Which is best quality voigtlander wide angle?

Ian, the picture of the house in the field is really good. It looks like an opening scene for a Hitchcock movie.

Yang.., Ian, thanks for those terrific WA images.

Dear Mark,

 

I'm slightly puzzled by 'near-professional' and 'unpredictable'.

 

For the former, what are the pictures to be used for? Publication? Prints? Surely the quality is either professional or it isn't.

 

For the latter, what happens that you don't expect, i.e. what is 'unpredictable'?

 

At the kind of aperture you can afford to use on a tripod, i.e. f/8 or so, which Voigtlander lens you use shouldn't matter much. I own 15-21-28 and have used 12-25. They are all adequate for professional photography on 35mm. Of course if you want more quality a bigger format than 35mm makes sense.

 

I've also used (and tested for Shutterbug) all current ZM lenses from 15 to 50mm. They're fine too.

 

There's a 'quality plateau' above which the skill of the photographer matters a lot more than the lens quality, and all the Voigtlander lenses are above it.

 

Try to find a copy of 'Interiors' from the Pro Lighting series (for more information on the books, see the 'Books' section of www.rogerandfrances.com).

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

So many different points-of-view! The thing is we all have our own ideas of what makes a great photograph and what is acceptable in terms of distortion. Personally I find 28mm about as wide as I want to go because wider lenses usually draw attention to themselves -- you end up looking at a photographic effect rather than the subject-matter and I don't like this. I do own the Color-Skopar 28mm f3.5 and it's a wonderful lens -- you can shoot wide open and get excellent results; I haven't tried the Ultron or any Leica 28mm. I wonder if you have any intentions of scanning your negatives? If so, don't forget you can always get a 28mm then join up a few shots in PS on the occasions that you need a wider view.

"I've also used (and tested for Shutterbug) all current ZM lenses from 15 to 50mm. They're fine too.

 

There's a 'quality plateau' above which the skill of the photographer matters a lot more than the lens quality, and all the Voigtlander lenses are above it."

 

I think some exposure to the 50/2.5 Voigtlander lens would disabuse you of this notion. It's possible I have a bad one, but either way it counsels caution. So far I'm batting 50/50. The 25/4 is pretty good and the 50/2.5 is mediocre to put it charitably. I think it's a good idea to take each lens as an individual and try to find out what it's likely performance will be (just as the poster is doing here). Just don't assume all the Voigtlander lenses are good.

I have the cv 21 and have found it to be excellent. (I also have a 35mm Summicron.) Like all extreme wideangles, there is some vignetting, easily correctable in Photoshop CS2. However, personally, for architectural photography, I would use my 4 x 5, and, for doing what you want, probably a 75mm or 90mm lens. Obviously, a much more expensive, and complicated (not to mention bulkier and heavier) solution, but the perspective controls that are inherent with large format cameras can make a huge difference. Short of going the large format route, get the 21.

be careful when reading reviews, and read them w/ a grain of salt. cameraquest, for instance, gave rave review to Hexar RF.......yeah, lost of bells/whistles but nowhere close to a Leica or even an xpan.

if you already own a pre-AI 24mm, one of Nikon's classics, you can have that adapted

to AI for much less money than buying a new lens. then you can use it on your FM-3a

no problem.

 

also, you can get a 28mm or 35mm PC lens. the nikon ones still run a bit of money.

however, the ukranians at Arsat make a very decent 35mm PC for $200, in nikon

mount, that i've used several times on assignment, for publication, and it's great.

 

if you really want to shoot architecture seriously on a rangefinder, then i agree that

the wider, the better, along with a tripod and a level. Voigtlander's 21mm f/4 should

be fine. The 25mm is a great, cheap lens, too, but doesn't couple to the rangefinder.

though for architecture you will be at or close to infinity most of the time. The 28mm

i think is really not wide enough; leica framelines are not accurate enough to be

really, really precise. you're better off with a SLR 35mm PC rather than a rangefinder

28mm, even though the 28 is wider. the perspective-control of those lenses is great.

 

of course these days you can do perspective control in Photoshop, (or by tilting your

easel in the darkroom), but that's cheating, isn't it?

 

finally, with architecture, more important than your equipment are the lighting

conditions. buildings and interiors change in mood dramatically depending on how

they're lit. selective over- and under-exposure will also give you certain "looks."

"Surely the quality is either professional or it isn't."

 

It starts our amateur and when you actually sell it maybe then it become porfessional? LOL

Most all the points offered are well taken. I try not to go into too much detail with my post because the question premise can get so long it may be even more boring for you all to read. To address Roger Hicks'comments/question about what I mean by "near professional", I work in the museum design field. Some of my images are used in promotional materials: sometimes on the web, pamphlets, mailers, sometimes large prints. Sometimes maximum resolution is not critical, but composition, evenness of performance and low distortion is almost always important to me. Because I am promoting my own work, I can define the professionalism of the photography myself because I am not selling the photography; I'm promoting what is in the photograph. When I say the 15 Heliar can be "unpredicatable", I mean that it is so wide that it can be tricky for me to make absolutely sure that the camera is level (even for me using a spirit level-also consider that stuff isn't always plumb. I ususally judge by a vertical near the edge of the accessory viewfinder or camera viewfinder), so my results with the 15 can be hit and miss, which is o.k. for fun stuff, but not when I am on location out of town, perhaps not to return. I also find that it is difficult for me to predict whether the effect of extended perspective at the sides of the image with the 15 will work with the composition of the picture, and I am not always happy with the results. Also, the challenges of filling the foreground with so wide an angle are another issue. I thought a 21 or 25 might be easier, but that is based on my SLR experience with a 20 and 24. The FM3a and 20 AIS or my F with pre-AI 24 work great, but I would like to have just the M6 in my briefcase and not both cameras. I'd like to control the costs, and I'd like to stick with 39mm filter if possible, so that's why I mentioned these three lenses. Its fun to ponder whether it would be possible for me to meet my "near professional" needs with this tiny kit. Finally, I accept the idea that all VC wides are great if enough people say it, but things are never quite that simple, and I wondered if there might be a consensus about which one(s) compares most favorably with the Leica and ZM models, using the 35 cron Aspherical as the reference for technical excellence (for the sake of the post). Thank you all. I really enjoy the forum and find it stimulating and fun.

Mark: Since you are quite serious about architectural photography using 35mm, and you do own a Nikon body, I feel that the 28mm PC-Nikkor belongs in your bag, even though there are uses for wider lenses. I picked up a 28mm PC from KEH a couple of years ago, and, as an architectural photo-amateur, would not want to part with it.

 

I think that your 24mm Nikkor should remain in your outfit as a valuable architectural lens also. Mine is an AI-converted, and is very adequate. But the slightly longer focal length of the 28mm helps to avoid pulling the exterior features of a building out of shape, a thing that is more likely with a 24mm or wider. Anything wider than 24mm tends to be a bit unnatural, albeit dramatic.

 

The 35mm PC-Nikkor is a good lens also, and has enough rise to get in the tops of many buildings. But I find that when I have raised the lens enough to include the top (in landscape position), I often begin to lose the base of the building, or the sidewalk in front. The 28mm has enough coverage to (usually) avoid this.

 

So I think the 24mm has a place in your work, but the 28mm PC should probably be added. Lenses wider than 24mm are fine for cramped interior shots.

Thank you Rob. I remain enchanted with the prospect of a PC

lens for my Nikons. Because my needs requiring the highest

technical standards are most often for interiors, I have generally

been able to raise the camera height to 6 feet or so to reach the

midline of the interior space and so I imagine I could do what I

need for that without a PC, BUT, I have still found myself in many

situations wishing I had a PC lens for recreation and other

situations, and I think I would, as you suggest, gravitate to a 28

PC vs the 35

David Griffin: You must have a bad one. I have one and it is fine. What is the problem? Resolution? Vignetting? Distortion? Poor focus? I'm not arguing: I'm intrigued to know.

 

Mark: Thanks for the further explanation. I fully take your point about over-long posts, and thank you for your previous consideration. Living in rural France I also fully take your point about non-plumb walls.

 

I'd certainly go for the 21, given what you say. I have to say that I have not compared the 21/4 with the aspheric Leica equivalent but I used to have the last-generation pre-aspheric 21/2.8 and when the latter was stolen I didn't bother to replace it, partly because I don't use it much, partly for financial reasons, and partly because if I want real quality with an ultra-wide I use larger formats (especially Alpa). But the 21/4 shots compare perfectly well with the old 21 shots.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Roger Hicks: Focus is soft. And I've prowled the net since looking for reviews and I find a lot of "underwhelming" reviews of this lens and no good ones. Lots of good reviews for the 50/1.5 Nokton but none of the 50/2.5 color skopar. So maybe you have a particularly good one. Erwin Puts seems to say that decentering and mechanical quality control is something of a varying problem with the voigtlanders. I don't really know. I guess I could send it to Cosina but my netsurfing convinced me that it wouldn't likely help.

 

I originally bought this from Cameraquest but when I brought the problem up he kind of indicated that I was on my own. I like his site but my next Voigtlander lens (25/4) I bought (after a lot of net surfing for reviews) from B&H Photo on the theory that they would allow me to return it for a substitute if it turned out to have the same kinds of problems. The 25/4 seems to be ok though.

Thank you Roger. That's encouraging about the VC 21 vs the pre-aspheric Leica 21. I've read other good things about it from many here, but its good to get the direct comparison. That would give me rangefinder coupling, small, staying with 39mm and the tinyest bit less-wide than my 20, which I would like.

Mark, I have used the 28 Elmarit extensively; I have now just got a 24 ASPH which I am

really looking forward to using. Often I want the most natural perspective and least

possible distortion. Barrel distortion on ultrawides really detracts from a decent image,

though this should be well controlled on just about all RF lenses. But the biggest

difficulties controlling "keystoning" or converging verticals. You could try a double hotshoe

with a bubble level; otherwise aim at an object at the ame height as the lens. As for

Voigtlaender, you really need a rangefinder-coupled lens for any critical work. Relying only

on DOF is too hit and miss. So that cuts out the 25; I'd go for the 21 or 28. I believe

Voigtlaender lenses do have a different colour renditon to Leica.<div></div>

Mark, I have used the 28 Elmarit extensively; I have now just got a 24 ASPH which I am

really looking forward to using. Often I want the most natural perspective and least

possible distortion. Barrel distortion on ultrawides really detracts from a decent image,

though this should be well controlled on just about all RF lenses. But the biggest

difficulties controlling "keystoning" or converging verticals. You could try a double hotshoe

with a bubble level; otherwise aim at an object at the same height as the lens. As for

Voigtlaender, you really need a rangefinder-coupled lens for any critical work. Relying only

on DOF is too hit and miss. So that cuts out the 25; I'd go for the 21 or 28. I believe

Voigtlaender lenses do have a different colour renditon to Leica.<div></div>

Which film? Astia 100F seems to work well.<div></div>

One more.<div></div>

Good pictures David. Thank you for sending. The first one with the stair and the rock is particularly noteworthy to me as you captured the essential design with only a 28.