Nikon 15mm f5.6 QD-C Vs Voigtlander 15mm 4.5

I got a chance to purchased a Nikkor 15mm f5.6 AI'd lens for around

$400 and was wondering if anybody out there have compare it to the

Voigtlander 15mm f4.5. I know its different mount but my point is

that for $400 I can either buy Nikon 15mm lens alone or Voigtlander

15mm with Bessa L body.

 

The reason I ask is that many people complaint about flare problem

with the Nikkor 15mm and I know the Voigtlander 15mm is newer design

with aspherical element and newer coating tech. so for the same

money which is better value? Anybody have a chance to compare or

share their experiance will be appreciated.

If you don't mind carrying an extra body, Voigtlander all the way.

 

By the way, I believe you can get the Voigtlander in Nikon mount as well, you just need a camera with mirror lock-up and an external viewfinder (I wouldn't bother and just get an L and the CV 15).

Hi, dear friend. The VC Wide Heliar Aspherical 15 mm f/ 4,5 it's more speed, more compact, with a more modern optical design, that use aspherical glass surfaces. But, over all, the optical design it's the non retrofocus type, much more distorsion corrected than classic retrofocus optical design of the SLR ultra wide lens. I'm nikon user but i prefer very much the VC option, that i use on Bessa L. At Cameraquest, by Stephen Gandy, you can purchase a special adapter for mount the VC Wide Heliar 15/4,5 on the bayonet of the professional SLRs Nikon F, F2 or F3 (with mirror lock up option). See the relative web site for more information.

Ciao.

 

Vincenzo Maielli Italy

The C-V 15mm lens is:

 

1. Sharper

 

2. Lighter

 

3. With less distortion

 

4. The lens cap (Bessa-L- comes with batteries and a camera strap!) is better and doubles as a film camera.

 

5. Comes with a beautiful viewfinder

 

Why bother comparing it anything else?!

Frank,<br>

<br>

I have a 15/5.6 AI Nikkor. Its a pretty decent lens but

people will likely think you have an imaginary friend because youll

be waving your hand about shielding that bulbous front element

from the sun. Ghost can be particularly troublesome and it does

flare if you like that. It was dynamite in its day. I dont

think Id pay $400.00 for it now though it seems to command

very good prices. Maybe thats because its the Star

Wars lens.<br>

<br>

Here is David Ruethers take on the lens...<br>

<br>

Some sample variation; very low linear distortion;

unexpectedly even center to corner sharpness; very even

illumination (in common with all the Nikkor wides except the 18mm

MF's, the 21mm, and the 35mm f2 MF at wide stops); slightly

yellow color cast compared with other Nikkors; need to open 1/2

stop from meter reading for correct exposure; corners improve

slightly in B & W using yellow, orange, or red filter; best

at f11-16 where sharpness is very good over the whole frame (though

the corners are not bad even at f5.6); see WA zoom comparison

article, listed in index, for more.<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html"

target="_new"><u>http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html</u></a>

<br>

<br>

Bjorn Rorslett does not rate it as well. I dont know how

many samples Bjorn has tested. Maybe his was not the best sample.

Bjorn Rorslett doesnt pull punches and he is surely rating

it against more modern designs...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html"

target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html</u></a>

<br>

<br>

On a DX camera its a quite impractical 24mm replacement. Its

huge in that application and has problems with purple color

fringing against gray skies. The CA can be dealt with fairly well

in software. Since you are only using the center which Bjorn

Rorslett notes is very sharp the major objects are flare, ghost

and the occasional stare from a passerby. Its my widest

lens and pretty decent on the Nikon D2H (but only if your back is

to the sun). The D2X and D200 will probably trash it.<br>

<br>

Im joking about the flare and ghost problems with the 15/5.6

Nikkor but theyre very real. I think $400.00 is high but

then I dont really know. Again its the Star Wars lens

and that may drive the price. I think Ive seen it for $995.95

on KEH.com in the last couple of years. One other minus is there

is no provision for filters with the 15/5.6 Nikkor. It has

yellow, orange and red built in.<br>

<br>

I have no experience with the Voigtlander 15mm f4.5.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

The Voightlander 15mm requires a Nikon body with mirror lockup I believe.

Curious Dave: What do you mean when you refer to the 15mm as the "Star Wars" lens? :)

Thank you all for your generous imputs. I agreed that the VC lens is probably the way to go. I do have an older Nikon F & F2 body with mirror lock up. Size & Weight is alway an issue but carrying two caemra system is not fun. Logic tell me to go with the VC 15mm but that huge round front element of the Nikkor 15mm realy pulls me toward the dark side ;) maybe thats why they call it the Star Wars Lens.

If image quality is of any concern, you would go with the tiny 15mm f/4.5 C-V lens!

Eric, <br>

<br>

The 15/5.6 Nikkor was used for battle scenes in the first Star

Wars movie and I'm sure second and third. I dont know which

version of the lens but it was probably the 15mm f5.6 QD-C. I cant

remember the dates for the lens release or the move release. I

should remember more. There was an very sophisticated computer

controlled dolly. The camera and lens were often rotating as well

as moving to and from the models. The models remained stationary

during the shots. At least thats what I remember.<br>

<br>

There was a presentation on the Discovery Channel showing how the

movie was made some years back. The battle scenes were very

elaborate with many images matted together. Star Wars was a

ground breaking movie in many ways. Part of the magic was the

very imaginative use of this lens and computer control of the

camera.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

I found a mint 15mm AI F5.6 (Does not say QDC but it is the same lens). Center is the sharpest of all lenses I own. Illumination is perfectly even -yellowish color cast -no distortion. The edges get soft, but it is not lack of sharpness, it is due to extreme curvature of field. The edges focus much closer than the center. Can keep side walls in focus in interiors or keep a close up in the sides in focus with the background in center. I would not buy this lens as my only ~15mm, but it is fun to work with. Love the 14 reflections of the sun's rays in each element.

<p>Actually bought the old Nikkor 15mm f5.6 ai, not a QDC but the same lens. Took it to the Queen Califia statue garden. People say this lens can't handle bright lights and that it is not sharp. I want to prove them wrong. :)<br /><img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6162/6184372738_0cba3f5fa4_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="682" /><br /><img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6169/6184372668_bbc05d2153_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="682" /><br />Find the dog<br>

<img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6160/6183852699_3b25a14d75_b.jpg" alt="" width="682" height="1024" /><br /><img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6169/6184372546_a50018684c_b.jpg" alt="" width="682" height="1024" /></p>

<p>:):)</p>

<p>FWIW, the f5,6 lens is quite a bit sharper than my sample of the f3,5 version that I never liked at all.</p>