Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,524   Posts: 1,543,821   Online: 805
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. #1
    JohnRichard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    262
    Images
    15

    Contax 16mm price

    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?
    - J. Richard
    4x5 Speed Graphic, Looking for another 8x10.

  2. #2
    darkosaric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,750
    Super wide and ultra wide Heliar (15mm and 12mm) are not that expensive - I would go for them instead.

  3. #3
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,816
    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.
    Ben

  4. #4
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,981
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by darkosaric View Post
    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.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  5. #5
    JohnRichard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    262
    Images
    15
    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.
    - J. Richard
    4x5 Speed Graphic, Looking for another 8x10.

  6. #6
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,981
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnRichard View Post
    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-vo...nt-super-wide/

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

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  7. #7
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,359
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    435
    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).

  8. #8
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,981
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Richard Sintchak (rich815); 08-14-2013 at 04:21 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,813
    Quote Originally Posted by rich815 View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,816
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnRichard View Post
    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.
    Ben

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin