15mm Heliar III compared with SWC
Old 08-04-2019   #1
ajtruhan
Registered User
 
ajtruhan is offline
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 136
15mm Heliar III compared with SWC

Does anyone have a comparison of Voigtländer 15mm 4.5 version iii for e mount on an a7ii compared to the SWC? I’m trying to replace my SWC and wonder how the lens performs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2019   #2
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,897
The SWC can not be replaced by any camera or lens.
__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2019   #3
ajtruhan
Registered User
 
ajtruhan is offline
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
The SWC can not be replaced by any camera or lens.
This makes me feel good and bad.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2019   #4
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,897
It seems that the Heliar is corrected for digital sensors. If using such wide angle lenses is meant for a digital camera, then this Heliar may be an excellent choice. It is not equivalent to using the SWC.
__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2019   #5
Gregm61
Registered User
 
Gregm61 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 476
I picked up a version III 15mm Heliar not too long ago. I already had a 18mm f3.8 Super Elmar-M and, on comparing images captured with both on my M262 prefer the image quality, even if not as wide, of the Super Elmar, which is much more consistent into the far corners, with little to no fringing. The Heliar can be downright blurry along the edges. I'd rather have a less wide, better quality image.

Given the option and ability to afford either, I'd pick the SWC over a Heliar every time.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2019   #6
ajtruhan
Registered User
 
ajtruhan is offline
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregm61 View Post
I picked up a version III 15mm Heliar not too long ago. I already had a 18mm f3.8 Super Elmar-M and, on comparing images captured with both on my M262 prefer the image quality, even if not as wide, of the Super Elmar, which is much more consistent into the far corners, with little to no fringing. The Heliar can be downright blurry along the edges. I'd rather have a less wide, better quality image.

Given the option and ability to afford either, I'd pick the SWC over a Heliar every time.
Could I make the argument that corner sharpness is not relevant? To compare to the SWC, the sides would be cropped (even a little off the top and bottom too since it looks like 16mm is the true equivalent.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2019   #7
Gregm61
Registered User
 
Gregm61 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 476
Sure, you could argue anything (LOL), but the lens is sold as a 15mm, and at 15mm the edges are "not good"...

The SWC is great as-is.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2019   #8
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is online now
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajtruhan View Post
Does anyone have a comparison of Voigtländer 15mm 4.5 version iii for e mount on an a7ii compared to the SWC? I’m trying to replace my SWC and wonder how the lens performs.
I have the M mount version and posted some shots (1:1) on a A7RII in this thread.

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...&highlight=SWC

If you put up the square grid in the EVF it gives you perfect 1:1 framing. Just use the middle 4x4 boxes. Also perfect for 3:1 using the middle two rows.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2019   #9
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is online now
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregm61 View Post
I picked up a version III 15mm Heliar not too long ago. I already had a 18mm f3.8 Super Elmar-M and, on comparing images captured with both on my M262 prefer the image quality, even if not as wide, of the Super Elmar, which is much more consistent into the far corners, with little to no fringing. The Heliar can be downright blurry along the edges. I'd rather have a less wide, better quality image.

Given the option and ability to afford either, I'd pick the SWC over a Heliar every time.
Sounds like you had a bad copy. Mine isn't like that.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2019   #10
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajtruhan View Post
Does anyone have a comparison of Voigtländer 15mm 4.5 version iii for e mount on an a7ii compared to the SWC? I’m trying to replace my SWC and wonder how the lens performs.
I haven't used this lens; I had the first version of the CV Heliar 15/4.5 and it was pretty awful at corners and edges. I understand the model III is much improved, but no direct experience.

The closest in FoV and overall look/feel/bokeh I've come to the Hasselblad SWC on 35mm FF (cropped to square) has been the Leitz Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5 on the Leica SL or M-P typ 240. This is essentially a Zeiss Distagon 15mm built to Leica requirements and standards for the R system cameras, so it makes sense that it would image similarly to the Zeiss Biogon on the SWC.

I'm also finding the Voigtländer HyperWide 10mm f/5.6 ASPH when used on the Leica CL (cropped to square) has a great deal of the same character as SWC imagery. (This is a 24Mpixel APS-C sensor and gives the same field of view as the Super-Elmar-R listed above.)

Both of these give a little bit more FoV than the SWC, but the difference is small represented by the orange border in this framing comparison vs the green border:



The sample photo this is based on was made with the Leica CL + 10mm lens. It's not adjusted in any way other than being cropped to square.

The biggest issue with all of these equivalences is that 24x24mm or 16x16mm format are both much smaller than the SWC so there's very little room for the aperture to make much difference in focus zone and diffraction sets in very quickly, killing the sharpness across the board. I don't use the 10mm past f/8, and the 15mm I usually use at f/5.6 to get a feel more similar to the SWC @ f/8-11.

I'm very encouraged by what I see with the Hasselblad X1D using their XCD 21mm lens. The 33x33 mm square format (cropped, of course) is much closer to the SWC original 56x56 and the 21mm lens nets results in about the same FoV as the other two combinations I've been using but has a bit more of the focus zone control that the SWC does. It's not an inexpensive equivalent, and I'm sure it won't be 'identical', but it looks like it's about as close as you can get with currently available all-digital capture equipment.

G
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:06.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.