My feelings on having bought a Zeiss Hologon 16/8

[Corran]

I've never used the III model of the Voigtlander. I have the rare Nikon F mount version which I can use on my Nikon RF cameras or LTM/M cameras.

I have used it on the M9 and it works fairly well with the automatic corrections from the camera set to the Tri-Elmar 16mm setting. The Hologon has many more issues as shown by your images.

Personally I don't think the Hologon (or any 15mm) works great for street images. Perhaps in rare instances. Instead, your first image plays to its strengths.

Wide-angle lenses (really wide) are my thing, and my most-used lenses on my rangefinders are often the 15mm, 21mm, or 25mm. My requirements and preferences are only towards film nowadays (working on trading my M9 for another film camera). I often use a 38mm lens on 6x9 which is like a 15mm on 35mm - I really like that range. The Voigtlander isn't a sterile or ultra-modern lens IMO. But, this isn't really about that lens. I'm just pointing out that for most people, it would be the preferred option, for various reasons.

 

[Emile de Leon]

I luv the ultra wides..esp in unusual circumstances..
Started out with the Brooks Veriwide 47mm on 6x10 MF...
then...the Voightlander 15mm ver 1..that thing is so tiny...
Then went for a 7mm to 14mm zoom for the Lumix 4/3rds..wonderful lens..
Now have the WATE for the Leicas..another versatile WA..
I also have some WA's for LF/ULF too..but don't use them much as digital has taken over..
The 210mm XL comes to mind here as well as the Protars..

 

[Godfrey]

I still have two Contax G1 cameras with 28mm, 45mm, and 90mm lenses.
Yes, it is a very expensive quirky lens, but it costs less than some Leica wide angle lenses.

Some? I think "nearly all" is a better estimation. :angel:

I bought the Hologon new when I had it, it was what I did with an unexpected windfall bonus. It was a bit more than $2000 then.

My current ultra-ultra wides:

• The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH, or WATE as it's called. It is a terrific lens on both the M-D and the CL bodies, with very little distortion and a focusing mount that allows scale focusing down to 12" (and very accurate TTL focusing with the CL).
• The Leica Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5 ... essentially, the Zeiss Distagon 15mm built for Leica R cameras to Leica's specification by Zeiss. Another fabulous performer.
• The Leica Elmarit-R 19mm f/2.8 v1 ... A unique Walter Mandler lens design with Walter's signature take on the Leica look and feel to its rendering.

Ultra-wide lenses in this class are fascinating things, and all the good ones are quite expensive. They generally don't get used a whole heck of a lot, but produce unique imaging when they are.

 

[raid]

I've never used the III model of the Voigtlander. I have the rare Nikon F mount version which I can use on my Nikon RF cameras or LTM/M cameras.

I have used it on the M9 and it works fairly well with the automatic corrections from the camera set to the Tri-Elmar 16mm setting. The Hologon has many more issues as shown by your images.

Personally I don't think the Hologon (or any 15mm) works great for street images. Perhaps in rare instances. Instead, your first image plays to its strengths.

Wide-angle lenses (really wide) are my thing, and my most-used lenses on my rangefinders are often the 15mm, 21mm, or 25mm. My requirements and preferences are only towards film nowadays (working on trading my M9 for another film camera). I often use a 38mm lens on 6x9 which is like a 15mm on 35mm - I really like that range. The Voigtlander isn't a sterile or ultra-modern lens IMO. But, this isn't really about that lens. I'm just pointing out that for most people, it would be the preferred option, for various reasons.

I have a CV 21mm lens for the Nikon RF system, but I have been told not to try to mount in on the M9 with an adapter since there is some obstruction that will not allow it.

 

[raid]

I luv the ultra wides..esp in unusual circumstances..
Started out with the Brooks Veriwide 47mm on 6x10 MF...
then...the Voightlander 15mm ver 1..that thing is so tiny...
Then went for a 7mm to 14mm zoom for the Lumix 4/3rds..wonderful lens..
Now have the WATE for the Leicas..another versatile WA..
I also have some WA's for LF/ULF too..but don't use them much as digital has taken over..
The 210mm XL comes to mind here as well as the Protars..

I started out with the same 47mm lens, but I have it on a Graflex XLSW wide camera.

 

[Emile de Leon]

I started out with the same 47mm lens, but I have it on a Graflex XLSW wide camera

That camera really produces beautiful results at large print sizes..only downfall is it is slow at F8 wide open..but the Veriwide Brooks is not much bigger than a Leica M..
One of my fave cams of all time..but not w/o its issues either..

 

[raid]

Some? I think "nearly all" is a better estimation. :angel:

I bought the Hologon new when I had it, it was what I did with an unexpected windfall bonus. It was a bit more than $2000 then.

My current ultra-ultra wides:

• The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH, or WATE as it's called. It is a terrific lens on both the M-D and the CL bodies, with very little distortion and a focusing mount that allows scale focusing down to 12" (and very accurate TTL focusing with the CL).
• The Leica Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5 ... essentially, the Zeiss Distagon 15mm built for Leica R cameras to Leica's specification by Zeiss. Another fabulous performer.
• The Leica Elmarit-R 19mm f/2.8 v1 ... A unique Walter Mandler lens design with Walter's signature take on the Leica look and feel to its rendering.

Ultra-wide lenses in this class are fascinating things, and all the good ones are quite expensive. They generally don't get used a whole heck of a lot, but produce unique imaging when they are.

Yes, all Leica wide angle lenses cost more than what I have paid for my Hologon. My widest Leica lenses are the 35mm focal length Summicron and Summilux.
Your WATE sounds very interesting, but it is also costly.

 

[raid]

That camera really produces beautiful results at large print sizes..only downfall is it is slow at F8 wide open..but the Veriwide Brooks is not much bigger than a Leica M..
One of my fave cams of all time..but not w/o its issues either..

I got the XLSW years before I got into RF photography with Leica cameras. I then had a Koni-Omega with its 50mm lens, which was a good way to work out and build up muscles! The XLSW was in comparison like a baby camera. I used to carry with me a Fujica 690BL and the XLSW for landscape photography. Each camera had its special charms.

 

[Godfrey]

Yes, all Leica wide angle lenses cost more than what I have paid for my Hologon. My widest Leica lenses are the 35mm focal length Summicron and Summilux.
Your WATE sounds very interesting, but it is also costly.

Indeed! I bought a mint condition one second-hand, and traded my Elmar-M 24mm in the process, and it still cost a bunch. But it was certainly worth it. 🙂

Leica SL + Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 (WATE)
ISO 400 @ f/4 @ 1/20 @ 16mm​

 

[Rob-F]

Raid, I can easily understand your attachment to this lens. I feel the same way about my 15mm f/3.5 Nikkor!

 

[raid]

Raid, I can easily understand your attachment to this lens. I feel the same way about my 15mm f/3.5 Nikkor!

It is an attachment to a unique lens, and since I don't own many unique lenses, this lens becomes special to me. Was it logical to buy this lens? Maybe not. Your Nikkor 15/3.5 also costs a bunch, Rob. 😀

 

[raid]

Indeed! I bought a mint condition one second-hand, and traded my Elmar-M 24mm in the process, and it still cost a bunch. But it was certainly worth it. 🙂

I was after the "zero distortion" claim by owners of the Hologon. I may for the fun of it use the lens on a film Leica to see what I can get then.

 

[Corran]

I have a CV 21mm lens for the Nikon RF system, but I have been told not to try to mount in on the M9 with an adapter since there is some obstruction that will not allow it.

You've got to machine down the rear end piece, and it will work. I did this and use it on my Leica M6 a lot. Almost all of my Nikon RF lenses work on my Leica cameras. I own only 3 Leica lenses - all of them old: 50mm Elmar, 50mm Summitar, and 90mm Elmar. I use Nikkor, Voigtlander, and Zeiss lenses instead.

Ultra-wide lenses in this class are fascinating things, and all the good ones are quite expensive.

Not anymore. Modern lens design and manufacture has made the impossible possible.

Since we are talking about other ultrawides, The Voigtlander 12mm is of course amazing, and I have been really loving it for architectural images:

Speaking of different formats, the Schneider 47mm f/5.6 XL is one of my favorite lenses on 4x5. It's hard to find the right composition though. The 58mm XL is a bit easier (which is equivalent, roughly, to that 15mm on 35mm film). This is the 47mm XL, used on a 3D-printed camera that cost me $200:

 

[Godfrey]

...
Not anymore. Modern lens design and manufacture has made the impossible possible.

Since we are talking about other ultrawides, The Voigtlander 12mm is of course amazing, and I have been really loving it for architectural images:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/atlanta-0734ss.jpg

Speaking of different formats, the Schneider 47mm f/5.6 XL is one of my favorite lenses on 4x5. It's hard to find the right composition though. The 58mm XL is a bit easier (which is equivalent, roughly, to that 15mm on 35mm film). This is the 47mm XL, used on a 3D-printed camera that cost me $200:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/gulfcoast-0889ss.jpg

Lovely photos!

I'm glad you consider a $900 lens as not expensive. 🙂

It's true that the Voigtländer UW lenses are an excellent deal for the money. I had and compared the Heliar 16mm Aspherical I to the Hologon 16mm back in the day and there was no comparison then .. the Hologon was a far far better performer. That said, the Heliar was both a lot easier and more fun to shoot with. The later Voigtländer lenses have improved enormously, of course. But they're still pricey. The Voigtländer 16 type III and the WATE @16mm are very closely matched for some uses, but with the WATE you're getting multiple focal lengths, smaller size, and even better build quality for the extra money. So it's a bit of a toss up.

My favorite ultrawide remains the Hasselblad SWC with its Biogon 38mm f/4.5 T* lens, but of course that delivers best results only on 6x6 format film. Each of my other UWs delivers its unique qualities that satisfy me, so I can't complain.

 

[Corran]

You'll have to tell me which Voigtlander 16mm lens you are referring to that is $900 😕.

I don't know what the older I and II models of the Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 Heliar sold for when introduced. I know now they can be purchased used for $300-350. I see the Leica WATE is currently $6300. It's hard to compare when there is such a vast chasm between the two in price. At 1/20th the price, it would probably be "good for the money" even if it imaged like a coke bottle. But being very sharp with virtually no distortion, I think it is better than "good for the money" and more like, very clearly illustrates what the Leica branding costs.

Please elaborate on how the Hologon was better than the Voigtlander. I am eager to hear it. I don't have one, and don't plan on getting one, when the Voigtlander is so good. It equals or beats my Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8, which of course is a very different lens, but is/was considered one of the best full-frame ultrawides ever. I am genuinely curious, because generally the only thing I have seen online is that the Hologon has zero distortion while the Voigtlander might have the barest hint of barrel distortion. But like, the barest hint that would only be seen on a scientific test.

I don't have a 38mm Biogon but I do have a 75mm f/4.5 Biogon for 4x5. A favorite, except for the weight...

 

[raid]

The Hasselblad SWC has a super lens. I agree.

 

[Godfrey]

You'll have to tell me which Voigtlander 16mm lens you are referring to that is $900 😕.

I don't know what the older I and II models of the Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 Heliar sold for when introduced. I know now they can be purchased used for $300-350. I see the Leica WATE is currently $6300. It's hard to compare when there is such a vast chasm between the two in price. At 1/20th the price, it would probably be "good for the money" even if it imaged like a coke bottle. But being very sharp with virtually no distortion, I think it is better than "good for the money" and more like, very clearly illustrates what the Leica branding costs.

Please elaborate on how the Hologon was better than the Voigtlander. I am eager to hear it. I don't have one, and don't plan on getting one, when the Voigtlander is so good. It equals or beats my Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8, which of course is a very different lens, but is/was considered one of the best full-frame ultrawides ever. I am genuinely curious, because generally the only thing I have seen online is that the Hologon has zero distortion while the Voigtlander might have the barest hint of barrel distortion. But like, the barest hint that would only be seen on a scientific test.

I don't have a 38mm Biogon but I do have a 75mm f/4.5 Biogon for 4x5. A favorite, except for the weight...

Okay:

Current NEW prices from BHPhoto $800 for the 15mm (I meant 15mm, 16mm was a typo) alone, just over $1000 for the 15mm plus its viewfinder.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1132488-REG/voigtlander_ba213m_heliar_15mm_for_4_5.html :: $799

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/754600-REG/Voigtlander_DA407B_Viewfinder_for_15_mm.html :: $209

or $900 for the 12mm alone, $1250 for the 12mm plus its viewfinder.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...335b_ultra_wide_heliar_12mm_f_5_6.html?sts=pi :: $899

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/725631-REG/Voigtlander_DA417B_12mm_Viewfinder_Black.html :: $344

When the Voigtländer Heliar 15mm lens was introduced, in 1996 or 1997, it cost me about $600 sans viewfinder IIRC; that would be a little over $900 in todays money. So its price hasn't changed by much.

When I bought the Zeiss Hologon 16mm f/8 T* (new, in 1998, including differential ND filter, viewfinder, and leather lens box), it cost me $2700. That would be $4200 in today's money. (Raid said he paid about $2000 for it, including the conversion cost ... A very good deal.)

A new WATE today costs $6300 when purchased with the Leica Universal Wide-Angle Finder. I paid $2900 for mine plus $500 for the finder, both used. So it was roughly about three times as expensive as your Voigtländer 12mm + finder is. That said, it's really three lenses for that price ...

When I tested the Hologon 16 on the Contax G2 vs the Heliar on the Leica CL in 1998, the differences were quite clear: the Hologon produced clear, excellently gradated, well defined image details right to the corners of the frame where the Heliar images seriously lacked definition past the 2/3-way distance from the optical center, and even on center the Hologon was substantially sharper with more contrast. The Heliar could not take a filter without adapting a filter holder and there is/was no matched ND filter to even out the illumination across the frame, whereas with the Hologon the matched differentially graded ND (2 stop) filter gave nearly perfect illumination across the entire frame. (BTW, that was the best of three Heliar 15s I'm reporting on: I returned two of them as being inadequately centered.)

I had no measure of rectilinear distortion to use, but it was obvious when I overlaid the photos of the same building with a grid-like pattern of windows that the Hologon produced truer parallels both vertically and horizontally. (The Hasselblad SWC is probably the king of distortion free ultra-wides..)

That said, the Heliar 15 outperformed both the Nikkor 15mm and the Canon 14mm lenses, available at the time, by a good bit; they weren't inexpensive either. And they made the Sigma 14mm of that era look like a Coke bottle bottom. That gives you an idea how good the Hologon was then... it was incredible, if limited use with an f/16 aperture when fitted with the ND filter.

 

[Corran]

I should note that both my 12mm and 15mm Voigtlanders are the Nikon F-mount versions. I did have a 12mm LTM as well, which I sold after finding the Nikon version. It seems like that lens had slightly less contrast than the F-mount one, but I am unsure if that's just my feeling as I never shot them comparatively.

I have no issues with my 15mm Heliar, with regard to sharpness across the frame. I do have to wonder about sample variations, or differences between the versions. Heck, even between cameras, there could be variability from exceedingly slight differences in left-to-right parallelism. Your findings regarding unsharpness 2/3 of the way out sounds almost like what I see with my 4x5 ultrawides if the standards aren't exactly parallel. I wonder if the mount on your CL was ever so slightly tilted.

If anyone is interested, I uploaded a full 6000 DPI scan of a negative here. Shot with a Bessa L, 15mm Heliar w/ F-LTM adapter, on T-Max dev'd in FX-39. It's not a perfect test as I did have the lens focused in a bit from infinty, shot handheld at probably f/11, and excuse the dust. I just opened up the raw scan and uploaded it. Scanned on a Cezanne.

 

[Corran]

PS: If someone wants to send me a Hologon I'll waste a roll of T-Max and shoot the same subjects with the Hologon, Heliar, and any other 15mm lenses I have around here, and scan them with my Cezanne at 6000 DPI. I don't normally bother with such tests, but why not.

 

[Godfrey]

...Your findings regarding unsharpness 2/3 of the way out sounds almost like what I see with my 4x5 ultrawides if the standards aren't exactly parallel. I wonder if the mount on your CL was ever so slightly tilted. ...

Nope. I had the CL body CLA'ed and checked when I bought it. And none of my other lenses showed any such issues, including the Leica Elmarit-M 21mm f/2.8 ASPH.

It was long ago and far away now, my negatives from those testing sessions are long gone or I'd supply the data for you. But it remains true that the best quality UW lenses come at a high price.