Voigtlander 12/5.6 Asph... opinions?

[john_chan2]

Anyone have any experience with this recently introduced super-wide angle lens? It seems to have gotten some good press but I'm concerned with aperture performance as Erwin Puts seems to think the only useable aperture on the 15mm is 5.6 (for acceptable image quality).

I'm definitely interested in the 12mm (seeing as the price is right and I like not having to buy a finder). I've always thought that Leica's 21mm finder was a rip-off as it is cheap and flimsy compared to the 12mm finder (metal).

 

<p>

 

Opinions? (Bad or good).

 

<p>

 

BTW. Thanks for the help on the 35mm Summicron CLA.

 

<p>

 

Merry Xmas!!!

 

<p>

 

John Chan

[leonid_kotlyar1]

Hi . I've been using the lens on an m2 for almost two months .

Metering ( handheld ) takes a while to get used to in some cases

because of the wide coverage , but other than that I have been

surprised by the sharpness , eveness and lack of distortion of the

lens ( I use apertures 5,6 to 11 , never tried the others yet ). My

only complaint would be that the viewfinder is too big , which makes

stuffing it in your backpack a bit risky .

[john_chan2]

Hi there,

 

<p>

 

Do you notice alot of barrel distortion with the 12 mm lens (kinda a

dumb question I know) and also, is there a lot of light fall-off at

5.6?

 

<p>

 

Thanks,

[jay_.]

First of all, f/5.6 might be the 15mm Heliar's peak aperture (the

lens' "sweet spot" so-to-speak) but it is certainly not the only

usable aperture. Mr. Puts is a knowledgeable, dedicated and

enthusiastic Leicaphile and his efforts are to be lauded and

appreciated. It is too bad he is the only one around like him

because by default his opinions, and that's what they are, have

become almost gospel. I have never read a single quantitative,

numerical piece of data from his tests. Despite his vast knowledge

of optical theory, his reviews amount to one man's conclusions drawn

from his own observation of his own photographs with his own eyes. In

a word: subjective. And in many cases his opinions of a lens he has

tested only briefly run contrary to the experience of photographers

who have owned that lens for years and used it extensively. If the

12mm is anything like the 15mm (an unlikely coincidence)it should be

one heck of a lens. At roughly double the 15mm's price, the 12mm is

not in the same bargain bin, so if I were considering this lens (I am

not; 15mm is wide enough for me)I would want to use it myself before

I bought it.

[silverfish1]

FYI, the October 1999 issue of Popular Photography (pg.101) published

resolution tests for the 15mm/4.5 and at f:4.5, center was 96L/mm and

edge was 57L/mm. Same at f:5.6. At f:8, center was 85L/mm and edge

was 54L/mm. At f:11, center was 68L/mm and edge was 50L/mm. Light

fall off noted at all apertures.

There are of course metal versions of the 21 and 28 Leitz optical

finders though my experience is that they are more susceptible to

impact damage than the resin. The resin designs have an offset in the

shoe aligning more on lens axis than the older metal designs. The

Leitz viewfinders have framelines that incorporate lead in as well as

parallax for near focus. These features are sorely missed on the

Bessa Voightlander optical finders. It comes down to how much or how

little information you need in optical finder for extremely wide

angle finders. Sometimes you get what you pay for.

[albert_smith]

John,

 

<p>

 

I posted some information from SHUTTERBUG magazine when it reviewed

the 12mm lens. I won't repeat everything, but article did have some

LP/mm for the lens wide open, and it does seem very usable. Go to

this thread to read the post, and possibly try to locate the specific

issue at the library to check out the shots.

 

<p>

 

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004220

[andrew_schank]

I shot some indoor photos with the 15 wide open and they were very

sharp and contasty-surprisingly so I might add. I think it is all a

matter of degrees here, but the lens is certyainally "useable" at

other apertures than f5.6. I also didn't have any problem with poor

corner illumination, maybe becasue I shot negative film (Fuji 800)

and the prints made don't go to the full frame. I 'd probably notice

it more with slide film. By the way, when I used the 15mm, I just

left the Minolta CLE on auto and shot away and all the exposures

turned out fine.

[silverfish1]

Just to follow up, When you consider that a gradiant neutral density

filter is necessary to correct the light fall off in the Zeiss

Hologon 15mm that was what you had before the Bessa Voightlander

15mm, a little fall off is more than acceptable. With the 21mm or

28mm (or other) Leitz or Leica optics, what you are paying for is the

freedom from or negligible vignetting or fall-off. Also as spartan as

they are, the viewfinders for the Bessa Voightlander system beat the

Canon VFs that were available for the earlier 19mm , 25mm, and 28mm

lens for a rangefinder system.

[jon_ladd1]

I have the 12 and the 15 voigtlander lenses and they do act a bit

differently. I personally think there is very very little light

falloff with the 12. Jan 2001 Popular Photography's "hands on test"

with the lens claims 1/10 f stop edge and corner falloff but 2.65

percent pincushion distortion. I tend to agree with this assesment

though I have nothing more that picts to look at. On the other hand

this is a really wide lens and the corner distortion is what I

expected. It really has very little light falloff and may even be

less than the 15. I use both lenses at f5.6 or 8, most tests claim

sharpness falls off above that. Besides, these lenses focus from 1.5

meters to infinity at that f8. Its pretty much point and shoot, just

adjusting shutter speed.

I find the 15 more practical (strictly personal preference) than the

12 and think its the best bang for the buck. The plastic shelled

finder works fine and its elements are glass. I wish the 15 lens

could mount a filter like the 12 though. The double shoe spirit level

helps a lot also.

Note: Buy the case for the lens/finder for either of these lenses,

they are worth it.

[joel_matherson]

I agree with Jay in that when you read reviews by "avid" Leica users

you really shouldnt take it at its word. I work for a large

photographic retail outlet in Australia and its my experience that

Leica owners do alot of substantiating that all that extra money has

been worth while. It sometimes borders on obscession sometimes. And

usually you have to pander to that to sell any Leica equipment. I

have visited many a Leica site and muse myself with many of them

saying they never would even consider another brand of lens they

arent as good. Many fail to realise that all R series cameras (except

the R8) use old Minolta XD technology. Zoom lenses like the 70 - 210

R & 35 - 70 R were made by minolta and the 28 to 70 was made by sigma!

Its clear that any rival to the leica m series will be down trodden

by the most devoted leica owners. I have read Mr Puts review of the

Voigtlander lenses and to me it comes across as Leica propganda. He

concluded for example that the lenses he tested (not the 12mm but the

15mm) that they werent up to the "current generation" of Leica

lenses. The flaw with this is show me a current generation 15mm M

series Leica lens to compare it with. No?? hmmmm how does it compare

with an earlier series 15mm M series? Oh thats right there isnt one

and never been one, so how can he claim its not up to the current

generation? I can compare a Leica R 21mm to Nikkor 55mm f2.8 too,

and guess what the Nikon has greater edge to edge sharpness, of

course it does but thats an unfair comparison isnt it? Compare the

Voigtlander 12mm with other 12mm rangefinder lenses, thats real easy,

there arent any others. So if you take a few sample shots and you

like them get it, there arent any better! Take Care - Joel

[jon_ladd1]

Just for fun here's a pic from the 12mm

<a

href="http://www.jacksonville.net/~jonladd/Jax12mm.jpg">Jacksonville

Florida</a>

[s.lahlou]

I have been using the 12/5.6 and also the 15/4.5 (the latter for

quite a while now). I am very satisfied with them both, and I would

say thay compare quite favourably with my other lenses (including

leica lenses, aspherical or not). The 15 is very small and is great

to use with the angle finder (very bright, better than the usual

plastic finder, expensive though): it is especially useful in crowds

or in the street, because you can get very close to people without

disturbing them. The 12 is clearly a better make than the 15 (I have

a "Cosina" 15, so may be they changed later with the Voigtlander

brand name ?), and teh 12 seems to me having less flare, higher

contrast, and better crispness in the edges. But I personaly prefer

the 15, because :

- it is smal and light

- the viewfinder of the 12 is very big, and will tend to roll on its

front lens whenever laid on a table

- and finally the 12 is finally more difficult to use in the open

air : if there is sun, you will either have it in the lens (and risk

to get flare, which you cannot control through the viewfinder) or get

your own shadow in the picture... The angle is so wide that there is

little choice between the two problems! And in interiors, f:5.6 is a

bit short if you want to photograph people.

 

<p>

 

I agree with the previous replies that the leicaist opinions about

non-leica lenses is sometimes biased ;-) I often use non-leica lenses

(e.g. old Nikon "S" lenses) with my M, and get as many good pictures

with them -that is: too few!- as I do with leica lenses. My opinion

is that what makes a lens good is the amount of times you have used

it, with the same film and in similar conditions, so that you get a

good knowledge of what it will produce when you press the release...

...But it is so nice to discuss about those technical details that we

should not deprive ourselves from doing so ;-))!

 

<p>

 

Good shooting to you all !

 

<p>

 

Saadi