Recentely I have bought a mervellous 24 asph. for my Leica 6 TTL. But sometimes I need something more wide... Do you think that a 21mm may be enough? But it costs a lot and what about the problem of vignetting? Is it not better to buy a 15 or a 12mm from Voigtlander? Has anyone of you out there have one, in oder to explain me how they work? For the few time I need a more wide angle, I do not think a fantastic 21mm of Leice (for the crumble summ of 2200 €uro) is the best buy. What do you think? Thank you for your gentle answers. Joe

-- joe pelizza (breglumasi@hotmail.com), January 27, 2002

Answers

How about the Voigtländer 21mm?

I've got a 50 'cron and a 35 'cron ASPH, and want something wider but don't want to spend the £££ on a Leica 21 (or carry the weight) so am thinking of the Voigtänder (or maybe the Kobalux: this is supposed to have remarkably little vignetting for a 2.8).

Though maybe the 21 is a bit too close to the 24.

-- Nigel Bowley (nigel.bowley@btinternet.com), January 27, 2002.

Hello Joe,

I´am using the 15 mm Heliar a lot since I got about a year ago. It´s a wonderful lens. You make no mistake in getting one.

I never wanted to use third party lenses, but with this lens you get a product which comes close to pretty good LEICA- lenses. Looking for a 15 mm lens in the LEICA-M-stable you had to go a long way back into the 70ies when you hit the 15 ZEISS-HOLOGON. The biggest drawback with this one: no metering with the M5/ M6. And before the advent of the V/C superwideangles this was a very, very expensive s/h item ...

There is hardly any better lens for your money out there. Use it if it suites your kind of photos together with the bubble/ level and the doubleshoe adaptor. It is much easier to achieve straight horizons and buildings with these (but not so cheap) accessories.

Best regards

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), January 27, 2002.

The 12mm is a pretty demanding lens .There is quite a bit of light fall-off and distortion at the edges . It's not a point and shoot lens , more like a large format camera , you really have to think about what you're shooting to get decent results . The 15mm , otoh , has no such problems .

-- leonid kotlyar (kotlyarl@mail.nih.gov), January 27, 2002.

here's the link to a 12mm picture :

www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=513052

-- leonid kotlyar (kotlyarl@mail.nih.gov), January 27, 2002.

For the money, you can't beat that voightlander 15mm, but it is VERY wide, needing some discretion in its use. I have one and it was my ONLY true wide lens for about a year until just recently. I now have a 28mm. However, I've found the 15mm to be dangerously contrasty.

-- Tom Nutter (tmnphotos@erols.com), January 28, 2002.

I have the 15mm and the positives=real small,great viewfinder,inexpensive,cool view/extreame near far relationships.Negatives=slow speed,not a Leica quality lens to be sure,I like it for color better than B+W ...resolution and contrast not up to Leica standards.The Leica snap is not there in B+W.But nice to have this lens when you need it or want the really wide view.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), January 28, 2002.

I think you've got the right idea, suspecting that the 21mm is almost the same as the 24mm you now have. The 15mm Voigtlander is a good and inexpensive lens, though, and a logical step from the 24mm.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), January 28, 2002.

The 15 is a great lens with remarkably little distortion, for a super-wide. Here is an interior shot with the 15 I used for my neighborhood associations annual house tour photo last year:

http://www.pbase.com/image/1015885

-- Robert Marvin (marvbej@earthlink.net), January 28, 2002.

A 21mm is too close to 24mm to be of much use. I would consider the 15mm.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 28, 2002.

21mm is too close to 24mm . . . hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with that. I used a 20mm together with a 24mm with my Nikon bodies, and two 21mm lenses (Leica & Voigtlander) with a 25mm (Voigtlander) lens, and I'm thinking of getting the Leica 24mm eventually. To me, at least, there's sufficient difference between the two focal lengths.

Anyway, I had a Voigtlander 15mm lens for a while (for architectural photography), but it produced images with such distinctive perspective characteristics that, after a while, they all looked the same to me, and I got bored with it and sold it to a friend. What I also didn't like about the 15mm lens was that I always had to stand on something to try to keep the film plane parallel to the building surface in order to minimize the converging- line effect. In addition, I had to be careful with people in the image frame--if they're too near the edges, they would appear grotesquely stretched. Don't get me wrong, the Voigtlander 15mm is a remarkable lens. The mentioned problems are typical of all ultra- wideangle lenses, and so long as you're aware of the lens' inherent shortcomings, you should be able to make the best out of it. I just find the 21mm more manageable for my purpose.

The new owner of my 15mm lens, who's an experienced architectural photographer, can't be happier with it, as he scans the pictures taken with the lens into his computer and makes perspective correction--both vertically and horizontally--using Photoshop. The result is some of the most amazing perspective-corrected ultra-wide images I've ever seen!

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), January 28, 2002.

I have a friend who bought a 15mm Voigtlander for use on his sailboat, where quarters are tight. I'm planning on taking mine on a sailboat trip this summer! The 15 is fairly easy to use.

But, the 12 is tricky, with significantly greater light falloff as one of the negative points.

I use film with a wide exposure latitude with both. I like Ektachrome SW and Scala with the 15mm. Provia seems too contrasty to me with that lens. With 12mm, 200 speed print film seems to work well and the brightness in the center is barely detectable.

The 12mm is quite a lens but the 15 is more generally useful. Even there, one has to be careful of film choice and exposure, not to mention composition. Just don't let your spouse wander into the edge of the picture (and show him or her the photo) or you will hear loud noises of protest.

-- Tom (therbert@miami.edu), January 28, 2002.

I'd agree with much of what's said here, but for me, the 15 is the tricky lens. If your horizon's off center, or the camera is just a little tilted, the "Mercator projection" quality of the extreme wide angle takes hold and ruins the shot. I find my 21 much more forgiving (and faster! f/2.8 vs f/4.5). The 12 would just exacerbate the problems I have with the 15, so I've never lusted for it.

I find, that for some shots (mainly interiors and sunsets) the 15 can't be beat. At f/8, it's superb, with minimal flare, and extraordinary sharpness. It compares very favorably with my 21 asph elmarit optically, but not in build quality.

-- Tom Bryant (boffin@gis.net), January 28, 2002.

Dear Joe,

The Voigtlander 2//4 is a great little lens; besides being fairly inexpensive it is a good performer. It doesn't beat the 21/2.8 ASPH of course but it is better than the old Super A.'s which are very expensive. A great companion to the 24/2.8 when you need just a little bit more.

I like my 15/4.5. It is a lens that you do need to get used to because it gives you so much information--and perspective distortion. I always think of leaving it behind because of that, always take it, and always end up using it more than I expected. The eye level finder is not great. the waist level VC finder with 15mm frame is excellent.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), January 28, 2002.

Check out a series I did with the 14mm f/2.8L USM on an EOS. I call it Semiotics

If that isn't wide enough for you, the 12mm Voigtlander lens might be just the thing. And if that isn't wide enough, try a Widelux.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), January 28, 2002.

I wouldn't travel without my 15 mm Heliar. It's wonderful. Below is a photo from my web site (or link if the paste doesn't work) that I took with the 15 about a year ago. While this small image is not that clear, in the original transparency, you can read the title of the store at the far right edge ("Books &"). This lens may not test to Leica standards, but it's sharper than any extreme wide angle SLR lens I ever used.

http://www.e-photoart.com/Media/Photos/35mm/Amsterdam.jpg

-- Robert Jones (mail@visionsurgery.net), January 29, 2002.

(I just read about how to post an image, so this is for the preceeding post from iPhotoArt. My apologies if this doesn't work.)

-- Robert Jones (mail@visionsurgery.net), January 29, 2002.

Hello Robert,

nice shot this, I especially like the reflection of the clouds and of the left row of houses in the water. The camera seemes to have been carefully levelled when shooting. At least the corner of the left building looks pretty parallel to the frame. Shouldn´t this automatically apply also to the right part ? How comes ??

Best regards

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), January 30, 2002.

If the lens was slightly tilted upwards and then adjusted to align the LH side of the frame with the buildings, the RH side would be tilted outwards.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 30, 2002.

Rob,

You're correct. I primarily aligned the left side. These shots were handheld, but I rested on the handrails of a bridge. The Heliar 15 mm lens cover 110 degrees and does have some peripheral distortions. I try to leave the f-stop at 8 and sometimes 11.

-- Robert Jones (mail@visionsurgery.net), January 30, 2002.