p.4 #1A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Why I sold the zoom. The Batis 25 and VC 15 is a powerful combination. The VC is amazing for its price tag. I just landed a nice gig traveling to shoot those big windmills you see to create energy with those really big fans the VC 15 will be a key lens for it. The zoom is a nice lens but it's really a 16-24 lens after 24 it starts slipping in IQ . Why I decided the 15 would be a better option than add the Batis 25.
p.4 #3A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
GMPhotography wrote:
Why I sold the zoom. The Batis 25 and VC 15 is a powerful combination. The VC is amazing for its price tag. I just landed a nice gig traveling to shoot those big windmills you see to create energy with those really big fans the VC 15 will be a key lens for it. The zoom is a nice lens but it's really a 16-24 lens after 24 it starts slipping in IQ . Why I decided the 15 would be a better option than add the Batis 25.
Nice sample Fred that's a good comparison .
I see the 16-35/4 a well-rounded zoom with excellent IQ. The sweat spot is f/5.6 center and corner. (Except at 30-35mm). If you stop down at 30-35mm, it's actually great and compares to the FE 35mm f/2.8 prime. (I have sample to prove that)
From my experience, edges are good but never get "crispy" though. I believe the issue with the zoom is astigmatism.
However, the extreme edge smear on the 15III is a big issue on my sample (all 4 edges).
Can you guys confirm the extreme edge issue I have with my copy? I never read that anywhere.
p.4 #4A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
Outside of the extreme edge (same images as above). This is the 'edge' at f/8 and the CV 15III looks actually sharper now.
That's why I wrote that the CV15III image cropped as a 17mm lens is excellent on the entire frame.
Thanks Fred. The edges of both are quite disappointing. Now we all wait for that WATE comparison
p.4 #5A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Fred Miranda wrote: GMPhotography wroteWhy I sold the zoom. The Batis 25 and VC 15 is a powerful combination. The VC is amazing for its price tag. I just landed a nice gig traveling to shoot those big windmills you see to create energy with those really big fans the VC 15 will be a key lens for it. The zoom is a nice lens but it's really a 16-24 lens after 24 it starts slipping in IQ . Why I decided the 15 would be a better option than add the Batis 25.
Nice sample Fred that's a good comparison .I see the 16-35/4 a well-rounded zoom with excellent IQ. The sweat spot is f/5.6 center and corner. (Except at 30-35mm). If you stop down at 30-35mm, it's actually great and compares to the FE 35mm f/2.8 prime. (I have sample to prove that)
From my experience, edges are good but never get "crispy". I believe the issue with the zoom is astigmatism.
However, the extreme edge smear on the 15III is a big issue on my sample (all 4 edges).
Can you guys confirm the extreme edge issue I have with my copy? I never read that anywhere.
Fred on my tests that I linked earlier in this thread the corners very far corners that is are very good. I'm not at infinity though. More like 30 feet away and they are really nice. Have to look at some infinity stuff. FYI I'm using a Metabones adapter.
Are you seeing all extreme corners like that. Just wondering if you may have a bad adapter. See if I can grab a crop to post from my iPad. Not near my computer
p.4 #7A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
GMPhotography wrote: Fred Miranda wroteGMPhotography wroteWhy I sold the zoom. The Batis 25 and VC 15 is a powerful combination. The VC is amazing for its price tag. I just landed a nice gig traveling to shoot those big windmills you see to create energy with those really big fans the VC 15 will be a key lens for it. The zoom is a nice lens but it's really a 16-24 lens after 24 it starts slipping in IQ . Why I decided the 15 would be a better option than add the Batis 25.
Nice sample Fred that's a good comparison .I see the 16-35/4 a well-rounded zoom with excellent IQ. The sweat spot is f/5.6 center and corner. (Except at 30-35mm). If you stop down at 30-35mm, it's actually great and compares to the FE 35mm f/2.8 prime. (I have sample to prove that)
From my experience, edges are good but never get "crispy". I believe the issue with the zoom is astigmatism.
However, the extreme edge smear on the 15III is a big issue on my sample (all 4 edges).
Can you guys confirm the extreme edge issue I have with my copy? I never read that anywhere.Fred on my tests that I linked earlier in this thread the corners very far corners that is are very good. I'm not at infinity though. More like 30 feet away and they are really nice. Have to look at some infinity stuff. FYI I'm using a Metabones adapter.
Are you seeing all extreme corners like that. Just wondering if you may have a bad adapter. See if I can grab a crop to post from my iPad. Not near my computer
I have the Voigtlander adapter. It could be a bad copy but it does not seem decentered as the edges look good. The problem I'm having with this copy is on the extreme edges.
p.4 #9A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
There might be a focal sweet spot. I was testing the ZM18 on A7.mod, and was wondering if I could ever really get my edges and corners, then I found a shot which really had it all.
p.4 #10A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Fred Miranda wrote: GMPhotography wroteFred Miranda wroteGMPhotography wroteWhy I sold the zoom. The Batis 25 and VC 15 is a powerful combination. The VC is amazing for its price tag. I just landed a nice gig traveling to shoot those big windmills you see to create energy with those really big fans the VC 15 will be a key lens for it. The zoom is a nice lens but it's really a 16-24 lens after 24 it starts slipping in IQ . Why I decided the 15 would be a better option than add the Batis 25.
Nice sample Fred that's a good comparison .I see the 16-35/4 a well-rounded zoom with excellent IQ. The sweat spot is f/5.6 center and corner. (Except at 30-35mm). If you stop down at 30-35mm, it's actually great and compares to the FE 35mm f/2.8 prime. (I have sample to prove that)
From my experience, edges are good but never get "crispy". I believe the issue with the zoom is astigmatism.
However, the extreme edge smear on the 15III is a big issue on my sample (all 4 edges).
Can you guys confirm the extreme edge issue I have with my copy? I never read that anywhere.Fred on my tests that I linked earlier in this thread the corners very far corners that is are very good. I'm not at infinity though. More like 30 feet away and they are really nice. Have to look at some infinity stuff. FYI I'm using a Metabones adapter.
Are you seeing all extreme corners like that. Just wondering if you may have a bad adapter. See if I can grab a crop to post from my iPad. Not near my computerI have the Voigtlander adapter and my 20-30 feet tests show about the same thing. It could be a bad copy but it does not seem decentered as the edges look good. The problem is on the extreme edges. It could be that I'm not used to any smearing and this lens still shows a little bit on the A7RII.
I'll give mine a test for infinity. This is just a decent shot but does not tell us the extreme corners . This one on the A7II
p.4 #11A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Honestly even cropping a bit off would really not get under my skin. 15 is pretty dang wide. Problem is we have very few options here and I'm not wanting to spend 3k on the Zeiss and bigger for maybe a marginal increase in IQ. Interesting
p.4 #12A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Here are 2 comparisons between my copy of the 15III vs TS-E 17mm f/4L. It's a torture test though and very few lenses will perform well. Infinity focus
It's a big difference but once you start moving from the extreme edges, the lens start to show way more resolution at the edges. It's a great little lens and I intend to keep it but there will be so cropping on my final images.
p.4 #14A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here are 2 comparisons between my copy of the 15III vs TS-E 17mm f/4L. It's a torture test though and very few lenses will perform well. To avoid any field curvature variable, I focused these samples on the very corner. (best of 3)
One at infinity and the other at about 20 feet.
It's a big difference but once you start moving from the extreme edges, the lens start to show way more resolution at the edges. It's a great little lens and I intend to keep it but there will be so cropping on my final images.
Base on this, I would say the ZM 15 gives comparable performance to the TSE 17 at wider angle and one extra stop. It actually peaks at f/4 on film (mostly global contrast) and on digital, f/5.6 would give similar result as the f/8 you present here. So I sure hope Zeiss would come out with the Loxia version of it. IMO, it's better than the ZE/ZF version since it has less wavy field curvature (just gradually dropping off at the edge), more filter-friendly option at 72mm, smaller and lighter with cooler looking design . Distortion at infinity is less noticeable than the ZE/ZF 21.
p.4 #15A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
hiepphotog wrote: Fred Miranda wroteHere are 2 comparisons between my copy of the 15III vs TS-E 17mm f/4L. It's a torture test though and very few lenses will perform well. To avoid any field curvature variable, I focused these samples on the very corner. (best of 3)
One at infinity and the other at about 20 feet.
It's a big difference but once you start moving from the extreme edges, the lens start to show way more resolution at the edges. It's a great little lens and I intend to keep it but there will be so cropping on my final images.Base on this, I would say the ZM 15 gives comparable performance to the TSE 17 at wider angle and one extra stop. It actually peaks at f/4 on film (mostly global contrast) and on digital, f/5.6 would give similar result as the f/8 you present here. So I sure hope Zeiss would come out with the Loxia version of it. IMO, it's better than the ZE/ZF version since it has less wavy field curvature (just gradually dropping off at the edge), more filter-friendly option at 72mm, smaller and lighter with cooler looking design . Distortion at infinity is less noticeable than the ZE/ZF 21....Show more →
Let's hope they design that Loxia 15/2.8, or even a more compact 15/3.5.
p.4 #18A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Got the 15 III. Very, very nice. A little falloff at the extremes, as Fred noted on his but not much and it is fine with me. I don't see it on normal size. A well made lens and very well corrected. I do wish it was a little faster.