This was shot about 2 inches away from the aquarium glass, full frame, uncropped.

f4.5 about 1/8sec handheld.

Not much camera blur but how about distortion at the corners? This lens has really nice color and tone..if used suitably.

Comments?

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 06, 2002

Answers

this lens is next on my list to buy. much more flexible than the fixed aper. hologon.

any more photos and comments appreciated.

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 06, 2002.

Just recently found one mint for $300 shipped with M mount. Looks like I did good. Thanks!

-- John Abela (jamriman@yahoo.com), April 06, 2002.

Edge distortion is a trait, it seems, exhibited by most ultra-wides. Assuming your question to be, "Is the distortion of the 15mm VC excessive?", I'd say no - particularly considering the price.

For comparison, I did a series of informal tests of a couple of Nikon ultra-wides recently, and found the distortion present in their "reasonably priced" 20mm lens to far exceed that of the 14mm lens costing well over a thousand dollars more. This image from the 15mm VC lens is about the same, distortion-wise, as that displayed by the 14mm Nikon lens. Thus, I'd say it seems like an excellent buy if you like the ultra-wide look, or can manage the distorition through composition.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), April 06, 2002.

Nice one Travis!

To bad that swimmer got in the shot, maybe he was lookin' for his head...

Corner distortion. It is impossible for a wide lens to NOT distort the shape of objects at the corners. Remember, even Scotty found a way to mix matter and anti-matter after saying "It canna be done!". In this case tho, on flat film, with a flat print the objects in the corners will be distorted, so you may consider this a harder problem than mixing matter and anti-matter becasue it canna be done.

However... having said that, how well the image looks in the corners is another item all together. A good wide lens, well corrected in the corners will hold sharp, and keep the contrast up.

You'll need to shoot some more critical material in order to judge the coners fairly.

Did I say I liked that shot? Well done!

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), April 06, 2002.

I think, in response to Marc's thread regarding "Does a talent..." and the run of recent worthless pictures on this forum the above picture is in contrast, an example of a very worthy and useful picture illustrating the marvellous 15mm VC lens.

With specific regard to the distortion question, I say if it is there so what? What other lens could enable you to take this type of picture with such good results for so little outlay?

It positively sparkles! A 18x12 print would leap right out at you!

I agree about the colour and tone of this lens, some pictures I took in Provence last year (on NPH 400) were almost polarised they were so vibrant.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), April 06, 2002.

It is difficult to judge distortion from an unfamiliar subject. Do not forget that super wides will give a different rendition of objects in the corners than in the center. This is not the distortion that is considered an optical aberration but just a result of cramming all that vista in. The easiest way to check for distortion (optical aberration) is to photograph a straight line through the centre of the frame. Any distortion present should be readily apparent.

Another common problem with super wides is smearing in the corners. Fortunately it is much easier to design and build quality super wides for a rangefinder camera than a SLR.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@shaw.ca), April 06, 2002.

When I was kid, I had dreams just like that the night after I saw the original Jaws movie.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 06, 2002.

An interesting experiment with regard to this type of "distortion" in this lens is the view through the finder. The "distortion" visible in the pix doesn't show up at all in the finder, but why? If you look at the edges you'll see that the finder really has a bit of "fish-eye" to it, and that permits it to retain the natural perspective at the corners. However, if you want to pull that round-edged view through the finder out to a straight-sided rectangle, imagine how it would stretch objects in the corners--just like the lens does. It's what you have to swallow to make a lens that makes straight lines straight near the edge.

That said, I found the "review" earlier of the various 21s by Andy Piper gave some real food for thought--I never realized that there could be a design choice between the relative sizes of objects near the edge compared to the center with theoretically identical focal length lenses.... actually, I'm not sure I still believe it. But it does make one wonder if it would be possible to juggle the relationships of the projected image to somehow minimize the apparent distortions of a lens such as the 15mm.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 06, 2002.

Looks like about the normal amount of corner object-stretching (perhaps not really "distortion") for such a wide lens.

That's a real zinger of a photo. Well done!

-- John Hicks (jhicks31@bellsouth.net), April 06, 2002.

I'd say the usual distortion of round and/or spherical objects near the corners is present, judging by the assymetrical shape of the vase at the lower left. Otherwise, the tendency of an extreme wide-angle to alter the shape of objects near the corners is well disguised by the placement and indefinite shapes of the objects in the other 3 corners.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 07, 2002.

Brillant color! I'm surprised no one has mentioned the distortion from viewing into an aquarium filled with water. Try a scene that doesn't look through water to compare...

This, or the 50mm? I swore I wouldn't buy anything new for a while. Argh.

-- TS (tsesung@yahoo.com), April 07, 2002.

I first thought that the 21/4 was next, but it may be the 15/4.5 now. Great shot.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 10, 2002.