Jump to content

Using Zeiss Hologon 16/8 on M8 and on M9


Raid Amin
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is the lens that is now in the mail to me from Canada.

 

[img[https://photos.smugmug.com/Zeiss-Hologon/i-rH79JQb/0/11fba347/M/Hologon%201-M.jpg[/img]

[img[https://photos.smugmug.com/Zeiss-Hologon/i-RVR3pBc/0/d5cffa2d/XL/Hologon%205-XL.jpg[/img]

 

I want to use this lens extensively once it arrives to me modified for Leica M by Don Goldberg (DAG).

Edited by Raid Amin
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are talking about the Contax lens, I did have it adapted for use on the M8 (by DAG). The adaptation was excellent, the results were not: extreme red corner discolorations, very difficult to fix PP. The lens did work wonderfully, however, on my M6 (film). I hope this helps. It’s the limit of my experience. I sold the lens and now fully enjoy the super wide CVs (including the 10mm) on my M 240, with no corner discolorations. Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have lens that faintly rembles the Hologon: the Russar 20mm. The same - in its symetric build, four glued elements in two goups in my case against one group with three lenses in the original Hologon. The point of reference is the deep back resess of the lens - the whole being even further back.

On the Monochrome the Russar is extreme sharp but with quite some vigneting, and on colour the sides are pink or so. I coded it for WATE 18 mm but I noted that the 21mm would be better, but I was not willing to buy a second LTM adapter.

The lenses both have the best corner handling of all wide angles (it has to do with the physics of the lens concept, at least that is what an Italian optics professor wrote about them.

I have the M8 no longer but my huntch is that the H will only very little color badly if you stick to the WATE selection

(note: the WATE uses the frameselector too for the coding, the 35 mm and 50 mm flange are only usefull here in my experience; I doubt if your flange has that, the 28 seems what a boutique converting shop would have provided you with)

 

Even when you do not like the extra colours it is a very good buy for converting into B&W. You will not regret.

 

Do experiment with the manual lens selection!

Edited by Alberti
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you Alberti.

Don Goldberg (DAG) will do the conversion, and he told me that there will be hardly any effects when coded for WATE by him. As you said, I can always convert color images for which I cannot remove and color problems into B&W images, if needed. I still have my M3 and M6, so I can also use the Hologon with film if digital photography is the problem with the edges getting affected negatively.

I am planning to experiment with the Hologon once I get it coded. Maybe it works better with the M8 since there is a crop of the edges?

Edited by Raid Amin
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the issue of coding, I add to my previous note that the best results for me with all non-Leica wide angle lenses has been the code for the Leica 21mm f2.8 pre-asph on the M9.  (Yes, your Hologon may perform better on a full frame M9 than the M8.)  Please go ahead and code for WATE, if Mr. Goldberg so recommends; however, do experiment.  You can over-ride any code by setting your M9 to manual lens selection.  Try first the code in M9 for the 21mm f2.8 pre-Asph.  As they say, try it you may like it!  Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have lens that faintly rembles the Hologon: the Russar 20 mm. I coded it for WATE 18 mm but I noted that the 21 mm would be better ...

 

Coding for WATE 18 mm or WATE 21 mm, that won't make any difference. Both codes are the same anyway, and both are a particularly bad choice as a code for the Russar 20 mm or the Hologon 16 mm. Better code those for Elmarit-M 21 mm (non-asph).

 

Regarding the original question: The Hologon 16 mm doesn't work well on Leica M8 or M9. The M8 cuts away the frame's edges, leaving you with an absurdly slow and unwieldy 24 mm equivalent; you'd be much better off with a real 24 mm lens on the M9. And on the M9, the Hologon produces strong vignetting and distorted colours near the edges. It might work slightly better (still not very good probably) on the Leica M10 or M Monochrom.

 

Years ago, somebody posted a series of pictures taken with the Hologon on a, IIRC, Leica M9 ... or was it the original M Monochrom? Can't remember anymore, and cannot retrieve them using the search function. 'twas interesting ... but ultimately made me feel happy to have my Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 mm Asph which works hassle-free on any M camera and delivers excellent results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] It would be quite interesting if the M9 does better with the Hologon than the M8.

 

It would be surprising for me but i have no experience with this lens. My little CV 15/4.5 v2 does much better on crop (M8.2, CL) than FF (M240) cameras, but again i have no experience with the Hologon so perhaps it behaves differently which i doubt but i may be wrong. You will show us some pics when you receive the lens hopefully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coding for WATE 18 mm or WATE 21 mm, that won't make any difference. Both codes are the same anyway, and both are a particularly bad choice as a code for the Russar 20 mm or the Hologon 16 mm. Better code those for Elmarit-M 21 mm (non-asph).

 

Regarding the original question: The Hologon 16 mm doesn't work well on Leica M8 or M9. The M8 cuts away the frame's edges, leaving you with an absurdly slow and unwieldy 24 mm equivalent; you'd be much better off with a real 24 mm lens on the M9. And on the M9, the Hologon produces strong vignetting and distorted colours near the edges. It might work slightly better (still not very good probably) on the Leica M10 or M Monochrom.

 

Years ago, somebody posted a series of pictures taken with the Hologon on a, IIRC, Leica M9 ... or was it the original M Monochrom? Can't remember anymore, and cannot retrieve them using the search function. 'twas interesting ... but ultimately made me feel happy to have my Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 mm Asph which works hassle-free on any M camera and delivers excellent results.

 

The M8 has crop factor of 1.333, so 16x1.33=21mm and not 24mm, but I get your message. I could use  21mm lens for better results (maybe).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't used a Hologon since 1973, but I know since using much later CV super-wides that it is what we call a 'pioneering' design and pioneers got arrows in the back. Its only virtue is its tiny size. Enjoy.

 

I have leaped without looking. No shame. In fact as I type this I'm working on another wide-angle 4x5 camera sans bellows or a wind-prone skin. Machinists love me.

Edited by pico
Link to post
Share on other sites

Raid's is the Contax 16 for the G cameras, not the rarer M-mount 15.

 

Seems like a great deal of effort to go through for an optic not fully compatible with M's. Going for a CV 15 or even ZM 2,8/15 seems more sensible.

It is not about being the most sensible! I like to experiment and to explore, so trying out a "legend" such as the Hologon is very tempting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiny lens compared to the big ZM 15/2.8 and the lack of RF coupling is not a problem at f/8. 

 

Zeiss_1680.jpg

This is one of the important factors with the Hologon. It is very small. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...