15mm or 19mm R-lense

[taweephol_thipayarat1]

I'm thinking of going for a super-wide lense. Can anyone tell me from their experience, how much difference is the 15 f/3.5 Super-Elmar-R compared to 19 f/2.8 Elmarit-R?

 

<p>

 

How are the optics of both lenses compared to each other?

[jay_.]

Huge difference in coverage. Small differences in focal length make

increasingly larger coverage differences the shorter you go. I

formerly owned a 19 R and still own a 15 (Cosina-Voigtlander, for the

M). You can see the difference easily between the 19 and 21; I have

a 17mm Tamron-SP in adaptall with a Leica mount, and this lens is

significantly wider than the 19 yet still noticeably less than the

15. As to optical quality, I can't comment on either the current 19

or 15 R lenses having never owned them. I heard somewhere that the

15 has been discontinued (it is a Zeiss lens) and rumors that Leica

is going to introduce one of their own to replace it, but I haven't

read anything official from Leica on the subject.

[Robin Smith]

The 15mm-R is indeed was a licensed Zeiss design and is (I am told)

exceptional optically. It is also a very large optic - I cannot

imagine taking this anywhere unless you know you will need to use it.

Imagine the Voigtlander multiplied by 10 in volume. Huge curved front

element - very impressive, very expensive and now discontinued. The

19mm in contrast is a more normal sized optic and a more recent design

(1990) - again I hear of exceptional quality - you could take this

anywhere. Also expensive. I would like one, but doubt I will ever buy

one as the price/use ratio is too high. Both lenses have built in

turret filters - very nice.

 

<p>

 

I say nothing about their fields of view as the widest lens I have is

a 21mm.

[Rob F.]

If your experience turns out to be anything like mine, you will have

a hard time finding much use for any thing wider than a 21, or at the

most 19mm. Note what Jay said:

 

<p>

 

Huge difference in coverage. Small differences in focal length make

increasingly larger coverage differences the shorter you go.

 

<p>

 

I am a wide-angle freak, but I think there are limits. 24mm will

handle 99% of wide-angle requirements.

 

<p>

 

Best wishes,

[robert_appleby]

You might want to check out the new Voigtlander 12/5.6. Except for

the low speed, this is a mighty lens with an amazing viewfinder. I

don't have one (yet!) but will soon rectify this situation. It's

probably true that 21/24 will cover most needs (I have the M 24 and

use it about 50/50 with a 35) but I suspect that if you got the 12

with the Bessa L body (since you seem to be using R cameras) and give

it time, like use it exclusively for a few weeks or do a single

project with it, then you'd find it extremely useful.

 

<p>

 

My thinking is that if you want to go superwide, go superwide. Plus,

the Voigtlander lens plus body will cost far less than either of the

other two options and offer something that no other lens does.

 

<p>

 

Rob.

[robert_rose1]

I have the first version of the Elmarit-R 19mm, which was made

between 1975 and 1990. The angle of view difference between either

version of 19mm and the Super-Elmar-R 15mm is 14 deg (110 vs. 96).

Interestingly, for the super wides the relationship between field of

view and focal length is close to linear: 165 deg. - 3.7 * focal

length. For all focal lengths the relationship is a power: 1545.2x^-

.9181. (That is my observation from published data.) The earlier

19mm is cheaper and would suit your needs unless you must travel

light. It is much bigger than the new version. The images are

superb at f/5.6 corner to corner. Wide open there is light falloff

in the corners, so I don't use this lens wide open. I have enlarged

to 11x16 with this lens. Lines at the edges are perfectly straight,

but people at the edge of the frame look really fat. :-) Except for

the size, there is nothing not to like about the lens. On an R8 it

works fine but the aperture reading blinks in the viewfinder.

[wolfgang_hoffmann]

I owned the early version of the 19 Elmarit. I didn't like the image

quality in the edge and corner areas; it might have been good enough

for journalistic photography, and that was the design intent, but not

good enough for my needs. I then changed to the 21 Super-Angulon,

which I still have and use -- great for close-ups. The 21mm is a

great alternative, since quite reasonable on the used market. The

drawbacks are dark corners, field curvature when shooting close

(which can be used to your advantage), and the somewhat darker

viewing image. Sharpness and contrast is still very very good, much

better than a 17mm Tamron (which I also once owned and used).

The present 19mm Elmarit is one of my favorite lenses, but be careful

when heads are near the edge or corner of the image. My 24mm Elmarit

is much better for those uses. The 19 is a bit more contrasty and

sharper than the 24. I have two 24s, it used to be my favorite lens,

still great for people shots because it renders skin a bit smoother

than the latest Leica lenses. Even though some people claimed it not

to be as sharp, I've had many double speads published that were taken

with the 24mm Elmarit. ( The 19mm and new 28mm Elmarit-R lenses are

definitely sharper)

Now to the 15mm Super-Elmar-R: According to published test results,

this lens is still the best of the 15s. Mine is just a bit softer

than the present 19mm Elmarit. It is a bit more difficult to use,

physically and compositionally, and it is heavy. A new one is on the

way and we can expect improved image quality and lighter weight.

Also, just like with the 15mm Super-Elmar-R, we can expect an

exceptional price tag.

I hope this helps.

[taweephol_thipayarat1]

Thank you for all of your answers. There are a couple of 19 f/2.8

Elmarit-R used here in Thailand. I am prefering it over the 15 f/3.5

since it is a very expensive lense compared to the 19 f/2.8.