plastic shelled finder works fine and its elements are glass. I wish the 15 lens could mount a filter like the 12 though. The double shoe spirit level helps a lot also. Note: Buy the case for the lens/finder for either of these lenses, they are worth it.

-- Jon Ladd (jonladd@mediaone.net), December 27, 2000.

I agree with Jay in that when you read reviews by "avid" Leica users you really shouldnt take it at its word. I work for a large photographic retail outlet in Australia and its my experience that Leica owners do alot of substantiating that all that extra money has been worth while. It sometimes borders on obscession sometimes. And usually you have to pander to that to sell any Leica equipment. I have visited many a Leica site and muse myself with many of them saying they never would even consider another brand of lens they arent as good. Many fail to realise that all R series cameras (except the R8) use old Minolta XD technology. Zoom lenses like the 70 - 210 R & 35 - 70 R were made by minolta and the 28 to 70 was made by sigma! Its clear that any rival to the leica m series will be down trodden by the most devoted leica owners. I have read Mr Puts review of the Voigtlander lenses and to me it comes across as Leica propganda. He concluded for example that the lenses he tested (not the 12mm but the 15mm) that they werent up to the "current generation" of Leica lenses. The flaw with this is show me a current generation 15mm M series Leica lens to compare it with. No?? hmmmm how does it compare with an earlier series 15mm M series? Oh thats right there isnt one and never been one, so how can he claim its not up to the current generation? I can compare a Leica R 21mm to Nikkor 55mm f2.8 too, and guess what the Nikon has greater edge to edge sharpness, of course it does but thats an unfair comparison isnt it? Compare the Voigtlander 12mm with other 12mm rangefinder lenses, thats real easy, there arent any others. So if you take a few sample shots and you like them get it, there arent any better! Take Care - Joel

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), January 07, 2001.

Just for fun here's a pic from the 12mm Jacksonville Florida

-- Jon Ladd (jonladd@mediaone.net), January 24, 2001.

I have been using the 12/5.6 and also the 15/4.5 (the latter for quite a while now). I am very satisfied with them both, and I would say thay compare quite favourably with my other lenses (including leica lenses, aspherical or not). The 15 is very small and is great to use with the angle finder (very bright, better than the usual plastic finder, expensive though): it is especially useful in crowds or in the street, because you can get very close to people without disturbing them. The 12 is clearly a better make than the 15 (I have a "Cosina" 15, so may be they changed later with the Voigtlander brand name ?), and teh 12 seems to me having less flare, higher contrast, and better crispness in the edges. But I personaly prefer the 15, because : - it is smal and light - the viewfinder of the 12 is very big, and will tend to roll on its front lens whenever laid on a table - and finally the 12 is finally more difficult to use in the open air : if there is sun, you will either have it in the lens (and risk to get flare, which you cannot control through the viewfinder) or get your own shadow in the picture... The angle is so wide that there is little choice between the two problems! And in interiors, f:5.6 is a bit short if you want to photograph people.

I agree with the previous replies that the leicaist opinions about non-leica lenses is sometimes biased ;-) I often use non-leica lenses (e.g. old Nikon "S" lenses) with my M, and get as many good pictures with them -that is: too few!- as I do with leica lenses. My opinion is that what makes a lens good is the amount of times you have used it, with the same film and in similar conditions, so that you get a good knowledge of what it will produce when you press the release... ...But it is so nice to discuss about those technical details that we should not deprive ourselves from doing so ;-))!

Good shooting to you all !

Saadi

-- saadi lahlou (saadi.lahlou@wanadoo.fr), April 03, 2001.