Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
p.37 #1Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
It's the very very last part of the corner. Best I have seen with the smearing. It's your call but I may just keep it. Question is how critical is that very corner. It's now a 16
Given what we are seeing it's a tough call
rongwam wrote:
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...Show more →
Given what we are seeing it's a tough call
rongwam wrote:
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...Show more →
May 10, 2016 at 09:12 PM
p.37 #2Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
I decided I'm not giving up my 15 and 21 as the 21 is better at wider apertures and this Choppy E should be even good at 5.6. So WATE is out of the running at least for now
May 10, 2016 at 09:15 PM
p.37 #3Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
GMPhotography wrote:
I decided I'm not giving up my 15 and 21 as the 21 is better at wider apertures and this Choppy E should be even good at 5.6. So WATE is out of the running at least for now
As long as you don't test one, you should be fine.
I decided I'm not giving up my 15 and 21 as the 21 is better at wider apertures and this Choppy E should be even good at 5.6. So WATE is out of the running at least for now
As long as you don't test one, you should be fine.
May 10, 2016 at 10:00 PM
p.37 #4Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
After reading all of this I decided to keep my WATE. I am going to send a bill to Fred for what I am out now 
Seriously though I got lucky with my CV 15mm because I clearly dont have those messed up corners!!
Seriously though I got lucky with my CV 15mm because I clearly dont have those messed up corners!!May 10, 2016 at 10:32 PM
p.37 #5Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
I can't give up a great copy of a 21 2.8 lens for a F4. The Loxia is just too good wide open and sometimes I need that more than the corners. If I could keep the Loxia sure. I have some interior hotel work coming and I think the Loxia might be the better lens for that.
Fred Miranda wrote:
GMPhotography wrote
I decided I'm not giving up my 15 and 21 as the 21 is better at wider apertures and this Choppy E should be even good at 5.6. So WATE is out of the running at least for nowMay 10, 2016 at 11:18 PM
p.37 #6Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
I did the following comparisons:
• Choppy and WATE on Leica M9
• Choppy and WATE on Sony A7r2 and TechArt Pro LM-EA7 autofocus adapter
When using the rangefinder focusing on the M9, the WATE gave best results with rangefinder focusing.
Choppy is almost as well calibrated, but gave slightly better results when set to the infinity stop.
Both lenses perform remarkably well at f/8 on both cameras. Following in the next posts are the images.
K-H.
Edited on May 11, 2016 at 02:57 AM · View previous versions
• Choppy and WATE on Leica M9
• Choppy and WATE on Sony A7r2 and TechArt Pro LM-EA7 autofocus adapter
When using the rangefinder focusing on the M9, the WATE gave best results with rangefinder focusing.
Choppy is almost as well calibrated, but gave slightly better results when set to the infinity stop.
Both lenses perform remarkably well at f/8 on both cameras. Following in the next posts are the images.
K-H.
Edited on May 11, 2016 at 02:57 AM · View previous versions
May 11, 2016 at 02:28 AM
p.37 #7Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Choppy on M9 @ f/8
100% resolution image: https://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Pics-by-Date/2016-05-10-M916-18-214-WATELM/i-4wtcRdC/0/O/L1000124_Chopy_f%3D8_INF_5212x3468.jpg
 |
||
 |
||
|
100% resolution image: https://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Pics-by-Date/2016-05-10-M916-18-214-WATELM/i-4wtcRdC/0/O/L1000124_Chopy_f%3D8_INF_5212x3468.jpg
May 11, 2016 at 02:30 AM
p.37 #8Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
WATE on M9 @ f/8
100% resolution image: https://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Pics-by-Date/2016-05-10-M916-18-214-WATELM/i-JFc6CSp/0/O/L1000134_WATE_f%3D8_RF_5212x3468.jpg
|
||
 |
||
|
100% resolution image: https://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Pics-by-Date/2016-05-10-M916-18-214-WATELM/i-JFc6CSp/0/O/L1000134_WATE_f%3D8_RF_5212x3468.jpg
May 11, 2016 at 02:34 AM
p.37 #9Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Choppy on A7r2 @ f/8
100% resolution image: https://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Pics-by-Date/2016-05-10-A7r216-18-21f4/i-2Rgh6f3/1/O/_DSC7021_Choppy_f%3D8_AF_7952x5304.jpg
|
||
 |
||
|
100% resolution image: https://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Pics-by-Date/2016-05-10-A7r216-18-21f4/i-2Rgh6f3/1/O/_DSC7021_Choppy_f%3D8_AF_7952x5304.jpg
May 11, 2016 at 02:38 AM
p.37 #10Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
WATE on A7r2 @ f/8
100% resolution image: https://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Pics-by-Date/2016-05-10-A7r216-18-21f4/i-Qgfxp3t/1/O/_DSC7036_WATE_f%3D8_AF_7952x5304.jpg
|
||
 |
||
|
100% resolution image: https://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Pics-by-Date/2016-05-10-A7r216-18-21f4/i-Qgfxp3t/1/O/_DSC7036_WATE_f%3D8_AF_7952x5304.jpg
May 11, 2016 at 02:43 AM
|
p.37 #11Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
I have been following along this very interesting thread, and since it's original focus has shifted somewhat I've become curious as to how the Carl Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 T* Distagon would compare with the WATE and if it also suffers from smeared corners or QC issues ... has any of you tested this lens on the A7R II?
May 11, 2016 at 02:57 AM
p.37 #12Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
erekose wrote:
I have been following along this very interesting thread, and since it's original focus has shifted somewhat I've become curious as to how the Carl Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 T* Distagon would compare with the WATE and if it also suffers from smeared corners or QC issues ... has any of you tested this lens on the A7R II?
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1392833/2#13289195
I have been following along this very interesting thread, and since it's original focus has shifted somewhat I've become curious as to how the Carl Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 T* Distagon would compare with the WATE and if it also suffers from smeared corners or QC issues ... has any of you tested this lens on the A7R II?
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1392833/2#13289195
May 11, 2016 at 03:01 AM
p.37 #13Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
I no longer have my WATE as I sold it when I got my Loxia 21 but I did a lot of test against the CV15mkIII and remember that I got better corners form the CV than the WATE and the 21 just astounding
May 11, 2016 at 03:29 AM
p.37 #14Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
k-h.a.w wrote:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1392833/2#13289195
Are those results valid also for the ZF.2 version of the Zeiss, or the ZM is inherently more problematic on the A7R II, therefore needing the Kolari mod? As an alternative to invest a huge sum on the WATE, I would likely get the Nikon version of the Zeiss to use on a very sturdy Novoflex adapter.
erekose wrote
I have been following along this very interesting thread, and since it's original focus has shifted somewhat I've become curious as to how the Carl Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 T* Distagon would compare with the WATE and if it also suffers from smeared corners or QC issues ... has any of you tested this lens on the A7R II?Are those results valid also for the ZF.2 version of the Zeiss, or the ZM is inherently more problematic on the A7R II, therefore needing the Kolari mod? As an alternative to invest a huge sum on the WATE, I would likely get the Nikon version of the Zeiss to use on a very sturdy Novoflex adapter.
May 11, 2016 at 03:40 AM
p.37 #15Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Go to page one of this thread.
And I can corroborate what Fred shows as I have the ZE 15.
-Tim
erekose wrote:
k-h.a.w wrote
erekose wrote
I have been following along this very interesting thread, and since it's original focus has shifted somewhat I've become curious as to how the Carl Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 T* Distagon would compare with the WATE and if it also suffers from smeared corners or QC issues ... has any of you tested this lens on the A7R II?May 11, 2016 at 03:45 AM
p.37 #16Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Viramati wrote:
I no longer have my WATE as I sold it when I got my Loxia 21 but I did a lot of test against the CV15mkIII and remember that I got better corners form the CV than the WATE and the 21 just astounding
It is possible that you had a particularly good performing CV15III and a relatively poor performing WATE.
Rich
I no longer have my WATE as I sold it when I got my Loxia 21 but I did a lot of test against the CV15mkIII and remember that I got better corners form the CV than the WATE and the 21 just astounding
It is possible that you had a particularly good performing CV15III and a relatively poor performing WATE.
Rich
May 11, 2016 at 05:19 AM
p.37 #17Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Long time reader but new board member who just got in the Voigtlander 15mm E mount lens. I had ordered the day it became available to do so in March. It got here Monday. I ran a couple of quick tests on the A7R and it's smeared in the corners at infinity distance. It's better than my Samyang 14mm (adapted Canon mount with Fotodiox adapter) and better than my adapted Canon 17-40 was. It is not as good as my Loxia 21.
It looks better than the first sample the Fred posted images from but is nowhere near as good as Choppy.
I will say it seems infinity is at the hard stop which I really like. It's very sharp and crisp in the center, sides and close in corners (17-40 was not).
I am torn about sending it back after reading how it could be a lottery chance of a worse copy.
As a landscape photographer I want to use this as my wide lens.
Wondering if in the real world it might be very rare to actually have detail in this distant upper corners vs say clouds or sky which won't make a difference? Since the rest of the lens image and characteristics seem so good I wonder if I just keep
?
It looks better than the first sample the Fred posted images from but is nowhere near as good as Choppy.
I will say it seems infinity is at the hard stop which I really like. It's very sharp and crisp in the center, sides and close in corners (17-40 was not).
I am torn about sending it back after reading how it could be a lottery chance of a worse copy.
As a landscape photographer I want to use this as my wide lens.
Wondering if in the real world it might be very rare to actually have detail in this distant upper corners vs say clouds or sky which won't make a difference? Since the rest of the lens image and characteristics seem so good I wonder if I just keep
?May 11, 2016 at 08:07 AM
p.37 #18Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Viramati wrote:
I no longer have my WATE as I sold it when I got my Loxia 21 but I did a lot of test against the CV15mkIII and remember that I got better corners form the CV than the WATE and the 21 just astounding
Do you still have your test so we can see the crops?
That's not my experience and I have (had) a great CV 15III. At wider apertures, they are similar but at f8, the WATE slightly ahead with my copies. There is always some field curvature at play so I made sure to focus on the edges with both lenses. I learned that the WATE is also very similar to the Loxia 21 at f/8 and that was also surprising. The Loxia takes the cake at wider apertures but I usually shoot at f/8 to mitigate its moderate field curvature.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1425842/26#13548866
I no longer have my WATE as I sold it when I got my Loxia 21 but I did a lot of test against the CV15mkIII and remember that I got better corners form the CV than the WATE and the 21 just astounding
Do you still have your test so we can see the crops?
That's not my experience and I have (had) a great CV 15III. At wider apertures, they are similar but at f8, the WATE slightly ahead with my copies. There is always some field curvature at play so I made sure to focus on the edges with both lenses. I learned that the WATE is also very similar to the Loxia 21 at f/8 and that was also surprising. The Loxia takes the cake at wider apertures but I usually shoot at f/8 to mitigate its moderate field curvature.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1425842/26#13548866
May 11, 2016 at 08:29 AM
p.37 #19Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
WestTexas Sky wrote:
Long time reader but new board member who just got in the Voigtlander 15mm E mount lens. I had ordered the day it became available to do so in March. It got here Monday. I ran a couple of quick tests on the A7R and it's smeared in the corners at infinity distance. It's better than my Samyang 14mm (adapted Canon mount with Fotodiox adapter) and better than my adapted Canon 17-40 was. It is not as good as my Loxia 21.
It looks better than the first sample the Fred posted images from but is nowhere near as...Show more →
I may just use it as a sharp 16mm or 17mm by cropping off the corners
Long time reader but new board member who just got in the Voigtlander 15mm E mount lens. I had ordered the day it became available to do so in March. It got here Monday. I ran a couple of quick tests on the A7R and it's smeared in the corners at infinity distance. It's better than my Samyang 14mm (adapted Canon mount with Fotodiox adapter) and better than my adapted Canon 17-40 was. It is not as good as my Loxia 21.
It looks better than the first sample the Fred posted images from but is nowhere near as...Show more →
I may just use it as a sharp 16mm or 17mm by cropping off the corners
May 11, 2016 at 08:41 AM
p.37 #20Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Cropping from a 2:3 to a 4:5 will actually get rid of the two distant corners in an image so I suppose that could be an option.
Need to test more to see if a slight focus change back from the hard stop makes a difference.
Need to test more to see if a slight focus change back from the hard stop makes a difference.
May 11, 2016 at 08:46 AM