30mm Distagon Thoughts, & let's see some pictures

[Rob F.]

<p>I've thought about picking up one of these. There are times when even my 40mm Distagon is not quite wide enough. As I understand it, the 30mm is a fisheye. I was a little surprised to see how much they sell for used! I had imagined that, as fisheye lenses are a bit of a novelty special effects item, owners might grow tired of them, resulting in low prices. That turns out to be a fantasy! </p>

<p>I'd like to hear from owners and users of the 30mm Distagon. How do you like it, and when do you use it? For what subjects? Care to post some pictures? Do you prefer the C, CT*, CF?</p>

 

[leicaglow]

<p>Hello Rob. I would suggest you get a lot of examples by going to Flickr's stream:<a href="

<p>I owned a C version, but fisheyes grow tiresome to me (same with my 16mm Nikkor, which I still have). There are some uses for it, but it's mostly over dramatic for my tastes. Though I do wonder what it would look like when running it through a program like Nikon NX to straighten out the image.</p>

<p>Why prices stay so high for this lens is a bit of a mystery to me. The sharpness is superb, and more importantly, there is no falloff of light or sharpness, all the way to the edge. I sold mine because the prices were so high, and I bought an X-pan with the proceeds.</p>

<p> </p>

[rashed_s]

Even the Xpan 30MM lens set which comes with the finder and the centre filters used is of no less

than 3500 USA dollars, thats even some times more expensive than the V version 30MM.

 

The 40MM is possibly gonna be used more as its equivalent to 24MM in 35MM format, but how

much to use the 30MM is a matter of applications needed and taste.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Re the price they go for: they may pop up now and again, but there weren't many produced. That is reflected in the price you have to pay.<br>And being indeed a bit of a 'novelty special effect' lens, people looking for one generally are people who do want one despite, or rather because of it, i.e. they really want one. That too makes them expensive.

[Rob F.]

<p>"I owned a C version, but fisheyes grow tiresome to me (same with my 16mm Nikkor, which I still have). There are some uses for it, but it's mostly over dramatic for my tastes."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, I have the 16mm Russian Fisheye for my Nikon. I agree, it does become tiresome. I can only think of a few shots I have taken with it that I'm happy with. Thanks for that link, Michael. After reviewing those shots, I think I'll skip the 30mm. All that curvature is not for me.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[kparratt]

<p>Can't help with advice about pricing, except that from a facility for the dollar ratio, they are a poor investment, unless you see a good use for that sort of thing.<br /> When I first took serious note of the Hasselblad system with the view to actually getting in on it, (mid 1980s) I took one look at the 30mm Fish Eye lens, and wondered, "okay .. where's the rest of it". Prior to this, cinematography had already gripped me as a fascinating field. I was well aware of anamorphic lenses. Briefly, the anamorphic camera lens compresses a wide view onto an area of film with tighter aspect ratio, and a reverse, complementary lens (of the same anamorphic power ) stretches the image horizontally to the original proportions. Thus presenting a natural vision experience of the wide view.<br /> With my very first, glossy Hasselblad brochure open on the table, staring at this fish eye thing, a myriad of thoughts zoomed through my head as to why there wasn't a similar anamorphic lens system for still photography. With the technology and production already in place, a camera and enlarger lens pair would not have been beyond the scope of Schneider, who were already supplying anamorphic lenses worldwide. It just didn't enter the 6x6 heads at Hasselblad, or anywhere else. Really, imagine being able to have a 6x8 cm effective negative from a 6x6 camera, simply by changing the lens.<br /> Looking back the 30mm fish eye. Ok it's a different beast, ..and my question from 35 years ago, "where's the rest of it" ? Yes, a corresponding lens to pull the image out of that tiresome distortion. What brought all this to mind now is Michaels comment, and is very interesting, ..</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Though I do wonder what it would look like when running it through a program like Nikon NX to straighten out the image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And it also crossed my mind that the "Fish eye" concept was a way of marketing a failure. Because you can bet that if Zeiss, Schneider, Nikon (Bronica) or anyone could have computed a 30mm, rectiliniar, retrofocus lens for 6x6, which was both affordable and of practical dimensions, and also possessing the 30 Distagons other impressive qualities, they would have done, and produced it greater numbers, ... and we'd all have one ;-)</p>

[robert_marvin]

<p>The Ukrainian 30 mm Arsat is pretty good--not quite up to the Distagon in quality, but, together with a good Kiev 60 body (not, IMO, a contradiction in terms in the Arax 60 iteration) only a small fraction of the Distagon's cost .</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>The lens is really pretty miraculous. That it is so sharp with little intrusion into the mirror box of the camera, is remarkable.</p>

<p>Rashed, Trust me, I keep my eyes out for the elusive 30mm XPan lens. I bought a 45 and 90mm, and love it. Though later I wondered why I didn't just chop down images from my V system<g>.</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>And it also crossed my mind that the "Fish eye" concept was a way of marketing a failure. Because you can bet that if Zeiss, Schneider, Nikon (Bronica) or anyone could have computed a 30mm, rectiliniar, retrofocus lens for 6x6, which was both affordable and of practical dimensions, and also possessing the 30 Distagons other impressive qualities, they would have done, and produced it greater numbers, ... and we'd all have one ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kevin,<br>

You are missing the point of why fisheyes exist. They are absolutely not a failure! They were first designed for all-sky meteorological photography. They have always been very popular with astrophotographers like myself: I have 3, for different formats. Not only do they maximise the amount of sky coverage; not only do they have almost zero corner illumination falloff wide open; they also image they sky with the <em>least</em> amount of distortion! That may be hard to believe because photographers are indoctrinated with "fisheyes introduce terrible distortion" over and over again. But there is almost no better way of mapping a hemisphere onto a plane. With an ultrawide <em>rectilinear</em> lens, constellations get <em>distorted</em> into weird shapes near the edges of the field. With a fisheye, they far better retain their normal appearance and angular relationships.</p>

<p>The way that fisheyes produce interesting effects in everyday photography created another, bigger market for them. To me, that means that they found further success, rather than failure, outside their original intended purpose.</p>

<p>As far as your "where's the rest of it?" question goes; the complementary enlarging lens could indeed be made, but for the most natural looking results, the paper that you print onto would have to have a 3-d hemispherical surface!</p>

<p> </p>

[jonathan_montague]

<p>i too was contemplating getting a fisheye for extreme sports shooting. i decided not to spend the money in the end. if your after a v wide lens have you thought about buying a Superwide system with its splendid 38mm lens..</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Kevin,<br><br>Why anamorphotic lenses?<br>First compressing, then expanding the image in one direction does absolutely nothing good to the resulting image. On the contrary.<br>Yes, it makes the image a wider. But if the 6x6 format isn't wide enough for you, or you like an oblong format rather than the square, there are quite enough cameras that offer a wider/oblong format and retain (!) the quality both needed in still photography and expected from a medium format camera. Should anyone not value quality much, how about APS-H or APS-P? ;-)

[kparratt]

<p>Q.G.<br>

Regarding anamorphic optics, I have been contacted off line and invited to continue the discussion at another place, with the expressed desire to do so in your absence. Besides it is a new subject and thus a departure from Rob's question.</p>

[rashed_s]

Many of my friends here do not like the fish eye effect but I did and for a long time, I started with

Canon both the 7.5 and the 15MM, and their images are really beautiful, specially their effect in

darkening the blue colors of the sky as they been with polarizing magic.

 

For Arsat, I been into the net for the whole last week and I can tell you, the lens is some how luck

sharpness, specially from the corners and also not in a condition to produce good colors, this is

different with the hasselblad 30MM lens, it so well balanced. special glass materials, special

machining and very specialized coating, that what makes it so expensive, will deserve to be so?,

to my poor understanding, yes the price is in within the quality and there fore it do deserve it.

[diegobuono]

<p>For those interested, this seller has 2 (one C version and one CF, the C version has a very good price) but it is located in Italy (Milan), it is a reputably shop here but I don't know if it sell in different country.<br>

<a href="http://www.newoldcamera.com/Catalogo.aspx?Marca=HASSELBLAD&Tipo=OB">http://www.newoldcamera.com/Catalogo.aspx?Marca=HASSELBLAD&Tipo=OB</a><br>

Hope this help</p>