15mm Super Wide Heliar: Which version do you like?

[eleskin]

I have the new version of the 15mm Super Wide heliar. Somehow, I am also attracted to the older one due to it's smaller size. So those of you who have the lens, which one do you like and why? Do any of you have both versions? I am told the optics are the same in both versions.

[kbg32]

I have the older one. It is a hit or miss with this. On film it is great, digitally, most often I think it sucks.

[Tom A]

I have both, the LTM is smaller, but using filters on it is a pain. The later M-coupled version is bigger, but with the 52 mm filter thread and the coupled rangefinder I find that I use that version more. Optically they are the same.
The M-mount version also makes it less likely that your fingers intrude!

[thegman]

Only ever had the earlier version, it was great. The LTM version is a lot cheaper, and the range finder coupling on the new version is entirely unnecessary. If you want filters, then maybe the new version is best, but otherwise, save the money and get the older one.

[whitecat]

The depth of field is so great you might not have to consider the coupled version.

[noimmunity]

Originally Posted by kbg32

I have the older one. It is a hit or miss with this. On film it is great, digitally, most often I think it sucks.

I had the same experience with the old one.

Finally got a coded ZM 18 and have been very happy with that.

[literiter]

I have the older Heliar with the Leica thread mount. I've never tried the M mount.

This is one very nice lens. I think I'll have it for a long time. I managed to find the Voigtlander bubble level and the double shoe bracket that holds the 15mm finder and the level.

The thing works very well.

[santino]

I prefer the old one for some good reasons IMO:

smaller, included finder, M39 (you can use it on your Barnack or M via adaptor), absolutely no need for RF coupling

BUT

filtering is a pain, I use to hold my 72mm filters in front of the lens taking care of avoiding any unecessary flare that might be caused by the filter.

[Benjamin Marks]

I have both and I like them both. I find their optical quality identical with the nudge in usability going to the M-mount version. Just to keep things in perspective: it used to be that you had to spend multi-$$$ to get a Hologon or similar ultrawide. The lens is nothing short of revolutionary in terms of changing the way folks think about the role of this kind of seeing in their photography. As for digital, I think that Cornerfix is a must with the lens, but the fact that there is light fall off with a lens of this design and price doesn't bother me. Cornerfix is a nifty little program and easy to use.

Edit: I will say that the tiny size and light weight of the LTM version make it a no-brainer when I pack a camera bag for a trip. For those of us who see the world primarily as a 35mm or 50mm lenses' FOV it provides a very different perspective at almost no cost in weight or clutter. With digital, I don't even take a finder, preferring to estimate-shoot-and-review.

[santino]

a bit off topic but how does the 12mm Heliar compare to the 15mm?

Is there any "serious" comparison out there??

[Benjamin Marks]

The 12 is a stop slower and, for me, harder to use. If I could only have one, I'd choose the 15. I think to answer the question about "serious" competition, we'd have to know what matters most to you.

There's a Leica 18mm lens for $3,195
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...spherical.html

and there is an 18mm Zeiss Distagon for $1,340
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ngle_18mm.html

I guess those are pretty serious.

[fbf]

I like the new version. I rarely use the focus but the filter is a big plus for me.

[santino]

thats why I put serious in ""

is there significant light fall off compared to the 15mm? does it render nearly as good at 5,6 as the 15mm does ?

[kbg32]

Originally Posted by santino

a bit off topic but how does the 12mm Heliar compare to the 15mm?

Is there any "serious" comparison out there??

I think the 12 is much better. I get "quite acceptable" results with it digitally. Much, much better then the 15.

[Benjamin Marks]

Seriously, though the 12 is just too wide for me. I feel like mine came with an "include your thumb" filter. A personal failing, I am sure . . . but still.

[Benjamin Marks]

Originally Posted by santino

thats why I put serious in ""

is there significant light fall off compared to the 15mm? does it render nearly as good at 5,6 as the 15mm does ?

If you send me your e-mail address off line, I will send you images this weekend of an interior shot on an M9, uncorrected at f:5.6, with both lenses and you can decide for yourself. When you e-mail be sure to advise whether there is a size limit on incoming e-mails.

Ben Marks

e-mail:benmarks2003 at yah** dot c@m

[bigeye]

Most of my filters are 77mm to cover different cameras. The 12mm's filter adapter fits the ltm 15mm nicely with heat-shrink tubing over its clamp band. The IIIf is pretty much dedicated to this lens, one of my favorites.

Charlie

[santino]

Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks

If you send me your e-mail address off line, I will send you images this weekend of an interior shot on an M9, uncorrected at f:5.6, with both lenses and you can decide for yourself. When you e-mail be sure to advise whether there is a size limit on incoming e-mails.

Ben Marks

e-mail:benmarks2003 at yah** dot c@m

thank you
Unfortunately my mail account is pretty limited by 5 MBs per mail.
Maybe you could just send me a crop of the center of the image and one of the border of both lenses?

[Rob-F]

Originally Posted by kbg32

I have the older one. It is a hit or miss with this. On film it is great, digitally, most often I think it sucks.

There is an earlier thread in which people say the 15 is just great on the M8. Now it apparently sucks. I have thought about getting one for my M8.2. I'd like to avoid making a mistake, so could I see in more detail what the objections are?

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by Rob-F

There is an earlier thread in which people say the 15 is just great on the M8. Now it apparently sucks. I have thought about getting one for my M8.2. I'd like to avoid making a mistake, so could I see in more detail what the objections are?

A butter knife shouldn't but can be used to cut steak. I think some people want the same sharpness out of a butter knife when they're used to the steak knife.

That being said, I think my 15mm CV Heliar LTM works very well on my M8 if I don't have the adapter coded when not using an UV/IR blocking filter on it.

[Peter Wijninga]

I have the newer one...ease of use...great results and I used it quite often.

[baycrest]

The Older version requires less pp and responds very well to Cornerfix on either the M8 or M9.

The newer version has the advantage of being coupled, but doesn't respond to Cornerfix as well. I find I really need to overexpose the newer version by more than one stop, otherwise I'm still stuck with some red discoloration on the left hand side of the photo, sometimes.

In the end, I find, I'd rather have a focused picture (newer version), so I reach for the newer version. YMMV

[Eric T]

I have the older screw mount lens and love it. I don't need rangefinder coupling on such a wide lens. I get great results with a Leica M8 and this lens. Haven't used it much with my film rangefinders but I will give it a try.

[ChrisLivsey]

No comparison again I'm afraid. My original 15mm usually lives on an M2 and is exciting to use, no issues. I just don't get a kick out of 20mm on the M8. I should use it more. I usually shoot B/W so the UV filter issue doesn't get in the way. I find it a great lens. Took it off the M2 today for a shot to post, straight jpeg out of the M8 @f5.6 640ASA.




Grade II listed terrace at Lytham UK Warton Street

[ChrisLivsey]

Just posted the last and noted we were having a good sunset so here is a colour. A bit noisy as the M8 doesn't go high very well but I think does it gracefully.