[Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison

[leowesson at gmail.com (leo wesson)]

Leonard,

ok, thanks!  that was a a big help.

Leo


On 11/4/07, Leonard Taupier <len-1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Leo,
>
> I have the WATE and have used my son's CV15 and also looked at some
> of his photos he took with it. I mostly use the WATE with my M8,
> which corrects for any vignetting, but I have also used it on my film
> MP. I have never even seen the Zeiss 16mm so can't comment on it. My
> son's photos with the CV 15 were taken on a film camera as well.
>
> I find the CV15 vignettes more then the WATE on a film camera.
>
> My son's photos were all taken on the Boston Common with a lot of
> trees in the pictures. The branches on the ends and in the corners
> were fuzzy. I attribute that to focus error and shallow DOF. I didn't
> see that when I used the lens.
>
> I see barrel distortion using the CV15 that I don't see with the
> WATE. Mostly I see no distortion with the WATE but I do have one
> photo where the corner of a church very close to the edge of the
> frame shows a little pincushion. I don't know if the church is built
> that way but in any case it's only on one frame out of many I've taken.
>
> All of these lenses can benefit from a finder with a built in bubble
> level like what's built into the new Leica Frankenfinder that comes
> with the WATE kit. An un-level camera will give you pretty distorted
> pictures with all of these lenses.
>
> There is a huge price difference between these lenses, however with
> the WATE you actually get three lenses in one. The CV12 may be better
> then the CV15. For the price I think they are very good lenses. A
> coupled RF would help.
>
> I hope this helps. I can post a couple WATE photos taken with the MP
> if you like.
>
> Len
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2007, at 2:12 PM, leo wesson wrote:
>
> > How does the 16 zeiss compare to the 16 on the WATE to the 15 CV?
> > Mostly
> > asking about linear distortion and edge to edge sharpness and
> > vignetting.  I
> > have the cv lens and it kinda drives me nuts that it 1) isn't
> > rangefinder
> > coupled and 2) isn't a 2.8, but I am wondering if it is worth 3-4k
> > more to
> > upgrade.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Leo
>
>