kram
Well-known
Hi, I am considering buying ba Contax Hologon G 16mm f8 and converting it to M mount. Main reason is the lack of distortion, minimum focus distance, resolution.
However, a 15mm f4.5 is usefully faster (and is M mount). Any info on how the new 15mm iii or the Zeiss ZM 15mm F2.8 and how they perform compared to the Hologon.
Does the 15mm iii have less distortion than the ZM 15mm?
The lens will be used with film.
However, a 15mm f4.5 is usefully faster (and is M mount). Any info on how the new 15mm iii or the Zeiss ZM 15mm F2.8 and how they perform compared to the Hologon.
Does the 15mm iii have less distortion than the ZM 15mm?
The lens will be used with film.
rscheffler
Well-known
The latest Voigtlander 15/4.5 III has less distortion than its predecessor, to the point in regular use, I would consider it virtually distortion free (in respect to the bending of straight lines). I'm not sure how that compares to the ZM, but Zeiss's data sheet for that lens indicates it has a fair amount of mustache-type distortion. Unfortunately Cosina does not publish such documentation for its Voigtlander lenses...
The data sheet for the Contax G Hologon indicates essentially zero distortion. I doubt the Voigtlander is that good. The ZM 15 is up to 4% of image height distortion. In comparison the ZM 18/4 is only 1% distortion...
The data sheet for the Contax G Hologon indicates essentially zero distortion. I doubt the Voigtlander is that good. The ZM 15 is up to 4% of image height distortion. In comparison the ZM 18/4 is only 1% distortion...
phofseth
Established
I used the original Hologon in Leica M mount . No distortion. (As you probably know, the usual but weird near- far perspective is a charactheristic of the angle of view, no more of a distortion than the compression of far away objects with a long lens)
I found the Hologon to be less sharp than I wanted, but did not at the time find a better alternative.
p.
I found the Hologon to be less sharp than I wanted, but did not at the time find a better alternative.
p.
kram
Well-known
I suppose what I am asking is, is the 15mm iii a better over all than the Holgon. Resolution as good, minimal distortion, less corner shading. With the advancements in optics,the 15mm is the one to go for.
kram
Well-known
I suppose what I am asking is, is the 15mm iii a better over all than the Holgon. Resolution as good, minimal distortion, less corner shading. With the advancements in optics,the 15mm is the one to go for.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
The Hologon 16mm f/8 is sharper than the Hologon 15mm f/8. There is an M-mount adapter available, but the lens/adapter combination will not fit all the M-Leicas(film). It will fit only the M1, MD, MDa or MD-2. The small handle of the lens will get in the way with the frame-lever of the other M-Leicas.
The big advantage of the Hologon compared to the Voigtländer 15mm is the graduated filter that is delivered with the lens. That filter makes the cos4-vignetting disappear.
Contax G1, Hologon 16mm f/8, Tmax400. (without filter)
Erik.
The big advantage of the Hologon compared to the Voigtländer 15mm is the graduated filter that is delivered with the lens. That filter makes the cos4-vignetting disappear.
Contax G1, Hologon 16mm f/8, Tmax400. (without filter)
Erik.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
I understand the CV 4.5/15 III was optimized for use with digital cameras. Since you intend to use a wide-angle lens with film, you may want to check-out the CV 4.5/15 II as well.
phofseth
Established
Addendum: the old Zeiss\Leitz Hologon did not have any problem on my M3 but its rear element stuck very far in towards the film. I imagine that current digital sensors would dislike it. Like the collapsible Summicron 50, it was ideal for carrying in a large jacket pocket, but the viewfinder used to stick.
p
p
Corran
Well-known
Sharpness? Distortion? Fall-off?
I don't believe for a second that any Hologon would be better than even ver. 1 of the 15mm Voigtlander, and you get 1 2/3 stop extra to boot.
This is the F-mount version adapted to a Bessa L, shot on T-Max 100 dev'd in Acufine. I could've got slightly higher resolution with FX-39 I suppose but scanned @ 6000 DPI I can make out statues in the windows. Distortion and fall-off performance is self-evident.
I don't believe for a second that any Hologon would be better than even ver. 1 of the 15mm Voigtlander, and you get 1 2/3 stop extra to boot.
This is the F-mount version adapted to a Bessa L, shot on T-Max 100 dev'd in Acufine. I could've got slightly higher resolution with FX-39 I suppose but scanned @ 6000 DPI I can make out statues in the windows. Distortion and fall-off performance is self-evident.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
It would be closer to three stops - the Hologon is almost useless without its (much stronger) graduated filter. By design the Hologon is strictly symmetrical around its nodal point, and mathematically distortion free, while the others are retrofocal and telecentric designs, with less vignetting and far more sensor friendly, but as a consequence they cannot have the same symmetry and corresponding lack of distortion.
Corran
Well-known
I'm aware of the design constraints, but I don't believe it's a given that a non-symmetrical design must have distortion.
Perhaps in a lab setting with very exacting measurements one could find some small amount of distortion present.
I am especially disturbed by distortion in rectilinear lenses. Really dislike it. Looking entirely too close I might say that every once in a while the barest hint of some pincushion distortion shows in images from the 15mm Voigtlander, but it is more likely slight curvature in the actual buildings I am photographing (or keystoning) or perhaps slight bowing of the film in the scanner, since it only seems to be seen in one or two photos I've ever taken with this lens.
The v3 may have more distortion due to changes in design.
\
Perhaps in a lab setting with very exacting measurements one could find some small amount of distortion present.
I am especially disturbed by distortion in rectilinear lenses. Really dislike it. Looking entirely too close I might say that every once in a while the barest hint of some pincushion distortion shows in images from the 15mm Voigtlander, but it is more likely slight curvature in the actual buildings I am photographing (or keystoning) or perhaps slight bowing of the film in the scanner, since it only seems to be seen in one or two photos I've ever taken with this lens.
The v3 may have more distortion due to changes in design.
jmanivelle
Well-known
Hi,
here a couple of shots taken with a 16 Hologon f/8 M converted,
taken with the SL 601 Leica:
Expo Josef Sudek - Paris by JM__, on Flickr
Josef Sudek exhibition, going in ! by JM__, on Flickr
Expo Josef Sudek - Paris by JM__, on Flickr
Unfortunately I found out that the conversion was not well done and I will have to reshim / calibrate the flange distance as I could not shoot near the infinity .
Best, JM
here a couple of shots taken with a 16 Hologon f/8 M converted,
taken with the SL 601 Leica:
Expo Josef Sudek - Paris by JM__, on Flickr
Josef Sudek exhibition, going in ! by JM__, on Flickr
Expo Josef Sudek - Paris by JM__, on Flickr
Unfortunately I found out that the conversion was not well done and I will have to reshim / calibrate the flange distance as I could not shoot near the infinity .
Best, JM
Erik van Straten
Veteran
jmanivelle, I don't think that the Hologon lenses are suitable for digital cameras. They may fit, but the rear lens is too close to the sensor so there will be more vignetting than on film cameras, above all in the corners.
Erik.
Erik.
jmanivelle
Well-known
Erik, I agree, even with the original filter, there still is a lot of vignetting. I still enjoyed it digitally and it's a learning curve . Once fixed , I intend to use the Hologon on a M film body as well . Have you shot color film with the Hologon?
Best, JM.
kram
Well-known
All, Thanks very much for the posts. Interesting photos. Any photos with the hologon without thr graduated filter. If it has to used most of the time with the filter, I would rather go with the VC 15mm.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
No, I think that the filter is only necessary when making shots that must rival the results of a field camera (the Hologon is that damn good) for architectural photography. For less formal shots you can leave the filter off. Personally I think the Hologon is very good for portraiture.
Contax G1, Hologon 16mm f/8 (without filter), Tmax400.
Erik.
