portocar Posted April 2, 2007 Share #1 Â Posted April 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've always felt that fixed lenses deliver superior image quality compared to their mutli-length counterparts, like the WATE. Â I am interested in using either the Hologon or Distagon with the M8. Â I'd like to know what everyone's experience is with these lenses. The Hologon is so much smaller. However, I'd like to know how they compare in regards to sharpness, contrast, distortion, price, or any other distinguishing characteristics. Â Thanks in advance... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 Hi portocar, Take a look here Contax G Hologon 16mm f/8 vs. Zeiss Distagon T* 15mm f/2.8 ZM. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Woody Campbell Posted April 2, 2007 Share #2  Posted April 2, 2007 I've always felt that fixed lenses deliver superior image quality compared to their mutli-length counterparts, like the WATE. I am interested in using either the Hologon or Distagon with the M8.  I'd like to know what everyone's experience is with these lenses. The Hologon is so much smaller. However, I'd like to know how they compare in regards to sharpness, contrast, distortion, price, or any other distinguishing characteristics.  Thanks in advance... I've got the Distagon - I'm awaiting a CY to M adapter from Steve Gandy to give it a try. I've the the WATE on order. Will post results when I have some. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
portocar Posted April 2, 2007 Author Share #3 Â Posted April 2, 2007 I also want to throw the Cosina Voigtlander 15/4.5 Aspherical Super Wide Heliar into the mix. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Campbell Posted April 3, 2007 Share #4 Â Posted April 3, 2007 I had a chance to run the Distagon vs. the CV. Here are the stats: Hellar - 117 grams. Distagon 997 grams. Cost: more than 10x difference. Dispite that the Hellar outperforms the Distagon on every dimension except vignetting, where the Distagon is marginally better. I won't bore you with images. Â The build quality of the Distagon is like nothing you've ever seen before. This lens is probably of primary interest to collectors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grantray Posted April 3, 2007 Share #5 Â Posted April 3, 2007 Dispite that the Hellar outperforms the Distagon on every dimension except vignetting... Â Actually, I've shot with both lenses also. And I completely disagree with you. The cv is fantastic but limiting. The Zeiss has performance capabilities that are daunting. To put it into perspective, the Zeiss is a pure-blood cine lens in M mount. It can do anything you skills and imagination can muster. Just wait until a photographer who sees like a cinematographer gets a hold of one of those... Â -grant Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted April 3, 2007 Share #6 Â Posted April 3, 2007 Woody: Â Are we getting our Zeiss lenses mixed up. Is yours the M mount Zeiss or an older Contax SLR lens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Campbell Posted April 3, 2007 Share #7 Â Posted April 3, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Woody:Â Are we getting our Zeiss lenses mixed up. Is yours the M mount Zeiss or an older Contax SLR lens? Â Older Contax SLR. I'll post images tonight - I'm on the run now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nryn Posted April 3, 2007 Share #8 Â Posted April 3, 2007 Actually, I've shot with both lenses also. And I completely disagree with you. The cv is fantastic but limiting. The Zeiss has performance capabilities that are daunting. To put it into perspective, the Zeiss is a pure-blood cine lens in M mount. It can do anything you skills and imagination can muster. Just wait until a photographer who sees like a cinematographer gets a hold of one of those... Â Grant, care to share some specfics? In what ways do you find the cv limiting? What skills and imagination do you perceive stifled by the CV and how does the Zeiss set free such qualities? The high praise you have for the Zeiss is intriguing but somewhat hyperbolic without any tangible examples. Â Don't get me wrong--I'm sure the Zeiss is a fine, fine piece of glass. For the price, I wouldn't expect much else. After reading your distinction between it and the CV, I'd have to take issue with your suggestion that the Zeiss' significantly extra cost buys one a muse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest user8952 Posted April 3, 2007 Share #9 Â Posted April 3, 2007 ... the Zeiss is a pure-blood cine lens in M mount. Â Â so please tell me: what is the cine equvalent supposed to be? are you shure you weren't fooled by zeiss marketing? Â cine lenses usually are faster (f=1,2), and don't come at a "bargain" price like the Distagon.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grantray Posted April 3, 2007 Share #10 Â Posted April 3, 2007 so please tell me: what is the cine equvalent supposed to be? are you shure you weren't fooled by zeiss marketing? Â cine lenses usually are faster (f=1,2), and don't come at a "bargain" price like the Distagon.... Â Yeah, you're right. I was fooled by marketing and am a f***ing retard. I guess that's what I get for being paid to develop nuanced and precise branding and advertising strategies for companies like ABSOLUT. I also don't know anything about cine lens or their qualities, have no friends who have ever worked with said lenses, nor do I understand the cost of these lenses, and am talking out of my @ss. Â ugh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
portocar Posted April 4, 2007 Author Share #11 Â Posted April 4, 2007 Why are the Cine lenses so much more expensive? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted April 4, 2007 Share #12 Â Posted April 4, 2007 Getting back to the original question: Â The Hologon (either the original 60's 15mm or the 90's 16mm Kyocera/Contax version) is almost certainly not a good idea on the M8. As a "true" symetrical wide angle it protrudes very far into the camera and runs the risk of fouling the shutter. Plus it would be more prone to vignetting and cyan corners than the retrofocus Heliar or Distagon designs. Â I'd leave it out and stick to the WATE/Heliar/Distagon as possibilities. IMHO the image quality of those three is so darn close that it really boils down to other factors - f/stop, cost, weight, size, extra focal lengths, filter/firmware/lens-coding compatability, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest user8952 Posted April 4, 2007 Share #13  Posted April 4, 2007 Yeah, you're right. I was fooled by marketing and am a f***ing retard. I guess that's what I get for being paid to develop nuanced and precise branding and advertising strategies for companies like ABSOLUT. I also don't know anything about cine lens or their qualities, have no friends who have ever worked with said lenses, nor do I understand the cost of these lenses, and am talking out of my @ss. ugh.   Hey, relax. No need to freak out. Sorry to have hit a weak spot. Calm down. Don't swear. Don't buy a gun.   (Nevertheless, what I have said above is ture. It is not a "a pure-blood cine lens in M mount". Still the Distagon is a great lens, forget the marketing-talk....) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfogle Posted April 4, 2007 Share #14 Â Posted April 4, 2007 Grant... great website; I found the pix of S. Solomon very moving - it's amazing how much you can say with so little - what a tragedy! Â cheers Phil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.