[Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

At 5:02 AM -0800 11/6/07, Douglas Herr wrote:

>No question of its price but this thread has included statements such as :
>
>"The 14's for the SLR's, the zooms that go down to 16 or 17 all have
>serious distortion. The best is probably the 12-24 f/4-5.6 Sigma."
>
>Leica sells a 15mm f/2.8 (made by Schneider) for the R cameras and 
>according to some reports its distortion is very low.  It ought to 
>be at least mentioned, for some people the low distortion will 
>override the high price.
>

Over the years I've made an effort to at least try most of the lenses 
of 90 degree angle of view or more. Right now I have between 15 and 
20, but the number I have tried is well over 100.

I've tried most of the 14's as they have been available at local 
shops, and I have or have had a number of the other lenses of 16mm or 
less. When added all together, the value of the lenses I have was 
still well south of the Super Elmarit. Which I have seen in a box, 
unopened locally and on a camera at the Leica booth at Photokina. No 
idea of performance. Better be superb.

The older 15/3.5 Elmar is essentially the same design as the old 
Zeiss 15/3.5 for the Contax, the 15/3.5 Nikkor and the 15/3.5 Pentax. 
All are very decent for their time, with relatively low distortion 
but considerable flare and some softness in the corners so that the 
best overall performance is at about f/11, at which point the center 
shows signs of degradation due to diffraction.

If you're shooting film and not going through a digital step, 
distortion is important. If you're shooting digital or scanning, 
distortion fades from significance. Corner sharpness is always 
important, as is flare resistance and chromatic aberration, and those 
things have been improved significantly in most newer lenses.

-- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com