p.36 #1 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
DavidBM wrote:
Here's a thought, though I don' know if its true.
If all the CV15s has a bit of extreme corner mush, we wouldn't be complaining. We'd just think it was a pretty good lens, pity about the extreme corner (indeed that's what Fred thought before he tested Choppy)
What if the mush is the expected outcome by design, because some of the elements are such that that's what you will typically get given the level of precision of manufacture? And it's just that there's some chance that you'll get better than expected extreme corners, if it happens that a number of elements, by chance, align perfectly?
Now if that's possible you could guarantee that it happened more often by a different, more precise and repeatable manufacturing process. But that would cost more - maybe much more. That's part of what you pay for Leica for (aside from small numbers, expensive boutiques etc)
So maybe the problem is not a QC problem. The corner mush lenses pass QC; Choppy and his brethren surpass expectations.
I guess it depends on what the design expectations are: and since CV don't publish MTFs we don't know what those expectations are....Show more →
Well, now that we know superb copies of this lens do exist in M- and E-mount why settle for less?
My auestion, what percentage of buyers out there even knows about the QC issues or cares?
So, maybe a large number of defective copies don't get returned to alarm CV?
p.36 #2 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Good points on this thread.
I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better. (Mid-field was always better on the CV though)
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy kept saying his copy was better and I reluctantly tested his lens. It changed everything.
I was shocked when I saw the IQ from his lens. Sharp corners at f/5.6 and f/8. Wow!
I thought...if he has one, there are others available. So, I rented 2 M-mount versions which were bad, got another E-mount which was bad and when I was about to give up again, I received a great copy replacement from Camera Quest. Finally!!
So, I lost count on the number of copies I tested to find a good one. I'm starting to agree with David that the design tolerance for this lens gives smeared extreme edges even though the lens is capable of better performance. Every now and then someone gets a 'choppy' but it's not the norm.
After regretting selling my 16-35/4 a few months back, I decided to get another one to complement my Loxia 21/2.8. Tried 2 copies and they were both badly decentered! That's when I tried the Leica WATE and was very surprised how well it works on the A7RII. It is now my official 'zoom' lens for landscapes. I will still keep my Loxia 21/2.8 and possibly try the new Samyang 14/2.8 and CV 10/5.6 even though I had terrible QC experiences with both brands.
p.36 #3 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Fred Miranda wrote:
Good points on this thread.
I
After regretting selling my 16-35/4 a few months back, I decided to get another one to complement my Loxia 21/2.8. Tried 2 copies and they were both badly decentered!
You have just persuaded me to take my 16-35 off Ebay! Even though I have far too many primes in the range, it's a perfectly centred copy and it may be hard to buy back. (I was unsure anyway - there are trips where a good zoom is a sensible choice)
p.36 #4 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Choppy changed the world. Lol
Seriously I saw the thread and I kept saying mine was better. No one believed me. I almost forced Fred to try mine out.
Fortunately he decided to try it. The bad news is what follows is a rampant case of bad corners. I told him he should try the WATE and he did from Joshua and bought it and for me he sold me Choopy E which I really appreciate him doing that.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Good points on this thread.
I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better.
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy kept saying his copy was better and I reluctantly tested his lens. It changed everything.
I was shocked when I saw the IQ from his lens. Sharp corners at f/5.6 and f/8. Wow!
I thought...if he has one, there are others available. So, I rented 2 M-mount versions which were bad, got another E-mount which was bad and when I was about to give up again, I received a great copy replacement from Camera Quest. Finally!!
So, I lost count on the number of copies I tested to find a good one. I'm starting to agree with David that the design tolerance for this lens gives smeared extreme edges even though the lens is capable of better performance. Every now and then someone gets a 'choppy' but it's not the norm.
After regretting selling my 16-35/4 a few months back, I decided to get another one to complement my Loxia 21/2.8. Tried 2 copies and they were both badly decentered! That's when I tried the Leica WATE and was very surprised how well it works on the A7RII. It is now my official 'zoom' lens for landscapes. I will still keep my Loxia 21/2.8 and possibly try the new Samyang 14/2.8 and CV 10/5.6 even though I had terrible QC experiences with both brands. ...Show more →
p.36 #5 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
k-h.a.w wrote:
Thanks Charles. I have some Leica lenses that might benefit from an alignment. I know you are in Australia, could you please recommend a lab here in the US? TIA.
Regards, K-H.
In Australia I use Camera Clinic in Melbourne and just ask for Wayne Rogers. Quite often if he has time he will run a virtual MTF test on the lens store in their database for later re calibrations. At the moment I have my 50 Cron IV(Mandler) with 2 VM-E adapters to fully align the 50 Cron IV and the VM-E's. It is an interesting discussion as he will quite often discuss the comparison test results and how they compare to other lenses they have recently tested. Not so long ago I sent my 50 Lux Asph to be recalibrated and they also realigned the lenses at the time. It is interesting to note there was a very wide variation in the test results with different 50 Lux Asph wide open. Something I did not expect. After the realignment the 50 Lux Asph was much sharper wide open on the test bench and was up with the best 50 Lux Asph's.
Also there are a number of other labs here that will re collimate and test lenses here in Australia that are also excellent.
K-H, unfortunately I cannot assist in the US, as I have had no experience with the US labs.
p.36 #6 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
I am facing a dilemma! I retested my copy of CV15. I agreed with Guy that it has a smearing at very extreme end, while the rest of the image looks great. For most of my landscape shots, I might be able to get away with the extreme end (for example, at Lower Left Corner) or I could just crop it a bit to get rid of that very extreme corner. Now, my dilemma is that I have a very good copy of FE 16-35/f4. I wonder if I should return this copy of CV and keep the FE 16-35 (although I prefer the smaller size of the CV15), or I could play the game of returning lens till I get a perfect copy of CV15 then I sell my FE 16-35. What do you guys think?
Guy: I also retested my copy of Batis 18mm. It is awesome and quite sharp. See my sample images. I love the lens, but 15 is a much wider angle. If I keep the Batis, it must be for the night photography due to its f/2.8.
p.36 #7 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Fred Miranda wrote:
Good points on this thread.
I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better. (Mid-field was always better on the CV though)
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy kept saying his copy was better and I reluctantly tested his lens. It changed everything.
I was shocked when I saw the IQ from his lens. Sharp corners at f/5.6 and f/8. Wow!
I thought...if he has one, there are others available. So, I rented 2 M-mount versions which were bad, got another E-mount which was bad and when I was about to give up again, I received a great copy replacement from Camera Quest. Finally!!
So, I lost count on the number of copies I tested to find a good one. I'm starting to agree with David that the design tolerance for this lens gives smeared extreme edges even though the lens is capable of better performance. Every now and then someone gets a 'choppy' but it's not the norm.
After regretting selling my 16-35/4 a few months back, I decided to get another one to complement my Loxia 21/2.8. Tried 2 copies and they were both badly decentered! That's when I tried the Leica WATE and was very surprised how well it works on the A7RII. It is now my official 'zoom' lens for landscapes. I will still keep my Loxia 21/2.8 and possibly try the new Samyang 14/2.8 and CV 10/5.6 even though I had terrible QC experiences with both brands. ...Show more →
Hey Fred:
I asked earlier but you may not have seen it - how is the field curvature on the WATE?
p.36 #8 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
I could be wrong, but I would suspect when a lens is sent into Leica Camera for a CLA they take extra care in the alignment of the optics and check the performance on their equipment prior to shipping the lens back to the owner. I know that when my R 100mm f2.8 Apo-Macro-Elmarit had a CLA soon after I purchased it several years ago I was told that was a particularly fine performing 100mm Apo-Macro-Elmarit. I will have to check my R 50mm f2 Summicron that was just returned to me from Leica Camera USA.
I am certainly not suggesting sending lenses to Leica Camera for an alignment because they would certainly charge their full CLA rate which would be much for many lenses would be at least for R lenses $250 to $350 and for some of the more exotic Apo lenses would be quite costly. As I recall an R 280mm f4 Apo Telyt would be sent back to Wetzlar and may well cost about $750 for a CLA.
p.36 #9 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Fred Miranda wrote:
Good points on this thread.
I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better. (Mid-field was always better on the CV though)
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy kept saying his copy was better and I reluctantly tested his lens. It changed everything.
I was shocked when I saw the IQ from his lens. Sharp corners at f/5.6 and f/8. Wow!
I thought...if he has one, there are others available. So, I rented 2 M-mount versions which were bad, got another E-mount which was bad and when I was about to give up again, I received a great copy replacement from Camera Quest. Finally!!
So, I lost count on the number of copies I tested to find a good one. I'm starting to agree with David that the design tolerance for this lens gives smeared extreme edges even though the lens is capable of better performance. Every now and then someone gets a 'choppy' but it's not the norm.
After regretting selling my 16-35/4 a few months back, I decided to get another one to complement my Loxia 21/2.8. Tried 2 copies and they were both badly decentered! That's when I tried the Leica WATE and was very surprised how well it works on the A7RII. It is now my official 'zoom' lens for landscapes. I will still keep my Loxia 21/2.8 and possibly try the new Samyang 14/2.8 and CV 10/5.6 even though I had terrible QC experiences with both brands. ...Show more →
Overall the WATE may end up being the most cost effective alternative to having the range of 16 - 21mm for landscapes, having 3 lenses in 1. In Australia with the AUD exchange rate the WATE is a great option now. Only problem after this thread with test results the WATE will quickly inflate in price again
Allowing for the frustrations, not knowing if you have a great copy, the WATE just works superbly. The other factor in viewing the corner sharpness comparisons, the WATE is very much true Leica rendering. It is not until you push the PP'ing in the shots that you really see how good the WATE is.
p.36 #10 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Fred Miranda wrote:
Good points on this thread.
I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better. (Mid-field was always better on the CV though)
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy kept saying his copy was better and I reluctantly tested his lens. It changed everything.
I was shocked when I saw the IQ from his lens. Sharp corners at f/5.6 and f/8. Wow!
I thought...if he has one, there are others available. So, I rented 2 M-mount versions which were bad, got another E-mount which was bad and when I was about to give up again, I received a great copy replacement from Camera Quest. Finally!!
So, I lost count on the number of copies I tested to find a good one. I'm starting to agree with David that the design tolerance for this lens gives smeared extreme edges even though the lens is capable of better performance. Every now and then someone gets a 'choppy' but it's not the norm.
After regretting selling my 16-35/4 a few months back, I decided to get another one to complement my Loxia 21/2.8. Tried 2 copies and they were both badly decentered! That's when I tried the Leica WATE and was very surprised how well it works on the A7RII. It is now my official 'zoom' lens for landscapes. I will still keep my Loxia 21/2.8 and possibly try the new Samyang 14/2.8 and CV 10/5.6 even though I had terrible QC experiences with both brands. ...Show more →
Reading Fred's post makes me to reconsider of keeping my FE 16-35!
p.36 #12 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Schlotkins wrote:
Hey Fred:
I asked earlier but you may not have seen it - how is the field curvature on the WATE?
Thanks,
Chris
I missed that question Chris. The answer is lower than expected. It does have inwards field curvature but lower than the Loxia 21/2.8's.
I tested the new Leica Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH on the A7RII and although it was capable of razor sharp corners, field curvature was ridiculously high (see here). I was expecting lower FC with the WATE but was surprised by how flat field it was at all FLs.
p.36 #13 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Charles - interesting point and I was thinking similar. My understanding is the wider the lens, the more critical alignment, which I think most of us here already know.
From a few pages back:
k-h.a.w wrote:
Well, I have Choppy and a WATE and did some tests yesterday with the TechArt Pro LM-EA7 adapter. Of course, I am aware that AF introduces new variables into the comparison. However, I can also use the adapter in manual mode and replace the AF variability with that of my aging eyes.
The comparison I did yesterday reminded me of the comparisons hiepphotog and I did of many rangefinder lenses, including my WATE, on my stock A7r2 and a Kolari modified version 2 with thinner sensor cover glass, let's refer to that as A7r2.mod2.
We got the best corner performance of the WATE with the A7r2.mod2. The disadvantage of the A7r2.mod2 is that it can lead to inferior performance with native WA FE lenses. The thicker sensor cover glass of the stock A7r2 is also the reason the WATE has to be stopped down to f/8 before its extreme corner performance catches up to that of Choppy. Choppy doesn't exhibit that feature. Its extreme corner performance is excellent from f/4.5 on and, if at all, only improves insignificantly at f/8 aside from DoF gain, whereas my WATE improved its extreme corner performance significantly.
I want to repeat my adapter comparisons more carefully before I go into details.
Karl-Heinz - do you have any digital Leica M bodies? Could you test Choppy on one against your a7R non-mod? Curious to see how consistent the performance is between the two platforms. My gut feeling is the CV15III was designed from the outset in consideration of the Sony cover glass and eventual E mount offerings....
p.36 #14 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Fred Miranda wrote:
I missed that question Chris. The answer is lower than expected. It does have inwards field curvature but lower than the Loxia 21/2.8's.
I tested the new Leica Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH on the A7RII and although it was capable of razor sharp corners, field curvature was ridiculously high (see here). I was expecting lower FC with the WATE but was surprised by how flat field it was at all FLs.
p.36 #15 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
OK. I have had 3 copies of the CV 15 E mount from 2 dealers, one was sent back to dealer A for a refund, one was sent back dealer B for an exchange. Today I received the replacement copy from dealer B. Took some shot at infinity to check the corners. This time the right corners look OK to my untrained eyes, the left corners still look smeared. I don't really know how to do 100% crop but you get the drill. What do your guys think?
p.36 #16 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
charles.K wrote:
In Australia I use Camera Clinic in Melbourne and just ask for Wayne Rogers. Quite often if he has time he will run a virtual MTF test on the lens store in their database for later re calibrations. At the moment I have my 50 Cron IV(Mandler) with 2 VM-E adapters to fully align the 50 Cron IV and the VM-E's. It is an interesting discussion as he will quite often discuss the comparison test results and how they compare to other lenses they have recently tested. Not so long ago I sent my 50 Lux Asph to be recalibrated and they also realigned the lenses at the time. It is interesting to note there was a very wide variation in the test results with different 50 Lux Asph wide open. Something I did not expect. After the realignment the 50 Lux Asph was much sharper wide open on the test bench and was up with the best 50 Lux Asph's.
Also there are a number of other labs here that will re collimate and test lenses here in Australia that are also excellent.
K-H, unfortunately I cannot assist in the US, as I have had no experience with the US labs.
Many thanks Charles. I know now what kind of expertise you were referring to.
In the US there is Leica New Jersey and Leica certified service technicians.
My favorite is Don Goldberg or DAG. I have also used Leica in Germany.
p.36 #17 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
k-h.a.w wrote:
Well, now that we know superb copies of this lens do exist in M- and E-mount why settle for less?
My auestion, what percentage of buyers out there even knows about the QC issues or cares?
So, maybe a large number of defective copies don't get returned to alarm CV?
K-H.
I imagine a large group wouldn't care of even notice. If we put this in perspective, we are examining extreme corners at 1:1 from a 42MP sensor. That's pixel peeping and I'm guilty as charged.
Nowadays very few photographer print their images big and most resize them for web presentation. Extreme corners would not matter as much.. However, usually lenses capable of drawing great corners have equally impressive performance at mid-field and center areas and that's what really matter.
Imo, aside from resolution and contrast, rendering, aberration control and color also plays a very important role when evaluating image quality.
p.36 #19 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
I'm not seeing smearing . I do see some look good but I see some look out of focus . Doug go to target , Walgreens any big store level the camera and get center if it s out at infinity it's out at midrange but worth another test . I'm out of pocket on a gig for 3 days so I'm only on iPhone . 15 hour days too. Lol
kdrk888 wrote:
OK. I have had 3 copies of the CV 15 E mount from 2 dealers, one was sent back to dealer A for a refund, one was sent back dealer B for an exchange. Today I received the replacement copy from dealer B. Took some shot at infinity to check the corners. This time the right corners look OK to my untrained eyes, the left corners still look smeared. I don't really know how to do 100% crop but you get the drill. What do your guys think?
