Jump to content

Voightlander 15mm Super Heliar mk III vs version II


aliengrove
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have the mk II version of this lens, and while I like it a lot the corners are not very sharp, and, on my A7s, I sometimes get magenta colour shift in the corners. I was wondering if anyone here has compared the two versions, and if it is worth my while getting the mk III version? I read that the mk III has been designed specifically for mirror less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Version I and II are very bad at the corners/borders and not suitable for digital sensors. I own a good copy of version III today and it is very good without any smear or color shift.

However, sample variations may exist as some report. Mine is excellent, fortunately. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any difference between the voigtlander miii m mount and e mount. The e mount is 50% more in my country. Is it worth the extra money?

 

The optical construction is the same for E-mount and M-mount. However, the E-mount lenses transfer the Exif data to the camera, the M-mount lenses don't.

If you can live with these restrictions, go for the M-mount version when it is that much cheaper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

The optical construction is the same for E-mount and M-mount.

However, the E-mount lenses transfer the Exif data to the camera,

the M-mount lenses don't.

If you can live with these restrictions, go for the M-mount version

when it is that much cheaper.

   

Not just cheaper [if true], but more versatile. If you get the 

E-mount version, you still don't have an M-adapter to use 

with any other other M-mount lenses that catch your fancy.   

     

EXIF data ? YMMV but I see us Legacy-Lens-Hackers as 

being a bit Luddish .... so *obviously* the choice between 

geeky data recording [E-mount version] versus the option 

of further lens adaptations [M-mount with adapter] is clear 

as the the desert sky ! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just cheaper [if true], but more versatile. If you get the 

E-mount version, you still don't have an M-adapter to use 

with any other other M-mount lenses that catch your fancy.   

     

EXIF data ? YMMV but I see us Legacy-Lens-Hackers as 

being a bit Luddish .... so *obviously* the choice between 

geeky data recording [E-mount version] versus the option 

of further lens adaptations [M-mount with adapter] is clear 

as the the desert sky ! 

 

 

True! With a C/V close focus adapter wide angle macros are possible. And a Techart Pro AF adapter provides auto focus too. Although, with 15mm FL I can live without.

I wouldn't trade my M-lens for the E-lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Posts

    • I mostly see posterization artifacts, which are the result of lossy compressed RAW files (or bad jpeg conversion). Unfortunately, the A6400 doesn't offer uncompressed or lossless compressed RAW. The noise might indeed result from the smaller sensor than what you're used to. If you're not shooting at max aperture, you could try shooting at wider aperture and lower ISO. When you're not shooting at max aperture, fullframe versus APS-C shouldn't matter much in terms of ISO-performance combined with depth of field: at the same ISO and aperture value, fullframe offers better noise performance but with a narrower depth of field. This can be offset by choosing a larger aperture and lower ISO on the APS-C camera. If you want a fullframe camera the size of an A6400, try the A7C(ii).
    • ..unfortunately, the lighting was correct. The shot required deeper shadows. The K1 ff didnt have these banding issues [yes, I know the sensor is larger]. The film shots had details in the same light. The sony files, both the jpg and raw, had this banding/noise - with NO retouch or post adjustments [straight out of the camera]. the camera was purchased new a few years ago and I am trying to determine if there is something wrong, or the settings are wrong, or the camera just cant handle this kind of lighting [studio + softbox]. No shadow detail is one thing... banding/noise in the shadows is unacceptable. Does sony have a body this size that is FF ? Im wondering if that would make a difference..  dw
    • The root causes for banding are uneven lighting, incorrect exposure settings, or compression artefacts or certain kinds of artificial lighting, especially LED lights. Also the lens used plays a role, I have noticed it more with my sharpest lenses, looks like they outresolve the sensor when I have a uniform blue sky. There is more than one solution, and ultimately post-processing, but the root cause has to be identified first.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...