A check around the Net doesn't turn up too many commentaries on the new 12mm Heliar. Though I've only had the opportunity to take a few rolls with it so far it's a fascinating tool and will definately have a place in my kit.

My comments and a couple of sample images can be found at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/12mm.htm

Michael

-- Michael Reichmann (mreichmann@home.com), July 07, 2001

Answers

Back in November 2000 I mentioned that the December issue of "Shutterbug" had a review of this lens with photos. You can see a short bit of information quoted from that article, and if you have access to a library, you should be able to see the article which has several photos.

old thread:

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004220

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), July 07, 2001.

Two other reviews I read said the fall off on the edges was very minimal-less than the 15. You seemed to have a different experience with yours.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), July 07, 2001.

That's very interesting. I've been wondering about this lens for quite a while now and I may have to take the plunge.

I remember when a friend let me look through his 12's viewfinder my first impression was - but this is the way I see stuff anyway. I love taking pictures lying on the ground or from very close up and this is where the Leica lenses are a bit limited with their 70 cm closest focus.

Looks like a very good deal - I have yet to hear anyone make a negative comment about this lens.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), July 07, 2001.

I have the 12mm on a Leica CL. It's great. I shy away from the tricks of perspective. Nothing wrong with them but they're not my primary use for the lens. I had the Voigtlander 15mm and thought it was wide. The 12mm is amazing. What I like is that the photos look as though you could walk into them. Sharpness? I haven't done any serious testing but I have no complaints at this time. What you do have to be careful about is keeping the shooting level. Several photos where I thought I was shooting level were slightly off and the strong convergence of what were supposed to be parallel lines was more than I had imagined it would be.

Buy one!

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), July 08, 2001.

Hi, I read your impressions of the lens, funny how you couldnt make sharpness judgements on just a couple of rolls but can say its not up to Leica ASPH standards. Hmmmm I can say with some confidence its sharper than any Leica M lens below 20mm! (Basically you cant compare till they do make one!)

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), July 08, 2001.

Joel,

If the only criteria for judging a lens was "sharpness" then you'd be correct. But since there are at least a half dozen other important variables I stand by my conclusions (or lack of them).

Michael www.luminous-landscape.com

-- Michael Reichmann (mreichmann@home.com), July 08, 2001.

My point was, when Leica makes a 12mm M series lens then you will be able to compare and make that judgement, but to say that when they dont isnt a comparison at all!

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), July 08, 2001.

Another on-line review:

http://www.apogeephoto.com/dec2000/Voigtlander_ultra.shtml

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), July 09, 2001.

It appears from the few images I've seen from the 12, that it has quite a bit more apparant fall-off than that of my 15. Not that this isn't to be expected, but as Rob pointed out, I had heard that the 12 was supposed to be better than the 15 in this regard. Has anybody compared both in respects to fall-off?

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 10, 2001.

Excuse me, as ANDREW pointed out (!)

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 10, 2001.