Contax 16mm price

[JohnRichard]

I have recently been feeling the need to get a "modern" rangefinder. I have fallen in very much like with the G1.
However, I can't seem to find a 16mm lens for less than stupid prices. I will not ever pay $4000 for a single lens.
I will likely not ever pay $2000 for a single lens.

So what gives? Did they only make 12 of these things and price them accordingly?
Or are people just greedy?

I don't want to go with the 45mm, but If common sense dictates then so be it.

Thoughts?

 

[darkosaric]

Super wide and ultra wide Heliar (15mm and 12mm) are not that expensive - I would go for them instead.

 

[benjiboy]

Quality marque ultra wide angle lenses by first rate manufacturers are expensive because they are difficult and costly to design and manufacture, and because of the economy of scale of mass production the smaller the quantity they make and sell the higher the unit cost, one has to face the facts they are never going to be cheap.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Super wide and ultra wide Heliar (15mm and 12mm) are not that expensive - I would go for them instead.

That's what I did. I have a Contax G2 set with 21/28/45/90 lenses. I'd never pay such huge money for the 16. Instead I got the 15 super-wide Heliar and it and its finder live permanently on a Cosina SW-107 body (Bessa L) that I bought used for $50 USD.

 

[JohnRichard]

The only reason I was looking into the Contax 16 is it's non-super-wide-angle effect. It looks like a flat lens, very little distortion.

I'll research the Heliar 15 and see if it will do the same.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

The only reason I was looking into the Contax 16 is it's non-super-wide-angle effect. It looks like a flat lens, very little distortion.

I'll research the Heliar 15 and see if it will do the same.

Well, the Heliar 15 is not fisheye but its no 16 Hologon either.

A few write ups here:

http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt_15m.htm

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/the-voigtlander-15mm-heliar-lens-review-leica-m-mount-super-wide/

http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/15mm.htm

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I don't know how super-wide you need to go - if you need the 16, you need the 16, but if you can live with the 21, then you'll have a perfect pairing that uses all the camera body's capabilities. I've found that when shooting with my G2, I might have wanted/needed the 16mm for less than a handful of shots in 20+ rolls worth of shooting in Barcelona (so maybe 4-5 shots out of 700?). I used the 21 a LOT though - it's one of my favorite lenses for that camera. And it costs a fair sight less than the 16, and doesn't require a center filter (although you will get corner darkening shooting it wide open).

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I don't know how super-wide you need to go - if you need the 16, you need the 16, but if you can live with the 21, then you'll have a perfect pairing that uses all the camera body's capabilities. I've found that when shooting with my G2, I might have wanted/needed the 16mm for less than a handful of shots in 20+ rolls worth of shooting in Barcelona (so maybe 4-5 shots out of 700?). I used the 21 a LOT though - it's one of my favorite lenses for that camera. And it costs a fair sight less than the 16, and doesn't require a center filter (although you will get corner darkening shooting it wide open).

I'd agree with all. Love my 21 on my G2. And it's a terrifically sharp lens.

 

[Xmas]

I'd agree with all love. Love my 21 on my G2. And it's a terrifically sharp lens.

I got mine NOS cheap/remaindered but with the center filter you could get iris images, and I discovered why the original zeiss camera came with a pistol grip.

I prefered the CV 12 and 16mm so sold the Hologon at some profit.

 

[benjiboy]

The only reason I was looking into the Contax 16 is it's non-super-wide-angle effect. It looks like a flat lens, very little distortion.

I'll research the Heliar 15 and see if it will do the same.

It is,a super wide angle lens John,but it produces rectilinear rather than cylindrical perspective images of a fisheye lens.

 

[Xmas]

It is,a super wide angle lens John,but it produces rectilinear rather than cylindrical perspective images of a fisheye lens.

Either of the Cosina Voighlander 12 or 16 give similar images to the Hologon, you can by both and get change and you get iris diaphragms as well.

 

[sepiareverb]

The G21 is among the finest wides ever for 35mm film.

The 16 is crazy wide, so wide that one (read I) often gets their fingers in the frame just by holding the camera. Tripod legs are hard to avoid too.

 

[Xmas]

no read everyone the original Hologon came with a pistol grip to avoid the pink airship spoiling shots.

CV wides come with or have options for lens hoods and are available in LTM or M.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Oh, BTW - I just checked and the 16mm Hologon G for the G-series cameras is available on Ebay for under $2K- multiple copies are listed in that price range. The north of $2K prices are folks being greedy hoping some sucker will come along and either be desperate and NEED one on a day they're the only one listed or be stupid and think, "well, if it's $4K, it must be better than the $2K versions for some undefinable reason".

 

[JohnRichard]

So value wise, should I try to find a Contax G w/21 (which is plenty wide enough), or go for the Voigtlander and similar glass?
Seems one can pick up a Bessa L in decent shape for not much. OR, should I just stick with my Yashica GSN

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Here are some cool images to inspire the use of any of the discussed lenses in this thread:

http://www.antsmagazine.com/photography-2/architecture-photography-25-stunning-examples/

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

This was shot with the G 21mm on a G2, wide open at f2.8. The film was Ektar 100. Some of the darkening at the periphery is from the extreme lighting conditions. I don't have posted here (at least not anymore) another shot I took with the 21, handheld, inside the plaster model workshop in the basement of La Sagrada Familia cathedral in Barcelona. That was 1 second at f2.8, and you can barely notice any vignetting. The 16mm is much more pronounced in the falloff to the edges.

Another reason for using the G2 as opposed to a Bessa - the G2 has a top shutter speed of 1/6000, so you can pull off shots like the one I posted. Not gonna happen with a camera whose top speed is 1/1000th or 1/2000th at best, especially if you're using films faster than ISO 100.

 

[GarageBoy]

Look at the optical formula of the Hologon; imagine trying to grind glass like that cheaply