I am sure that the CV15mm is a wonderful lens based on what I have seen posted on it and the images that were taken with it. I am a "mini-collector" or maybe I am a photographer who also appreciates some fine lenses and cameras that I can afford to get and use. The CV is better suited for the M9 than the Hologon, but it is not a Hologon. I could use with an adapter my Canon FD 17/4 as it is a near rectilinear lens, butI want the challenge of using a Hologon. This is part of the joy of having such a hobby.
https://photos.smugmug.com/Zeiss-Hologon/i-mGb39nk/0/88abfac3/XL/Hologon 4-XL.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/Zeiss-Hologon/i-RVR3pBc/0/d5cffa2d/XL/Hologon 5-XL.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/Zeiss-Hologon/i-WJxT9cr/0/9179401d/L/Hologon 6-L.jpg
Lovely lens, Raid.
Long before the era of digital photography came to my world, I owned a Contax G2 kit for a while in-between various different Leica M cameras. I bought myself the Zeiss Hologon 16mm f/8 T*, new, with a bonus I received about then.
It is a lovely performer, and quite a bit better performer than the CV15 first generation which was also available at that time. I did extensive testing and comparison of the two lenses because, yes, I had both. No question that the Hologon was a far better ultra 16mm thing than the original CV15. (Later revisions of the CV15 are quite different, particularly the CV15 III.)
But, and this is key, it is a ferociously demanding lens to work with, particularly on a rangefinder camera.
- The finder is WAY off giving you even a suggestion of its real coverage and the first few dozen rolls of film were pretty much totally wasted due to arms, hands, feet, legs, head tripod bits, and other crap that cluttered up the part of the frame I couldn't see. Much worse than the SWC finder to tell the truth.
- You only have ONE aperture to work with: f/8, which is an effective f/16 with the (necessary) central gradient ND filter in place. The reason DAG probably wants the filter is that its alignment on the lens with a new lens mount is absolutely critical or it will miss and give you infuriatingly bad results.
- Focusing with it proves critical as well, and you have no easy guide to focusing other than the approximation of DoF lines on the focusing mount. You'd think that an ultrawide gives you lots of DoF to work with, and it does, but with a super-high-resolving lens like this you'll SEE any minor mis-focus in the near field immediately.
- I have no idea how well it will work with any digital sensor. It wasn't designed for a digital sensor at all ... the design goes back to the 1950s with the dedicated Zeiss Ikon Hologon camera. The Contax version is a slightly different design but has all the same character ... very close to the film plane rear element, lots of way-off-perpendicular ray traces.
If you're thinking it will give you an effective mini-SWC on your M9, well, honestly if that's what you're after ... Note that this has been a personal "Holy Grail" for me for many years. You're better off with the Leica WATE, which is known to actually perform brilliantly with the digital sensor and for which Leica provides lens profiles to do the appropriate corrections. That's where I went, along with the Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5 as well for the SL. The WATE at 16mm cropped square nets just a hair wider FoV than the SWC does and is almost perfectly corrected throughout the focusing range.
The Hologon 16 dream is something that I and several other people have shared over the past 28 years. I don't want to deflate your balloon, but honestly it's a tough game to play...
Good luck with it if you follow through. I'll look forward to seeing your work.
😀
G
