p.17 #4 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Okay, maybe mine is not quite to Choppy levels, but it might be better than I first thought. This was a really hurried test (over lunch) and was about best I could find in terms of a subject I could get to over lunch.
Here's the lower right corner at f/4.5, f/5.6, f/8, and f/11. These were processed via Photo Ninja, so I can't match the settings for what other people have posted.
And here's the full shot to get an idea of what part you're looking at in the above crops.
p.17 #5 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
rscheffler wrote:
I may have posted this already, but I have the 15III in M-mount and use it on the M240. After re-reviewing the tests I did last year with it, I would say my copy is between Fred's and Choppy. Corners are on the soft side, but don't look as smeared as Fred's and Boris's examples. However, they also don't sharpen up as well as Choppy and Chuck's copy. Near distance subjects in corners seem to resolve a lot better when the lens is at infinity than infinity subject details in the far corners. On the Leica M there might be slight field curvature towards the camera at the edges. Also, my copy appears to have a slight loss of resolution in the left mid zone area.
As I wrote earlier, something that struck me with sample photos by others was that the 15III looked a bit better in the outer zone on the Sony cameras than on Leica. It could be optimized closer to Sony specs than Leica. Somewhere in the middle so that it's decent on both, but maybe slightly better on Sony. ...Show more →
ron – did you every use the cv 15II or the m39 version? any idea how that compares to the cv 15III on in the corners on leica cameras? i'm more interested in corner sharpness than the severe color and vignetting issues.
p.17 #6 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
sebboh wrote:
ron – did you every use the cv 15II or the m39 version? any idea how that compares to the cv 15III on in the corners on leica cameras? i'm more interested in corner sharpness than the severe color and vignetting issues.
I tried a v2 on a kolari a7rii. Corners were pretty smeared and even with the bsi sensor the vignetting was really severe (and I'm not usually that concerned with vignetting but it was baaaad).
p.17 #7 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
brendans wrote:
I tried a v2 on a kolari a7rii. Corners were pretty smeared and even with the bsi sensor the vignetting was really severe (and I'm not usually that concerned with vignetting but it was baaaad).
thanks, that was what i was really wondering. of course, maybe you had a less than optimal copy... but it probably wouldn't matter.
p.17 #9 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Thanks Chuck, the upper right corner shots may not be quite as good, but they are close. Obviously anywhere closer to the center is blisteringly sharp.
p.17 #11 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
sebboh wrote:
i actually really like the macro stuff i've seen with the cv 15mm and helicoid adapter, more than i like 15mm landscapes to be honest.
Can you point to some macros with this lens? I'd love to see some.
The Laowa 15mm macro lens also have me quite interested, but I'm guessing it won't have the quality of the voigtlander
p.17 #12 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Kirin wrote:
Can you point to some macros with this lens? I'd love to see some.
The Laowa 15mm macro lens also have me quite interested, but I'm guessing it won't have the quality of the voigtlander
i wish i could. i've seen them here and elsewhere, but i don't have any idea where to find them now.
p.17 #15 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
rscheffler wrote:
I may have posted this already, but I have the 15III in M-mount and use it on the M240. After re-reviewing the tests I did last year with it, I would say my copy is between Fred's and Choppy. Corners are on the soft side, but don't look as smeared as Fred's and Boris's examples. However, they also don't sharpen up as well as Choppy and Chuck's copy. Near distance subjects in corners seem to resolve a lot better when the lens is at infinity than infinity subject details in the far corners. On the Leica M there might be slight field curvature towards the camera at the edges. Also, my copy appears to have a slight loss of resolution in the left mid zone area.
As I wrote earlier, something that struck me with sample photos by others was that the 15III looked a bit better in the outer zone on the Sony cameras than on Leica. It could be optimized closer to Sony specs than Leica. Somewhere in the middle so that it's decent on both, but maybe slightly better on Sony. ...Show more → sebboh wrote:
ron – did you every use the cv 15II or the m39 version? any idea how that compares to the cv 15III on in the corners on leica cameras? i'm more interested in corner sharpness than the severe color and vignetting issues.
Yes. I still have both. When I first got the vIII I tested it against the vII (first M-mount version) as well as the 12/5.6 LTM. Just had a quick look at the test shots again and I would say the two are nearly identical. At least my copies. The vII is a bit sharper on the left half of the frame whereas the vIII is a bit better on the right side. But corners are very similar. Biggest differences is color shift and the vIII has better rectilinear distortion correction, which means its angle of view is slightly narrower.
FWIW, when I tested the vII and 12/5.6 on the first-gen a7 cameras I never really thought either was that much different than how they performed on Leica digital M, other than perhaps color shift and maybe vignetting. Sharpness-wise I thought they were similar.
Back when adapting M lenses to the NEX APS-C cameras started happening, I tried the 15 vII on the 5N and was told by some others on this forum that my copy performed very well (and it did seem good), so I'm not sure if I have a better than average vII and simply average vIII.
Boris: seems like a good idea. The Batis 18 looks promising, at least on paper...
p.17 #16 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
GMPhotography wrote:
Now I wish I still had the 35 1.7 for fun. Not sure which one is the best they have a 1.4,1.7 and a 1.2. Too many choices
Guy, the new 1.7 is by far the technically best Voigtlander M lens I've owned/used. I use it in regular rotation with the 21/3.4, 28/2, 50/1.4 ASPH and 90AA Leica lenses (on Leica) and it holds its own. Maybe the only better 35 is the ZM35/1.4 (of course Leica's 35s are also good).
The 1.7 is already sharp from wide open across much of the frame and gets blistering by 2.8. But on stock Sony it has field curvature problems that will affect landscape/technical type work that doesn't exist on Leica M. Other nitpicks are it has persistent vignetting that doesn't really go away when stopped down and I don't like the ergonomics (miss not having a focusing tab - but that's probably more a Leica user complaint). Also, my copy appears to be slightly decentered resulting in slight image smearing on one side at moderately wide apertures of distant scenes. Pretty much goes away stopped down a ways, which is typically what I do anyway for such applications. For people-type photos it has been a non-issue.
The 35/1.2 isn't as technically good but has a somewhat gentler rendering that a lot seem to like. And it's one of the few RF wide angles that seems to do well on stock Sony cameras, possibly slightly bettering its performance on Leica M. But to me it doesn't have the bite of the 1.7 or the ZM lenses.
The 35/1.4 is a 'classic' design along the lines of the original 35 Lux.... sharpness falloff, glowy, focus shift, field curvature, harsh bokeh... it's a love it or hate it kind of lens. That said, it and the 40/1.4 seem to benefit from the thicker Sony sensor cover glass, which tames the huge field curvature apparent when shot on Leica M.
p.17 #17 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
tsdevine wrote:
Okay, maybe mine is not quite to Choppy levels, but it might be better than I first thought. This was a really hurried test (over lunch) and was about best I could find in terms of a subject I could get to over lunch.
Here's the lower right corner at f/4.5, f/5.6, f/8, and f/11. These were processed via Photo Ninja, so I can't match the settings for what other people have posted.
Tim,
I think you got a good copy.
Here is how your extreme corner would look with vignetting, CA correction and LR sharpening (45, 0.7, 25, 0)
Your shot was a bit underexposed so when fixing light fall-off, there is some noise.
Finally a decent E-mount version. (this was at f/5.6)
p.17 #18 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Great write up . Thanks
rscheffler wrote:
Guy, the new 1.7 is by far the technically best Voigtlander M lens I've owned/used. I use it in regular rotation with the 21/3.4, 28/2, 50/1.4 ASPH and 90AA Leica lenses (on Leica) and it holds its own. Maybe the only better 35 is the ZM35/1.4 (of course Leica's 35s are also good).
The 1.7 is already sharp from wide open across much of the frame and gets blistering by 2.8. But on stock Sony it has field curvature problems that will affect landscape/technical type work that doesn't exist on Leica M. Other nitpicks are it has persistent vignetting that doesn't really go away when stopped down and I don't like the ergonomics (miss not having a focusing tab - but that's probably more a Leica user complaint). Also, my copy appears to be slightly decentered resulting in slight image smearing on one side at moderately wide apertures of distant scenes. Pretty much goes away stopped down a ways, which is typically what I do anyway for such applications. For people-type photos it has been a non-issue.
The 35/1.2 isn't as technically good but has a somewhat gentler rendering that a lot seem to like. And it's one of the few RF wide angles that seems to do well on stock Sony cameras, possibly slightly bettering its performance on Leica M. But to me it doesn't have the bite of the 1.7 or the ZM lenses.
The 35/1.4 is a 'classic' design along the lines of the original 35 Lux.... sharpness falloff, glowy, focus shift, field curvature, harsh bokeh... it's a love it or hate it kind of lens. That said, it and the 40/1.4 seem to benefit from the thicker Sony sensor cover glass, which tames the huge field curvature apparent when shot on Leica M....Show more →
p.17 #19 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Yahoo at least one good E mount
Fred Miranda wrote:
_________________________________________
Tim,
I think you got a good copy.
Here is how your extreme corner would look with vignetting, CA correction and LR sharpening (45, 0.7, 25, 0)
Finally a decent E-mount version. (this was at f/5.6)
p.17 #20 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Fred Miranda wrote:
_________________________________________
Tim,
I think you got a good copy.
Here is how your extreme corner would look with vignetting, CA correction and LR sharpening (45, 0.7, 25, 0)
Finally a decent E-mount version. (this was at f/5.6)
Is this by any chance the extreme corner of APS-C crop?
. I already order one form B&H and am waiting for them to reopen next week.