Re: [Leica] ultra wide

[Malcolm McCullough <blayne@mbox2.singnet.com.sg>]

gck wrote:

>I am in the process of doing a job that will pay for my ultra wide lust.  I
>would like to get a 14 or 15mm non fisheye.  Now my choices in the under
>$1,000 dept are:
>
>-getting the voightlander (sp?), with the finder and buying a screw to m
>adapter. (to hang on my M42)
>-getting a sigma 14mm f2.8 asph for my Nikon or Canon systems. The faster
>one they just introduced.
>
>My goal is to get the best performing lens that shows fairly low levels of
>distortion and high levels of sharpness.
...
>Do any of you  have seen negs from both of these lenses?  Do you know of any
>published  test reports on these two?
>
...

I have both the lenses you mention. I got the Sigma (Nikon fit)  for a
specific job before the Heliar came out. I didn't think that I would use
that length often enough to justify the 15 mm Nikkor, let alone the R (much
as I would have liked it) or the Hologon. I have to say that so far I have
been slightly more impressed by the Sigma (contrast and sharpness) than
with the Heliar, but I haven't done a side-by-side comparison. I'll try to
do one tomorrow. I haven't really wanted to use the Sigma/Nikon combination
when the smaller, lighter Heliar/M6 combination has been available  -
unless I need the precise framing of the SLR. They both have impressively
low distortion, but are not quite as good as the Hologon in that respect.
Overall, the images from neither of them please me as much as those from
the 21 mm Elmarit-M asph.

Pop Photography have just done a test of both lenses and the new Tamron (?
T something, anyway) 14 mm. The Sigma appeared to just beat the dearer
Tamron in terms of their Subjective Quality Thingie (or whatever it is
called) but PP didn't make any direct comparisons. The Heliar was called
'probably the best ultra-wide we have ever tested' or something (I don't
have the article with me). They couldn't do their SQT on it. They did
comment that, contrary to normal practice, the viewfinder showed more than
the lens' angle of view. I'd noticed that.

My guess is that they are fairly similar in terms of optical quality (ie
pretty damn good), but with very different handling. For studied, precise
framing and alignment (which was important for the job I bought the Sigma
for) the SLR system is a clear preference. The Sigma also has a gel slot
behind the rear element. It is a little fiddly to use. For free-er, less
formal work I'd use the Heliar. I carry the Heliar most of the time. Even
if I carried a Nikon in place of the M6, I'd be reluctant to carry the
Sigma as much as the Heliar. If I only had one of them it would be the Heliar.

Hope that helps,
Malcolm