Voigtlander 15mm Heliar Lens on MP

[joseph_barbano]

Thinking of getting this lens. Any comments? My widest angle lens

currently is my 28mm Elmarit. Thanks.

[jerry_lehrer]

Joe,

 

Ask Al about this lens. You remember him, the guy who takes arms length pictures of himself with this lens. Makes his head look like a rugby ball.

 

Jerry

[madkins]

i just got mine on friday. i've kicked around the idea of getting it for awhile and i'm pretty happy with my purhcase (i'm going to upload a few shots later). there's a bit of distortion, but it's not terrible.

 

for the price, and for the really distinctive perspective that it gives you, i say go for it.

[al_kaplan1]

It's a fun lens! May as well forget using the MP though. Cosina makes a great rear cap with built in TTL light meter and film transport system called the Bessa L ;-)

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

I think a 21mm is more useful. The 15mm is ultra-ultra wide and unless you know what

you're

doing (like Al) it's pretty easy to have poor results. For me, the 21 is as wide as I want to

go. I do have a Canon 14mm but that's for 1.3 & 1.6 magnification digital. If I had a full-

frame Canon I'd never use it on that camera. But ofcourse these opinions are mine, other

opinions will vary. <g>

[andrew robertson]

You'll never know if you like the 15mm if you play it safe and never buy one.

[stuart_richardson]

I found my complaint with the 15mm was not so much the angle of view as the strong

vignetting and frequent underexposure problems I was getting. Since I shoot a lot of slide

film, I didn't like having to fiddle with figuring out exactly how to compensate for a given

scene and bracket every shot. Also, you really have to stop the lens down a lot, so I would

think of it as a 15mm f/8 or f/11 lens, not as a f/4.5. It is all about your pet peeves though.

For me the 21mm is more useful. I still only really use it at f/8 or smaller, but it has less

distortion and less vignetting...the image quality is also better in my opinion. If you don't

NEED 15mm, I think the 21 is a better choice.

[canfred]

You are right on Stuart vignetting and under exposure are uncontrollable. Forget chrome film , distortion was only slight with mine but I decidet to sell it. Strange is, now I miss it and frequently borrow one.By the way forget the Bessa L too.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Andrew--I use to own an 15mm M-Hologon. It just didn't work for me. I think the 21mm

is more useful. I don't really disagree with you, it's just that I think if the widest lens one

has is a 28 that a 21 is better "jump". If the 21 works for you and you have a 15mm 'itch'

go for it by all means. The ofcourse there's always the 12mm.........but that's another story.

<g>

[andrew robertson]

I have an R-D1, and no film Leica or mount compatible camera at this time. The 15 on the

R-D1 plays the part of a 21 (despite the converted length of 22.95mm) for me.

 

So, maybe I'm not the best resource to refer to here.

 

I hope you held on to that M-Hologon - you could make a mint!

[al_kaplan1]

I must have lucked out with my 15mm Heliar. All of my inside shots are wide open at f/4.5 and the focus seems to always be set at one meter, inside and out. Even with the supposed vignetting problem I still end up edge burning most of my prints. Outdoors I'm shooting in the f/8 to f/16 range with ISO 400 film. It might not be Summicron crisp but it's certainly sharp enough for my tastes.

[stuart_richardson]

Al -- I think you make a valid point. I think it is a fine lens for black and white, but if you

shoot a lot of chromes it can just be a total nightmare to correct. Way too many of my shots

turned out like this: <P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/

bridge2.jpg"><P>Granted, the lighting in that shot is utterly miserable, but the 15's

vignetting and lack of punch are the death's knell for the shot. My other lenses were able to

salvage some shots, but the 15mm just couldn't. Or at least I could not get it to work for me.

I am sure it is a great tool in some people's hands (such as your own), but for me I felt like I

was hammering with a screwdriver.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The 15mm Here I got long ago; from a Hong Kong vendor; real cheap; about maybe 250. I mostly use it with high speed asa 800 color print films; sometimes with ole tri-X too. It is a real dinky lens.<BR><BR>Mine is LTM; I am not sure if they all are or not. My next not so wide lens is a 28mm F6 Orion-15. The 15mm is a fun lens for grab shots; it really doesnt need a rangefinder. It focuses with any LTM body I have by scale. One just scale focuses. <BR><BR>It works well on alot of my non Leica bodies such as a Zorki; BUT some zorki bodies have the thread lead in not true; and the lens doesnt line up due at 12 oclock. My VC 15mm on a Leica adapter; Zorki; Fed; or Lennigrad has a real sloppy loose fit; until the flanges mate. Then all is well. It is like the major and minor diameter of the lens are abit smaller than any LTM lens I own. It works perfectly; and alighns at 12 oclock with all my Leica adapters; and about 1/2 of my Russian bodies. Here is what a shot looks like when the lens mates abit before or after 12 oclock; ie NOT straight up. The 15mm has two ears; made to be at the 12 and 6 oclock positions. With a missfit combination; the vignetting is at two corners on mine; like this: <BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/15mm%20VC%20lens/tripods-411.jpg"><BR><BR>cropped section:<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/15mm%20VC%20lens/tripods-412.jpg"><BR>This was shot thru a 1/2" plastic "hockey glass"; only inches away. The distortion at the left is abit of the interaction of the lens and the warped "glass"

[kelly_flanigan1]

The 15mm is cool to photograph the inside of boats and cars

[ben z]

I wouldn't define the 15mm Heliar as a "fun" lens, because I'm not after funhouse mirror effects. I've used it to good results for interiors and certain outdoor shots but not without a lot of thought. The finder is a very rough approximation of composition and shows different distorion effects from the lens. The 15 Super-Elmar I had for my R8 was a lot easier to use, although it was way too huge a combination to find its way into my bag for regular use. With experience I've learned what to look for in the shot that will work with the 15. I also leave it at f/5.6 if at all possible because I find that's its best aperture. <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/3401517">This shot</a> was done with the 15 Heliar, as you can see it is very rectilinear (there was no PS hanky panky done to it, as I needed to to to straighten out shots from my Leica/Sigma 28-70)but heaven help if you tilt it even a little, or get something round (like someone's head) near the edge.

[ben z]

Oops, totally messed up the link. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3401517">Here it is</a>

[kaiblanke]

I have to agree with the others: A 21 is indeed a nice alternative to a 28. I had a 35 as a widest, so I went for the 25 and did not regret it. To go wider I just got a 18 for my SLR, but I really do not want to go any wider, even if I had the possibility. To me a 21 is the best compromise for a super wide, plus it would fit nicely with a 35/40 and 75/90 as a three-lens kit.