Ultra-Wide Angle Optics, 15mm and 16mm

I know that a good number of us own the Voigtlander 15mm Heliar and a

few have the 12mm. Does anybody here own the M mount Zeiss Hologon

lens that was marketed by Leitz, or the Zeiss Hologon camera with

fixed lens? At the time they were both failures on the market. I

wonder if there are any snobs who won't buy the Japanese made Heliar

but would gladly spend 5 or 10 times as much for a made in Solms

genuine Leica 15mm lens? What are your thoughts on this?

Al, I have never tried the Zeiss Hologon, but I'd tried the Heliar, and all I can say that it's only good because it's cheap. Definitely not what I'd consider Leica or Zeiss standard. I remember it was ok sharp and distortion free, but vignetted horribly. The Leica 15mm R looked amazing, and I'd expect the same from the ZM 15mm Distagon. Of course they are probably more than 10 times more expensive too. However, I can see how people who need it for serious architectural work (or whatever one does with an ultrawide) might appreciate it. So I think calling them snobs would be too harsh.

Over 10,000 posts? Get a life, Al... : )

 

I saw Luigi offering one of these 15mm M-mount Zeiss Hologons a couple of years ago for around $8,000-$10,000.

Al, the last time I saw a Hologon-M it went for $7000, a bit more than 5 or 10x the cost of a Heliar! And I recall seeing mint ones go for as much as $12-$15 thousand at the height of the Japanese collecting frenzy back in the late 90s. I don't know what they're selling for nowadays but if a mint one came along at 5x the price of the Heliar I think I might seriously consider it, after all it's a piece of history.

 

Max, in re the vignetting, the Hologon came with a graduated center filter for exactly that reason, it vignettes severely. You ought not compare it to the 15mm R lenses, they are completely different animals. For the brief time I owned the 15/3.5 Super-Elmar I was delighted with its performance, though it's front lenscap weighed as much as my Heliar!

Max, the Hologon vignetted badly also, so much so that it was supplied with a center filter that cut your exposure by 2 stops when you needed even coverage. If you're using a lens for pro uses the new Zeiss and Leica R lens prices might easily be justified. My thoughts were more about the type of buyer who just must have "The Best" and only in pristine perfect condition. I used to have Vivitar 20 and 24mm lenses in Leicaflex T-4 adapters that I used on my SL and R4s and had no complaints from clients. They were good enough for use in grand opening brochures and/or newspaper ads for several Miami area malls including The Mall at 163rd St., Omni International Mall, Dadeland Mall, and Loemann's Plaza.

I seem to remember that Leitz closed out those 15mm Hologons for a mere $1,200 each with the center filter and finder because they couldn't sell the things. That was still a pile of money 30 years ago!

Al

 

I don't think it is a question of being snobs...it is just being practical. Would I spend that kind of money for a 15mm lens (Hologon)...no. The ZM Distagon sounds pretty nice but like the Heliar it is fairly slow. I prefer to use the heck out of my 21mm Biogon and 21mm Color Skopar but when it comes to something wider I'll use my other camera system and the wider, faster, inexpensive, high quality glass that is available.

Al,-- I bought one of the Zeiss Hologon cameras because it was MUCH

cheaper than the lens in an M mount. As I recall, it was labeled as

a Contarex Hologon, but it had none of the features of the Contarex. Got rid of it a long time ago.

 

I have been told that the Zeiss 16mm Distagon is an order of magnitude

better than the Hologon and much faster too. Only 1 millimeter longer.

 

Jerry

Well, this Leica snob, when he decides to get a 15mm, will go for the Heliar. I like the best, but there are limits, and I have to draw the line somewhere.

 

I don't usually think "I won't use this too often, it doesn't have to be that good" "I will just use this occasionally, cheap is good enough." Or, "I'm just an amateur, what do I need with such a good camera (or lens)." I usually figure than when I need it, I want it to be good. But I guess there is room for such thinking, especially along the lines of "I'll start with this inexpensive one, and if I use it much, I'll upgrade."

 

I bought (asked my wife for) a russian Zenitar fisheye. I just couldn't see shelling out hundreds for a Nikkor or Leica one. I've used it for a few shots, not too often. It's nicely made, looks good, the pictures are fine, and you know, I can say, "For something I don't use that much, it's good enough" especially since I can't find anything wrong with it in the first place. But of course I had to have a 21mm ASPH, and that is in addition to the 21mm SA f/3.4 I already had. So there's over $2500 in used lenses right there, that don't get used every week. I needed the 21mm for a shot of Landscape Arch last year. And I took a shot with it last week. So that justifies it right there, sort of.

 

Experience with a couple of lenses like the Zenitar and an occasional Tokina or Vivitar have shown me that not every lens has to cost a fortune to be adequate. So the answer is "No, I would get the VC lens in this case."

The 15mm f/8 Hologon (integrated in a Zeiss Ikon camera) is a rectlinear lens just like the 15mm f/4.5 superwide heliar. Recently, a Zeiss Hologon 15mm was sold for the Contax G series cameras.

 

The 16mm f/2.8 Distagon is a fish eye lens.

 

I have no experience with the hologon (seen them around) or distagon. I do use a CV 15mm lens.

"Recently, a Zeiss Hologon 15mm was sold for the Contax G series cameras."

 

I meant- In the recent times (before the demise of Kyocera Contax 35mm), Zeiss Hologon 15mm lenses were sold for the Contax G series cameras.

When my ship sails in, I might check out the Hologon as I complete my transition from shooter to (gasp) shooter/collector. But that ship is still a long way over the horizon. Meanwhile, I have found absolutely nothing to complain about the 15mm VC Heliar and have posted a lot of shots taken with that lens. I haven't noticed enough vignetting to put me off. I am also saving up for an adapter to mount my 15mm f3.5 SMC Pentax-M on my Leicas. That's another rectilinear super-wide that's given me awesome results, but proved rather heavy to lug around. I like the Pentax 15mm for Black and White, and its built-in filters. That's a sweet, but BIG honkin' lens.

 

The 12mm is an interesting lens, but it is really, really hard to manage properly. My results with that baby have been very hit-and-miss.

 

I used to be a very heavy 21-28-50 user, or 15-21-35-75/90 user. Lately, I'v found myself leaving the 21 at home and just taking the 15. Maybe it's just a passing phase. I've had them before.

One US dealer had a Leica Mt Zeiss for sale for months at $2500 a few years ago. Mint condition

 

The was a comparison review in Leica Photography when the Heliar came out. The Zeiss was a fixed F8 and 16 with the center filter. Al would probably like it as he could get his knuckles in the pic in addition to his elbow as it is a very flat lens (humor attempt).

 

At f8, the Heliar was as good for a fraction of the price.

 

I`ll stay with my Heliar. The Leica one will be $5000. Now guys who are chomping for a digi Leica RF will need one for their wide shots.

 

The 12 vignettes so I start all the prints thru a board with a 6"hole in it, then raise it up to finish the print. Comes out perfectly. Al could use this one too so we could see if he wears shoes in Florida ( more Humor).

Al, as often you posting your pics taken wtih the CV 15, I do not see why Leica couldn't use you as their representative for the 15mm SLR lens. They ought to just give you lens, you know.

"Recently, a Zeiss Hologon 15mm was sold for the Contax G"<p>That was a 16mm.

I wouldn't mind getting a free 15mm lens from Leica! I guess that next week when I go to the Leica Demo Day at Dale I'll be carrying an M2-R body with a 21/3.4 Super Angulon and stick the 15 Heliar in a pouch, at least while I'm around the Leica rep...LOL

 

As for my footwear, I have a collection ranging from lace-up cap toes to sneakers but I uusually wear leather boat shoes with no socks when I'm wearing jeans. Dang, you guys can get nosey!

My 15 mm Heilar is a very nice lens. The build quality of my 21 Asphere Elmarit is better, but optically, it's in the same league.

 

It doesn't couple with the rangefinder. Hardly matters, though.

Hi all, I have the 15 Heliar and (two) Zeiss Distagon 16s for Rolleiflex 35s. (The user version is about to be offered for sale). There is no comparison. The Zeiss produces magnificent frames, the Heliar is a proverbial sideshow piece.

 

Here is a sample of the Zeiss (sorry, but I no longer have anything from the Heliar posted to my pages).

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1643373-lg.jpg

 

Ya gets whats ya pay for.

Ray Hull

I remember reading a review of the 15mm Zeiss Hologon compared to the VC Heliar (I thought it was here) with pictures showing center and edge comparisons. I seem to recall it was about a year after the Heliar's release. The review (wherever it was) gave a slight edge to the Hologon, but it was so slight that's when I decided to buy the Heliar.

 

In any case, as seldom as I use my 15mm, it will suffice until something extraordinary comes along.

 

BTW, I personally refuse to buy the Zeiss 15mm T* in M mount (no matter how good it is) because an M-mount lens in the $4,000 price neighborhood should couple to the RF irregardless of the wide DOF. Plus, I also seem to recall hearing Leica has one up their sleeves for the near future.

Occulus-- Good photo! Where does Vivek get the idea that the 16mm

Distagon is a fish-eye lens? It is obvious from your photo that it is not.

 

Jerry

No complaints using the CV 15mm ... used it all morning at a street festival mounted on a Bessa L, alternating with a Hexar AF 35mm ... I almost always use mine at f16 though ... all afternoon I was out on the bike using a Tokina 17mm on a Minolta XD11 ... I find a lot of use for ultra wides ...

Once upon a time I bought a Contax G2 so that I could enjoy the Zeiss Hologon 16 offered

in Contax G system mount. Slow but a very good lens. I then acquired a Leica CL and CV

15, did a bit of comparison testing. The Hologon outperformed it on all counts, but I got

more and better photographs with the CV 15 as it was simply easier to use more of the

time.

<br><br>

After a lot of photos, I decided that, for me, 15mm field of view was simply a little too

wide for my taste: I couldn't really get comfortable with it. I went back to a 21mm, 90

degrees across the diagonal. That works for me. Moving to a Pentax DSLR, their DA14/2.8

lens

gives me the same field of view and does the job well.

<br><br>

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/35.jpg"><br>

<i>Oxford Street Corner<br>

©2005 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Pentax *ist DS + DA14mm f/2.8<br>

ISO 400 @ f/8 @ 1/250 sec, Av mode, +0.7EV <br>

</i>

</center><br>

Correction: Fisheye is the F-Distagon.

 

And, yes the Contax G lens is a 16mm Hologon.

In the sere and yellow leaf of my late middle age, I am coming to the conclusion that ultra wides -- including my beloved Hassie SWC/M are overrated.

How so, Paul?

 

I honestly think two factors are in play in your situation- 1. Getting used to the square format 2. Inadequate metering/scanning.

 

I could be very wrong as well.