So, I did. And I’m glad I did. But it’s time to move on. The 50mm lens is tired and boring. After all, it has been the “standard” lens for a hundred years, and a hundred years is a bit too long for a thing to go unchallenged.

And anyway, the “standard” title comes of dubious origin. According to most people who care to speak about this sort of thing, the 50mm lens is the standard lens because it is the photographic lens which most closely approximates human vision. Though if we ask anyone who makes this claim to kindly elaborate and elucidate, most can’t or won’t. 

The truth is, 50mm lenses do not accurately approximate what we humans see. They just don’t.

Ignoring the fact that our vision is binocular, and ignoring the fact that our retinas are concave and not flat like the plane of a film or image sensor, and ignoring the fact that we have foveal and peripheral vision, and that our overall field of view tends to be closer to 180º while a 50mm lens shoots a field of view of approximately 47º, ignoring all that…

Wait, I don’t recall where I was going with this.

Wait. Yes, I do!

Ignoring all of the physics and human anatomy stuff that I won’t claim to totally understand, we should’ve known by anecdotal evidence that the “50mm as human eye” crowd was wrong. They can’t even agree what’s standard amongst themselves.

For as long as the internet’s been around, every conversation around the 50mm standard lens eventually devolves into argument.

Someone somewhere tells someone else to buy a 50mm lens because it approximates human vision and some freak weirdo stumbles into the forum to claim that “AKSHUALLY” 35mm, not 50mm, is the standard focal length because that’s what the human eye really sees. And then they’re interrupted by the quirky freak weirdo screaming that the Konica 40mm is the standard lens because that’s what the human eye really sees. And then they’re interrupted by the rich freak weirdo screaming that the Leica 75mm is the standard lens because that’s what the human eye really sees. And then they’re interrupted by the—you get the idea.

The simple truth in the origin of the 50mm lens as “the standard” is that the 50mm lens was simply the most cost-effective lens for a camera company to package and sell with their cameras. Lenses of that focal length happened to also make images that looked good, and pretty normal, so we all called it the standard and dutifully proselytized that everyone should buy one and the camera companies sold a hell of a lot of nifty fifties.

Consequently, the actual reason that the 50mm lens has been “the standard” for almost a hundred years is because most pictures over that time were made with a 50mm lens, and we got used to it. Most of the shots we saw in magazines and family photo albums and slides and snapshots from holidays and everything else were made with a 50mm lens. The images, through their sheer ubiquity, made the lens that took them the standard.

And I think that that definition is much more useful and practical than some strange correlation between a camera lens and human vision. For me, the standard lens should always be defined as simply the most-used lens.

But something interesting has happened in the last decade or two.

The most popular cameras in the world aren’t made by Canon or Nikon or Kodak, and they don’t come with a 50mm lens, as they had between (basically) the 1930s until the late 1990s. The most ubiquitous camera in the world today comes attached to a phone with an half-eaten apple on it, and the focal length of the “standard” lens on this most-used camera has an equivalent full frame focal length of approximately 26mm. In terms of “real photographers” that’s perilously close to ultra-wide territory. Not even wide-angle. Ultra-wide!

So, without even trying, iPhone and smartphones at large have essentially shifted the “standard” focal length away from 50mm into the realm of the ultra-wide.

I, for one, love it. I love wide angle lenses. I think they’re more dynamic, and it takes more work to get a good picture. With a wide-angle lens we can’t rely on the crutch of subject isolation and bokeh. We have to concentrate on filling the frame with interesting things. We have to get close to our subject.

The result is that we have pictures which, in fact, don’t look like the everyday. The new normal lens makes images that contrarily don’t look like what we see with our human eyes. Which gets us closer to the whole point of photography, the very reason why we should even bother making pictures with a camera: that is, to show us something we can’t see every day.

Buy a Wide Angle Lens on eBay here

Buy a nice used lens from our shop at F Stop Cameras

Follow Casual Photophile on Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

Leica Elmarit-R 28mm F/2.8 Lens Review

James reviews the Leica Elmarit-R 28mm F/2.8 wide-angle fast prime lens for Leica R mount and digital mirrorless cameras!

Read More

casualphotophile.com

The post The Dubious Origin and Uncertain Future of the “Standard” 50mm Lens appeared first on Casual Photophile.

I firmly believe that everyone should shoot with am ultra-wide rectilinear lens, at least once. At least, that’s my opinion after acquiring, traveling, and shooting with one; and a rare one at that. For Fourth of July weekend, I decided to treat myself to the crisp, cool mountain air of Red River, New Mexico and take a much needed rest from the triple digit beating of the Texas summer.

Origin and Evolution of the Nikon 15mm

During the early 1970s, Nikon was sitting firmly atop the pyramid of professional’s choice brands for pro level 35mm SLRs. In 1972, their product catalogue showed a non-existent 15mm lens, dangled like a carrot on a stick to all Nikon/Nikkor enthusiasts and pros alike. In the summer of 1973, Nikon delivered.

Introduced as a pre-AI lens, the original Nikon Nikkor 15mm f/5.6 came outfitted with a diamond pattern focusing ring, a chrome filter tab, and built in yellow, orange, and red filters (more on those later). During the K series, from 1976-1977, the focusing ring was changed to the common waffle pattern, and by 1977-1978 the AI version was introduced. This version remained in production until the summer of 1978 when it was replaced by the 15mm f/3.5 in an AI-S mount.

Exact production numbers are not entirely known, but it is estimated that 2,500 of the non-AI versions and about 1,000 of the AI versions were made, leaving the total production of this lens somewhere around 3,500. To put it simply, this lens is somewhat of a rarity, and it’s very sought after by Nikkor collectors.

What is it that attracted me to such a wide and rare lens? It happened when I learned that the 15mm f/5.6 is more accessible than the Holy Grail 13mm f/5.6, which sells in the mid to upper five figures (when one happens to show up at an auction). Also, I’ve never shot any lens wider than 24mm.

After shooting at a 15mm focal length, the 24mm starts to feel like a 50mm. It’s that big of a difference. So much of a difference, in fact, that the 15mm had me rethinking and planning all of the things I could now shoot with ease. Interiors, street, architecture, wide close-up portraits, and my favorite application, landscapes. Architecture comes in at a close second, but I have to put landscapes on top of the list since its the only application I have been able to shoot extensively.

Build Quality & Engineering

Before I get into my personal love for this lens, I would like to marvel over how beautifully this lens is made.

The optical formula consists of 14 elements in 12 groups with Nikon Integrated Coating (NIC), as well as a floating element for close range correction (CRC). The aperture consists of seven blades that stop down to f/22 with a horizontal view of 100 degrees, a diagonal view of 110 degrees, and a vertical view of 77 degrees. By itself, the lens weighs three pounds. That’s all metal and glass construction; the way they used to make them, to sound like an old grouch. There is no plastic to be found here.

In short, this lens is built like a brick outhouse with precise optical engineering that allows for a vast view through the viewfinder while maintaining a virtually distortion free image; unlike most of the standard wide angle focal lengths, which often suffer from some (sometimes slight) barrel distortion.

Focusing is about as easy as you could possibly imagine. The lens gives such a wide field of view that focusing by way of setting the hyper focal distance is the primary option. Of course, if we endeavor to use this lens for close range focusing, then we can absolutely achieve those results; we just have to be real close to the subject.

The best and most useful feature of this lens is the built in filters. For some brief background, Nikon couldn’t be bothered with building filters for massive or odd-sized front elements for their ultra-wides or fish-eyes, so they engineered the filters into the lenses by means of a selection wheel. The three main filters that were used were a yellow (Y48), orange (O56), and red (R60). These were used for black and white film shooters to boost contrast with a simple turn of the selection wheel.

For color film, this lens does really well. Color reproduction in my opinion is somewhat muted, bringing in more pastel tones rather than vibrant. Some people may see this as a negative, however, my main application for this lens is black and white which I fully believe is the best application all around.

Why Everyone Should Shoot a Wide Angle Lens

One of the simplest ways to increase the dynamism and visual interest of our images is by using a wide-angle lens. In this article, James gives some helpful tips on going wide.

Read More

casualphotophile.com

Use In the Field

My intention when using this lens on my trip to New Mexico was to try to create images reminiscent of old oil paintings that feature landscapes as their subject matter. I wanted grand, extravagant, detailed images that a viewer could spend minutes or even hours looking at in an attempt to absorb the atmosphere of the image. A majority of my images were made with black and white film, and I used all three of the built in filters to achieve different variations of contrast.

Carrying this lens on an already heavy camera body (Nikon F2) definitely makes walks in the mountains feel a bit longer than they truly are. Although, if you persist and are patient, you will be rewarded and thank yourself later. In many cases, I used the through the lens metering on my F2 and metered for the sky during the brighter parts of the day. As the sun progressed towards the horizon, I aimed for somewhere in the middle in an attempt to achieve a reasonably evenly exposed photo. In other cases, I metered for the sky during sunset with one of the filters engaged to create a darker sky and silhouetted mountains and trees.

The simple, yet well-designed ergonomics make for easy use handheld or on a tripod. I used this lens handheld the entire time. While not in use, I always stored the lens in my bag with the comically large lens cap on the front to prevent an abundance of dust or damage to the even more comically large front element. Dust appearing in your images could potentially be an issue depending on storage and how frequently you clean the front element like me. I’m always paranoid of stray dust particles appearing in my images and those who know me personally will know that I will always have a clean lens.

Why the 15mm f/5.6?

At this point, you may be wondering why I decided to purchase this lens. The price point is not very friendly (I did sell my Pentax 6×7 to buy it). While I’m sure that might shock and even infuriate some of those who read this, know that I kept my Mamiya RB67 since I believe it is the best 6×7 system and much better than the Pentax. But I digress and apologize for rubbing salt into that Pentax-sized wound.

All jokes and ribbing aside, the three reasons that I chose the slower 15mm f/5.6 as opposed to its faster 15mm f/3.5 successor are as follows. First, the f/5.6 is more affordable than the f/3.5. Even in the world of ultra-wides, the faster glass will typically hold the higher price tag. The second reason is that the f/5.6 is less prone to flaring than the faster f/3.5, even with its larger front element. The third reason I chose the slower AI over the faster AI-S successor, is most likely the most important – the built in filters. Since I am more likely to shoot black and white rather than color, having a lens with built in yellow, orange, and red filters opens up a vast array of possibilities.

Most photographers have a certain comfort zone, when it comes to focal lengths. And mounting a wildly different lens than is typical to their camera will challenge that comfort. The more extreme the lens, the greater the challenge. Such is the case with the Nikon 15mm. But since I’ve gathered more experience shooting with it my entire thought process and composition choices have shifted. Of course, everyone’s thought process with a focal length of this type will vary, but the consensus is sure to remain equal across the board: shooting with a rectilinear/ultra-wide lens will change the way you shoot.

Final Thoughts

Overjoyed satisfaction is the feeling that comes whenever I put this lens to work. The ease of use, the quality of build, the sheer beauty of the operation, from selecting the filters, to setting focus and selecting aperture, is quintessentially classic Nikkor. You will pay something of a small collector’s tax when purchasing this, or the f/3.5 version of the 15mm. However, what we might pay in collector’s tax is certainly made up for in pure bliss.

Before actually using one, it’s almost impossible to imagine what such a wide field of view can bring to our photography. Cities, landscapes, large gatherings, architecture, all of these are paradise for a field of view this expansive. You won’t know what it’s like until you try. Which brings us full circle, and I repeat. Everyone should shoot an ultra-wide rectilinear lens at least once. And this Nikkor isn’t a bad place to start.

Find your own Nikon 15mm on eBay here

Shop for lenses at our shop F Stop Cameras

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Youtube

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

The post Photographing New Mexico with the Nikon Nikkor 15mm f/5.6 appeared first on Casual Photophile.

Filling the space for a dramatic ultra-wide in Nikon’s higher-end S series of lenses for their mirror-less system, the 20mm f/1.8 offers top-level performance and everything we’d expect from a “professional lens.” It’s superbly sharp. It’s amazing in low light. It controls flaring, ghosting, chromatic aberrations, and coma better than any lens I’ve ever used, and it’s weather-sealed and built to last. Yes, it’s a wonderful lens.

But it’s also big. And at $1,045, it’s one of the most expensive prime lenses in Nikon’s Z system (out-priced only by the $8,000 Noct Nikkor Z 58mm f/0.95 S and the $2,100 Nikkor Z 50mm f/1.2 S).

Nikon Nikkor Z 20mm F/1.8 S Lens Specifications

Practical Use

The Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8 S is a physically simple thing. It’s minimally styled and about as elegant as a plastic-encased camera lens can get. All black, nicely textured for grip in certain places, and with a beautifully long knurled rotating control ring, it’s simply sleek and clean. The only flourish being a couple of minutely chamfered edges to offer a bit of reflective contrast between segments of the lens body.

There’s very little in the way of physical controls. There’s an auto focus / manual focus toggle on the side, marked A/M, and a rotatable electronic control ring around the barrel of the lens. This rotatable ring can be set to control various things – manual focus is its most natural control, but it can also be set in-camera to change the lens aperture silently, adjust ISO, or exposure compensation.

When using the ring in its manual focus mode, the lens focus is adjusted electronically. While not as direct as a mechanical focusing action, the Nikkor’s electronic focusing works well (if not being a bit too sensitive for ultimate precision). I’ve found that I simply rely on the camera’s excellent auto focus. Only when shooting video have I used the lens’ manual focus option (this precludes the camera hunting for focus mid-shot in a stationary recording).  The ring is probably better left as an aperture adjustment, especially for those of us who have become accustomed to using older manual focus lenses on older film cameras. But the nice thing is, we can choose our favorite methodology in the Z series cameras’ menu.

The lens is big, and a bit heavy. But it’s a modern lens. It’s packed with lens elements and incredibly advanced auto focus motors, weather-sealed, etc. We can’t expect a modern camera lens to be as light and small as the older manual focus Nikkors. That would be nice, but it’s just not realistic.

Despite its weight and size, the 20mm Nikkor Z balances beautifully on my compact, full frame Nikon Z5. I control my parameters with the dials on the camera, near-instantly adjusting aperture, shutter speed, and exposure compensation to quickly achieve whatever I can with every shot.

Image Quality

My lens reviews aren’t the most technical that you’ll find on the internet or in print publications. I don’t do laboratory testing or MTF charts. You can find those elsewhere if you need them. But I’ve studied them, and to briefly summarize what the scientists have found in the lab – the Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8 S is a much more optically sophisticated lens than the Nikkors that preceded it. I mean, it better be. It’s got 14 lens elements, three aspherical elements, three ED elements, and nano-crystal coatings. That’s a lot of stuff.

Compared to the lens’ closest predecessor, the older Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G for F Mount DSLRs, the new Nikkor Z 20mm is far sharper. In the center of the frame, even wide open, the lens absolutely trounces the old glass. For reference, shooting the new 20mm WIDE OPEN we get sharper results in the center of the frame than we would get from the old 20mm WHEN THAT LENS IS STOPPED DOWN TO F/4! That’s simply stunning, especially when we consider how good the old 20mm was (and is). I used that lens a lot. It’s an amazing lens. The fact that this one is sharper by such a large margin simply boggles the mind.

The only caveat that should be noted about the sharpness of the new 20mm is that it doesn’t continue to improve as far up the aperture scale as some other lenses I’ve used. By f/4 we have reached absolute peak sharpness across the entire frame. After f/4, diffraction begins to lower sharpness. For this reason, aperture adjustment beyond f/4 should only be used to control depth of field or light, not simply to increase sharpness.

Focus shift when closing or opening the aperture is so minimal as to be a non-issue. Best practice with most cases is to choose your aperture before focusing, anyway, which will naturally happen in AF shooting. But even if you’re some sort of weirdo who chooses aperture after half-pressing the shutter release button, you’ll be okay. There’s not enough focus shift to harm your shot.

Image stabilization is handled in the body of the Z series camera, rather than in the lens. Which is probably a good thing, given how large this lens is already. Adding optical image stabilization would only make it larger. As it is, the camera offers about five stops of image stabilization, and this, coupled with the Nikkor Z 20mm’s very fast aperture, should allow the most caffeinated and jittery of photographers enough stabilization and light to shoot the 20mm in low light situations without suffering motion blur.

Close focusing distance is very close, at 0.66 feet. This allows for some creative use of perspective and interesting close-quarters portraiture (if one is so inclined). Just be aware that the ultra-wide nature of the 20mm naturally creates a sort of distortion when shooting up-close subjects. It can be a bit unflattering, in the traditional sense of portraiture. However, many excellent photographers have used ultra-wides for decades to make interesting shots of up-close subjects. Don’t be a slave to convention.

The lens shows barrel distortion close to 2%, which is admittedly a lot, and worse compared to the 20mm F Mount lens. But this can be fixed with a single correction in Photoshop or Lightroom. For users not using Adobe products, you’ll need to rectify this distortion manually (still easy).

The lens does vignette heavily, worse (of course) when shot wide open. Like the just-mentioned distortion, however, this is easily repaired in post processing. (So easy is it to fix vignetting on the computer, in fact, that I’m almost reaching the point where I don’t want to mention vignetting in lens reviews anymore…).

Ghosting and flaring are controlled beautifully. Shooting directly into the sun poses no problems for this lens. There’s no bright blasts of light, reflections, and virtually zero veiling flare (a lowering of contrast across the whole image caused by internal reflections in the lens).

Bokeh (the quality of the blur in out of focus areas of a photo) is, well, it’s a 20mm lens. We aren’t buying this lens to blur the background like a 50mm f/1.2. But with the lens’ impressively close minimum focusing distance, we can get decent subject isolation (even if the backgrounds can be, at times, a bit busy).

Coma performance is incredible. Unfortunately, you’ll have to trust my word on this or cross-reference with other reviews, because the shots that I made which showed how well the lens handled coma are gone. I lost the memory card on which I’d stored the astro-photography that I made with this lens, along with an entire week’s vacation worth of family photos from the woods of New Hampshire. In addition, the computer that held these shots failed catastrophically when my beautiful daughter dropped it down a flight of stairs. Very sad. And the lens was long ago returned to my friends at B&H Photo, who had lent it to me for review. When I inevitably buy this lens for myself (which I will do) I will update this review to show off its astro capabilities (which are great).

So, yeah, the Nikkor Z 20mm is optically amazing. As close to perfect as any of us will need. It’s a much better lens, optically, than anything that came before it in the Nikon F Mount range. This is perhaps due to the Z Series cameras’ incredibly short flange distance, which puts the back of the lens so close to the cameras’ sensor. But don’t quote me on that. I went to school for word typing, not light science-ing.

Why Everyone Should Shoot a Wide Angle Lens

Every photographer should try a wide or ultra-wide angle lens at least once. You're bound to get hooked.

Should You Buy It?

It must be said that the 20mm focal length isn’t for everyone. I imagine that some users will find the lens’ ultra-wide focal length a bit needlessly extreme. It’s easy to get lost framing such a wide shot. We need to get close to our subject to fill the frame, but getting too close creates a perspective that can be a bit unnatural, even jarring.

For astro photographers or landscape artists using Nikon’s Z Series cameras, it’s a no-brainer. This is the ultra-wide lens to own. It’s wider and optically better than the Nikkor 24mm F/1.8 S (and it only costs $50 more than that lens). And compared to Nikon’s zoom lenses of similar focal lengths, these being the Nikkor Z 14-30mm f/4 S ($1,350) and the Nikkor Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S ($2,500), it’s less expensive and has a much faster maximum aperture.

Sure, $1,050 is a lot of money for a camera lens (you can get one slightly cheaper, used, on eBay). But this is a lens that a buyer will own for, what, ten years? Twenty? Nikon seems pretty committed to their Z series cameras. My Nikon Z5, already a slightly older model in the range, shows no signs of its age. This is a camera that I will easily use until 2030. And given Nikon’s history with the F Mount, it’s pretty clear that the company cares about ensuring that their lens systems will still be relevant and usable for fifty, sixty, seventy years. (Nikon’s F Mount was first created in 1959 for the original SLR, the Nikon F – and it’s still going.)

Final Thoughts

By the end of my time with this lens, I’d come to the same conclusions that I’ve come to every time I’ve used any of Nikon’s newest range of Nikkors. It’s amazing. The high end Nikkor S line of professional mirror-less lenses are better than I am. The Nikkor 20mm f/1.8 S is a tool so precise and capable that my creative ability is dwarfed by its technical ability. It’s just another phenomenal ultra-wide, and any Z Series user looking for a dramatic and special lens need look no further.

Buy your own Nikon Nikkor Z 20mm F/1.8 from B&H Photo here

Shop for a used Nikon Nikkor Z 20mm lens on eBay here

More Images

Buy your own Nikon Nikkor Z 20mm F/1.8 from B&H Photo here

Shop for a used Nikon Nikkor lens on eBay here

Browse our own store, F Stop Cameras, for all things photography

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Youtube

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

The post Nikon Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8 S Lens Review appeared first on Casual Photophile.

It took nearly two centuries before European gardeners learned to cultivate the prized fruit in hothouses, and even then, they were rare, difficult to grow, and fiendishly expensive. Inevitably, pineapples became a symbol of wealth and status. As this BBC article relates, “Concerned about wasting such high-value fruit by eating it, owners displayed pineapples as dinnertime ornaments […] to be seen and admired but surrounded by other, cheaper, fruit for eating.” There’s an almost irresistible parallel here with how some people treat expensive lenses – but this article is not about that. Let’s resist that unworthy temptation, and press on.

As cultivation and transport became easier and less expensive, pineapples became cheaper.  Today, you can buy a “medium pineapple” for £1 at Sainsbury’s. Indeed, you could argue that the modern pineapple is so ubiquitous that it is actually under-priced, and consequently under-appreciated. Much like the Minolta MD 28mm f/2.8, the excellent but rather unglamorous lens which I’ve been using for the past three years.

Minolta 28mm lenses in SR-mount

The Minolta MD 28mm f/2.8 is a manual-focus lens for the SR-mount (colloquially called “MC/MD mount”). There are multiple versions of this lens; mine is the late-model MD-III introduced in 1983.

Minolta’s earliest 28mm was the Auto W.Rokkor-SG 28mm f/3.5 (1963). The SG in the lens name was a code, further explained here, for the number of groups and elements in the lens construction: ‘S’ denotes 7 groups (septem in Latin) and ‘G’ denotes 7 elements (7th letter of the alphabet). A nice system for naming lenses!

Subsequently, faster 28mm lenses were introduced with maximum apertures of f/2.8 (my lens), f/2.5 and even f/2. Each of these had multiple variants, known to collectors by esoteric codes like AR-II, MC-X, MD-III and so forth. In some cases the variations are merely cosmetic, while in others they are more significant – like differences in the minimum focus distance, filter size or lens construction. I won’t go into that level of detail, but if you’re interested in the minutiae, knock yourself out with the SR Lens Chart on eazypix, Ad Dieleman’s page on SR mount 28mm lenses, or minman’s pages on the f/3.5, f/2.8, f2.5 and f/2 versions.

The f/2 was one of Minolta’s premium offerings, with nine lens groups and a highly-corrected, floating element design. It is a full stop faster than the f/2.8, and image quality is reputedly better. At least, that’s what the internet says; I’ve not tested it myself, so I can’t say if the difference is practically significant. Anyhow, used prices for the f/2 are four to five times higher, and as such, it was outside my budget.

The f/2.5 is only one-third stop faster than the f/2.8, but significantly more expensive. It also has an older lens formula and coatings, and contains mildly radioactive rare-earth elements.

The f/3.5, on the other hand, is cheaper than the f/2.8, but only by a few pounds. So unless you get a cracking deal, I don’t see a good reason to give up a half-stop of speed (and remember that with an SLR, you’ll also be looking at a dimmer viewfinder).

That brings us to the f/2.8 28mm, the subject of this review.

Minolta 28mm f/2.8 versions

There are multiple versions of the Minolta 28/2.8, the main ones being the MC W.Rokkor, MD W.Rokkor and MD (sometimes called the MD-III or “plain MD”). These designations appear on the front of the lens, which helps with identification. Other variants include the Celtic (budget line, usually with the same optical formula but cheaper construction and coatings) and the Rokkor-X versions with orange lettering (identical to the corresponding Rokkor versions without the X, but produced for the North American market).

In general, later models are slightly smaller and lighter, but also have more plastic in their construction. The filter ring changed from 55mm in the earlier versions to 49mm in the later ones – this may be a factor if you sometimes use the same filters on different lenses, as I tend to do. All versions focus down to just 0.3 meters (1 foot) which is a nice feature to have.

All but one of these versions have an optical formula of 7 elements in 7 groups (7/7). But the plain MD has two variants. The first, introduced in 1981, is a 7/7 formula like its predecessors, while the second – my version, 1983 – has a 5/5 design.

Externally, the plain MD 7/7 and 5/5 are almost indistinguishable. There is a tiny cosmetic difference in the front ring which you can see on Ad Dieleman’s page (the 5/5 has an extra inner ring). And on the 7/7, the red IR dot on the depth-of-focus scale is slightly closer to the 4, while on the 5/5, it’s slightly closer to the 8.

Come to think of it, I have no idea why I know this stuff, because the difference in image quality between the 7/7 and 5/5 (which I will come to in a later section) is negligible. I need to get out more.

Specifications

The specifications given below are for the lens I own, the plain MD with a 5/5 construction. For other versions, please see the eazypix chart and Ad Dieleman’s page.

• Mount – Minolta SR mount (MC/MD)
• Year introduced – 1983
• Focal length – 28mm
• Angle of View – 75°
• Aperture range – f/2.8–22 (half-stop detents)
• Aperture blades – 6
• Lens construction – 5 elements in 5 groups
• Minimum focus distance – 0.3 meters
• Dimensions (L×D) – 40×64mm
• Weight – 170 grams
• Filter thread diameter – 49mm

Look and feel

The lens is compact, not much bigger than a golf ball. Like other MD series lenses, it has a rubber waffle grip for the focus ring, and mostly white lettering (orange for feet, and green for the smallest aperture, f/22). It also has the “MD lock” designed to be used on the Minolta X-700 in Program mode, so that the lens does not accidentally switch away from minimum aperture. A clip-on hood (screw-on in the older versions) was sold separately, but I don’t have one.

Build quality and “feel” are on par with MD series lenses – not necessarily mind-blowing, but perfectly acceptable. On my copy the focus ring turns smoothly, with a throw of a little under 180° from 0.3 metres to infinity. The aperture ring is snappy, with half-stop detents except at the two extremes (i.e. no detents between f/2.8-4 and f/16-22).

Lens design and optical quality

The 28mm focal length is significantly shorter than the Minolta SR-mount’s flange focal distance, that is, the distance from the mount to the film-plane (43.5mm). So like almost all wide-angle SLR lenses, the Minolta MD 28mm f/2.8 is a retrofocus (aka inverted telephoto) design. This ensures that the rear element is sufficiently far from the film plane, leaving enough space for the SLR mirror.

As I mentioned, my lens is a 5/5 design (5 elements in 5 groups) while earlier versions have a 7/7 formula. Vintage lens reviews claims that the 5/5 is slightly inferior. On the other hand, Tony at Lens QA Works did a side-by-side comparison and found that the 5/5 is “definitely better”. However, as you can see from his comparison, these differences are really only visible at wide apertures, at the corner of the frame, and at high magnification.

Moreover, bear in mind we’re talking about vintage lenses, used or stored in all sorts of conditions. Three decades after their manufacture, there are a host of reasons why there could be sample variation between copies. If you’re in the market for a Minolta 28/2.8, I would not lose sleep over whether to get the 5/5 or the 7/7. For normal photography, I think the differences are practically irrelevant.

Distortion and vignetting

Most wide-angle lenses exhibit two types of distortion: perspective distortion where objects closer to the camera appear disproportionately bigger, and radial distortion where straight lines appear curved.

Perspective distortion is not a lens aberration, but a consequence of the wide-angle perspective. If you don’t like it, don’t blame the lens; take a few steps back and use a longer focal length. Radial distortion, on the other hand, is a lens aberration, often manifesting as barrel distortion on wide-angle lenses.

A while back I did some “tests” with this lens, taking photos of optical charts and so on. (I do these tests for my own amusement, but I don’t reproduce them in reviews because I think “real-world photos” are more informative and fun. But I wonder if some readers might be interested after all?) Anyhow, in these tests I noticed a bit of barrel distortion, nothing extreme, and filed this information away for future reference.

More recently, I was shooting a series of building facades in my hometown, Kolkata – taking photos straight on with lots of horizontal lines in the frame. I was using the MD 28/2.8, so I thought barrel distortion might be an issue, and I was all set to correct it in post. But the (uncorrected) photos look just fine, as you can see below. If an aberration is mainly visible in test charts and not in real-world photos, I can live with that.

All sample photos, by the way, are taken on film, using a Minolta X-370s or Minolta X-700.

Likewise, my tests showed a bit of vignetting wide open, practically gone at f/5.6. Again, this is not something I notice in real-world photos. If anything, it can add some visual interest to portraits and night scenes – the most common situations where I shoot at f/2.8.

Bokeh and flare

A wide-angle lens with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 will never be a bokeh monster, but wide open and up close the lens does produce pleasing bokeh. The photo of the sunflowers below shows both near and far bokeh, and you can see other examples in the portraits. Stopped down, background bokeh is only really visible if you focus quite close. The lens has six aperture blades, so out-of-focus highlights appear hexagonal.

Although I use the lens without a hood, flare resistance is surprisingly good. I know this because I kind of stress-tested the lens, shooting in situations most likely to produce flare. In the photo of the single sunflower, the sun was in the frame, partially obscured by the flower. In the photo with the monkey, the sun was just outside the frame at top left. In both photos, there is good contrast and very little veiling flare. There is a hint of ghosting (you can see it on the monkey’s left hand) but again, far less than I expected.

Minolta MD 28mm f/2.8 in use

50mm (or its full-frame equivalent) is my favorite focal length, but 28mm is not far behind. This is obviously subjective, but to my eyes, 28mm is a nice balance – wide enough to look interesting but not so wide that perspective distortion becomes the defining feature of an image. I use (and love) wider lenses too, some of which I hope to review later. But the 28mm focal length is really versatile. I especially like it for street photography where it allows me to get close to the action and still capture a lot of the scene.

With faster film, the maximum aperture of f/2.8 is wide enough (just about) for handheld night photography. A good rule of thumb is that the slowest shutter-speed at which a lens can be safely handheld is the reciprocal of its focal length (so around 1/30 sec for a 28mm lens). This effectively makes it almost one stop “faster” than a 50mm lens which, according to our rule of thumb, has a slowest safe speed of 1/60 sec.

I also use it for portraits, though on photo-forums and Facebook groups you often hear “rules” like “Never take portraits with a wide-angle lens.” But I think wide-angle portraits have their own charm – the unusual perspective, and the fact that you can include a good deal of the subject environment, thanks to the wider angle of view and greater depth-of-field.

Final thoughts

I started this review with a story about pineapples, and also about economics. Rare objects tend to be valuable, and conversely, commonplace things are cheap. In 1986, the Minolta MD 28mm f/2.8 sold new for $140, almost $360 in today’s money. Even at that price it must have been a worthwhile investment, because Minolta sold thousands of copies. As a result, the lens is widely available today, and at the time of writing used copies in good condition sell for around £30–50 on eBay UK auctions.

Here’s another economics anecdote. In 2017, scientists at the University of Bonn found that the same wine apparently tastes better when it’s labelled with a higher price tag – a phenomenon which has come to be known as the “marketing placebo effect.” Participants were given two wine samples with price tags of 6 euro and 18 euro. Most participants rated the 18-euro wine higher, but in fact, both samples came from the same 12-euro bottle.

There’s a lesson in this too – sometimes, instead of being guided by our senses, we allow ourselves to be swayed by price. Online reviews of the Minolta MD 28mm f/2.8 often damn the lens with faint praise. “A very good, but not stellar performer,” says Rokkorfiles. “An ok lens for the money,” says a user on the MFlenses forum.

Now I’m not sure if this is the flip side of the marketing placebo effect – thinking that if something is cheap it must therefore be average – or whether these users are checking corner-sharpness at wide-open apertures and 5x magnification. But in scans viewed at full-screen on my laptop, or 8×10″ darkroom prints I don’t notice image quality issues. The limiting factor, as usual, is not the lens, but my own ability.

Having used the lens for over three years in a variety of situations, here is what I think. The Minolta MD 28mm f/2.8 is not merely “an ok lens for the money”, not even “a very good lens for the money.” It is just a very good lens, period.

Buy your own Minolta MD 28mm F/2.8 lens on eBay here

Find a lens in our shop, F Stop Cameras

Follow Casual Photophile on Facebook and Instagram

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

The post Minolta MD 28mm f/2.8 Lens Review appeared first on Casual Photophile.

Those who have read any of my previous articles will know that I make no attempt to hide my penchant for silver lenses made in Germany in the 1950s. That obsession started when I purchased a mint condition Zeiss VEB Contax D camera and then set myself a goal of owning a full set of period correct lenses to shoot with it. After much frustration and many curses, my repairman gave up on the shutter curtains of the Contax, but my passion for the lenses continues unabated.

I already owned two versions of the Contax Biotar 58mm f/2, the Schneider-Kreuznach Xenar 50mm f/2.8, and my beloved Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 75mm f/1.5. All that was required to fill my stable of lenses was a wide angle lens, and if I wanted a silver lens, the Ultra-Lithagon was the obvious choice

Specifications of the Enna-Werk München Ultra-Lithagon 28mm f/3.5  

• • Manufacturer : Enna-Werk München, Germany
  • Patents : US Patent No. 2959100A, Deutsches Bundespatent 1062028 & DE1228820
  • Designer : Johann Lautenbacher 
  • Production Dates : 1955 – 1959
  • Production Amounts : 1,600 in this version and 8,500 in Enna Sockel mount 
  • Design : 6 Elements in 6 Groups; enhanced retro-focus design
  • Angle of View : 75°
  • Aperture : Preset aperture f/3.5 – f/22
  • Aperture Blades : 10 blades
  • Minimum Focus : 0.3m (12”) – ∞
  • Material : Aluminum barrel and brass lens mount
  • Dimensions H x W : 50mm x 53mm (2” x 1 1/8”)
  • Filter Thread Diameter : 52mm
  • Weight : 112 grams (4 ounces)
  • Mounts : M42, Exakta, Praktina  

In 1950, the Angénieux Retro-focus Type R1 35mm f/2.5 (France) was the world’s first retro-focus wide angle lens for SLR cameras. Three year later in 1953, the company again made a world’s first with the release of the even wider 28mm retro-focus lens.  Angénieux named his lens “Retrofocus” to indicate that the focus was shifted backward. This term was originally used by Taylor, Taylor & Hobson to refer to their inverted telephoto lens. Although Angénieux attempted to unsuccessfully trademark the term, it has now become a generic term for this family of lenses.

Barely two years later in 1955, Enna-Werks released their version of a 28mm retro-focus lens, the Ultra-Lithagon, so called because they had already released their 35mm Lithagon, and Ultra signifies the wider field of view. Enna-Werk first unveiled the lens at Photokina in 1956, and it was first mentioned in the press in Modern Camera Magazine (UK) and Popular Photography (USA) in January 1957. 

The fact that Enna became only the second manufacturer in the world to release a retro-focus 28mm lens was a significant achievement at the time. The lens was designed by head optics designer at Enna-Werks, Johann Lautenbacher, who forms part of a small group people who were the first inventors of retro-focus wide-angle lenses, including Pierre Angenieux (Etablissements Angenieux de Paris), Günter Klemt (Schneider-Kreuznach), Harry Zöllner, Rudolf Solisch and Wolf Dannberg at VEB Carl Zeiss Jena. You can read more about this history in my article, Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon Wide Angle Lens History and Review.

Lautenbacher did not copy Angenieux’s 28mm lens formula, although the Ultra-Lithagon is a similar optical system of retro-focusing six elements in five groups, as can be seen in the image above. 

Although the first Ultra-Lithagon was in M42 mount, like my lens, the lens formula was later used for OEM lenses for Argus as the Sandmar, Corfield Periflex and Rectaflex. The second generation of the lens released in 1960, and came in the Zebra stripe design in Enna Sockel mount, which was also sold as the Porst Super Weitwinkel 28mm f/3.5.

A Short History of Enna-Werk München

Enna-Werk was founded in 1920 in Munich as an “optical institute” (a laboratory for the production of lenses and optical components) by Ing. Alfred Neumann. There is scant available history about Enna-Werk, which is sad because they created some of the world’s most renowned lens developments of the 1950s, such as the six element Ennaston (later Ennalyt) 85mm f/1.5, and the Enna Munchen Tele-Zoom 85-250mm f/4 for ALPA, the second 35mm zoom lens ever made. 

There are two apocryphal stories about how the company’s name originated. One version is that Neumann named it after his daughter Anne, transposing the letters backwards to create Enna. However, I believe that the more obvious version of the origin of the name is that it is merely phonetic for the initials of the founder after the European method of using surnames first, thus Neumann Alfred becomes N.A., pronounced ENN-A in German. The fact he has two of the letter N in his Christian name also makes me think this is the most obvious origin. After Neumann’s death, his son-in-law, who was married to Neumann’s daughter Anne, perhaps allowed the first version to circulate. 

Timeline of Enna-Werk München

• • 1920 : Enna-Werk is founded in Munich “München” Germany by Ing. Alfred Neumann. 
  • 1927 : Dr. Appelt senior joins his father-in-law’s company.
  • 1944 : During WWII, the company used forced labour to supply lenses for the German military. In 1945 the plant was destroyed by allied air raids and was relocated to Ebersberg, near Munich.
  • 1945 : After the end of WWII and the death of Ing. Neumann, his son-in-law, Dr. Werner Appelt, takes over the management of the company which was renamed Enna-Werk Optik-Gerätebau Dr. Appelt GmbH & Co. KG. This was the start of the most productive period in the company’s history. 
  • 1948 : Reconstruction of the original Enna factory in 3 Konradinstrasse in the Giesing neighbourhood of Munich.
  • 1950 : Enna starts selling lenses branded with their own name, prior to this the company was an OEM manufacturer making lenses for other companies. Branded Enna-Werk’s lenses included lenses for AkA, Alpa, Argus (Sandmar), Balda, Bolta, Braun, Corfield, Dacora, Edixa (Wirgin), Feinwerktechnik, Franka, Ihagee, Leidolf, Lipca, Photavit, Photo Porst (Revue), Photo Quelle, Regula and they even made lenses for Polaroid. However, despite being an OEM manufacturer producing consumer grade lenses, the company was also able to produce world-class lenses. This idea is reinforced by the fact that they produced lenses for Alpa in Switzerland, a Swiss firm which only accepted the highest quality lenses. 
  • 1952 : Enna released their first M42 mount lenses for SLR cameras and was the first manufacturer in Germany to produce a wide-angle lens, the 35mm f/3.5 Lithagon. During the 1950s, Dr. Siegfried Schäfer was the primary design engineer at Enna Werk. An avid photographer himself, Schäfer based some of his designs on drawings by Ludwig Bertele, the designer of the famed Sonnar. 
  • 1956 : Prior to 1956 Enna lenses read “Enna-Werk München” on the lens ring, and from 1957 onwards they read “ENNA München.”
  • 1958 : Enna releases the world’s fastest wide-angle lens for SLRs, the Super-Lithagon 35mm f/1.9 designed for their revolutionary Sockel lens system “Springblendensockel.” This was a precursor to Tamron’s Adapt-all system, and it allowed a photographer to have a set of lenses for SLR cameras with a variety of focal lengths from 24 – 600 mm. Adapters were available for M42, Praktina and Exa mounts with lenses named Lithagon, Ennalyt and Revuenon (Porst). 
  • 1961 : Release of the Enna Munchen Tele-Zoom 85-250mm f/4 for Alpa in Switzerland, just two years after the release of Voigtlander’s Zoomar, the World’s first zoom lens. This was an astonishing achievement for a small company. Dr. Seigfried Schäfer of Enna, along with Frank G. Back, was the co-inventor of one the first commercially available zoom lenses, the Enna Munchen Tele-Zoom 85-250mm f/4 in Alpa Mount. You can read more about the lens on Steve Gandy’s Camera Quest where he writes “Although the West German manufacturer Enna is generally is not considered among the best lens makers, the quality of this zoom’s construction is really outstanding.  In my opinion its construction is superior to Angenieux, and the equal to Kinoptic. It is also one of the rarest Alpa lenses.”
  • 1962 : After the death of Dr. Appelt senior, his son, Dr. Werner Appelt junior, takes over management.
  • 1964 : The four-millionth Enna lens produced, a telephoto zoom, is handed over to the Münchner Stadtmuseum or City Museum of Munich.
  • 1965 : Establishment of the company’s own plastic injection moulding shop and toolmaking department.
  • 1968 : Start of production in the new factory in Wegscheid near Passau. The Munich plant was expanded.
  • 1972 : During the Olympic games in Munich, Enna became an official Olympic supplier which allowed them to use the Olympic five ring symbol on their products. By this time, camera and lens production in Germany was fast losing ground to manufacturers in Japan. Sensing the winds of change, Enna wisely chose to diversify and began to concentrate on the production of plastic parts. Initially they provided plastic parts to the camera industry and then branched out to the production of slide mounts, slide magazines and slide projectors. 
  • 1986 : Due to a decrease in company profits from 1983 onwards caused by the downturn in the German camera industry, the company sold their original factory building in central Munich and relocated most of the production to the factory in Wegscheid. The original factory building in Munich had become too valuable for use as a factory, and workers in Munich were paid much higher wages than at Wegscheid, which is a rural area on the border with Austria.
  • 1990 : Finally, the company offices was relocated from Munich to 26 Raiffeisenstrasse, Wegscheid. At the same time the company ceased production of slide equipment and began to concentrate on plastic production. The optics division by this time was concentrating on high profit items for the German defense industry, such as optics for tank simulators. They also entered into cooperation with BRAUN PHOTO TECHNIK, Nuremberg.
  • 1991 : As a result of German reunification, the company decided to sell their optics division and focus solely on the production of plastics. 
  • 1997 : Resumption of optics production.
  • Today : Enna-Werk is still in business and trading as ENNA Werk Dr. Appelt GmbH & Co. KG. Although the company mainly produces injection moulded plastics, they proudly recognise their history and still use the original company logo showing a lens element.

Main image courtesy of Eric Kaas Sluis

Shooting the Ultra Lithagon 

Prior to buying this lens I did a great deal of research. Reports from friends and the reviews that I read almost universally stated that the Enna Werk Ultra-Lithagon 28mm F/3.5 is a great lens. I haven’t shot the later version of the lens and the optical design of that later model is different (Enna may have improved the lens coatings) so my write up here is strictly referencing the early version. 

Due to Covid-19 it’s been difficult to get out and shoot until recently, and I haven’t shot with a wide-angle lens for a while, so it took me some time to get back in the zone with composition and using this type of lens again. Once I got back in the groove I found the lens very easy to use. The focus feels just right, well damped and with a lovely feel. The quality of construction of the lens is very good, precisely machined, and the optics are superb. The lens is smaller than I expected and quite light due to its aluminum construction, and it works perfectly on my Contax Aria. However, like my Flektogon, the lens really needs a lens hood as it is prone to flare. It takes a 52mm crew in lens hood, and I don’t have one yet, so I just avoided shooting into the light. 

As far as the lens’ performance, it lived up the reports I’d heard. Center sharpness is excellent from f/3.5 to f/8 and starts to suffer a little from f/11 and f/16. Images are sharp even wide open, with minimal vignetting. The lens has a minimum focus distance of 30cm (12 inches) from the film plane, which works surprisingly well, capable of producing lovely close-up images. Despite the mediocre f/3.5 aperture the lens is capable of really lovely Bokeh, as exhibited by the shot I made of a vintage car hood mascot. 

The lens features a manually operated pre-set aperture, a common feature of early 1950s German lenses. Quite simple to use, you select the aperture you want to shoot, set that manually, and then you can open to the widest aperture to help focus, and then flick the aperture ring to the setting you have selected to shoot. Although the system was designed to allow easier focus on early SLR camera with dim viewfinders it still works just as well if you adapt the lens to shoot on a digital camera. 

The Ultra-Lithagon worked beautifully with the Ilford XPR Super film, producing sharp and contrasty images, and even though it’s a single-coated lens it worked very well with color film as well. As I have discussed in my previous articles, lenses from different manufacturers often have their own distinctive color cast. Zeiss, Voigtlander and Soviet lenses tend to produce images with a yellowish tinge and enhance red. Canon FD, Rodenstock, and my favorite Schneider-Kreuznach lenses have a cooler palette, tending to enhance blues and increase vibrancy and contrast.

From the images I’ve made with this lens, it seems Enna lenses tend to have moderate contrast, produce softer colors, and enhance redness. However, it is important to note that these shots were all taken on film and shooting any vintage lens on a digital camera will produce very different images. 

Another unusual feature of the lens is that it is one of the best lenses ever made for Ultraviolet photography, going down to down to 325Mm, making it better than the famed EL-Nikkor 63mm f/3.5. You can read more about the lens’ use for UV photography in the article Enna Lithagon 24mm, 28mm and 35mm by Enricco Savazzi. 

Buyer’s Guide

Although the Ultra-Lithagon is a rare and collectible lens it can still be picked up for comparatively reasonable prices considering its rarity and quality. According to the author Hartmut Thiele, only 1,600 of this early silver version of the lens were manufactured; 1,000 in M42 mount, 500 in Exakta mount and 100 in Praktina mount. The majority of the Ultra-Lithagon design (8,500 pieces) were made in the later Zebra style for Enna’s Sockel System mount.

Final Thoughts

After I set my heart on the Ultra-Lithagon the road to obtaining one was long and winding, with several detours. The first copy I purchased was from a retired collector who actually sent me the 135mm Ennalyt by mistake. The second copy I bought had nasty fungus (irreparable, sadly), and I almost gave up. But determination and lens lust kept me going.

Finally, as I was trawling the net, I spotted a collection of junk for sale in South Africa for $25, and barely detectable among the fuzzy images appeared to be the very lens I was hunting. After my past experiences, I thought my luck this time was too good to be true; but I emailed the seller, asking if they could send me some extra images and lo and behold it was an Ultra-Lithagon, in used but optically clear condition. I told the seller they could keep all the other junk and just post me the lens, which they did immediately, by Sea Mail! Apparently, this was their only reasonable option, and considering the price I couldn’t complain. All I had to do was wait many long weeks for it to arrive on a slow boat from Capetown.

Many agonising weeks later it did arrive, and it was exactly as described. The lens barrel had some wear and tear, but the lens elements were spotless. All my lens hunting tribulations were worth it, and the Ultra-Lithagon not only looks lovely, but lived up to its reputation. 

My friend Eric Kaas Sluis contributed a photo for this article, and sums up the lens better than myself…

“Despite its age and relatively obscurity this lens is very sharp and doesn’t have any major shortcomings at all, not in color rendering and no noticeable barrel distortion either. For a “slower” f/3.5 an excellent choice, however prices have gone up lately as it gets more followers, something I can understand. A vintage jewel this one, if you can get one, pick it up, will be worth it!!” – Eric Kaas Sluis‎

Want your own Enna-Werk München Ultra-Lithagon 28mm f/3.5?

Get one on eBay here

Follow Casual Photophile on Facebook and Instagram

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

The post Shooting one of the first 28mm lenses, the Enna Ultra-Lithagon  appeared first on Casual Photophile.

Nowadays, many professional photographers use zoom lenses (Steve McCurry, for instance, now prefers a 24-70, as does Pulitzer Prize-Winning photojournalist Carol Guzy). But even these zooms stay within fairly standard limits. 

In full-frame equivalent, how many of us have shot with something wider than a 28mm lens? Some pretty large percentage of readers’ hands drop. Okay, how about wider than a 20mm? We’re left with a slim percentage. Wider than 16? Now we’re really down to a rare few. 

This is a review of the Voigtlander Ultra Wide-Heliar 12mm f/5.6 Aspherical lens for the M-mount, version III. 12mm on full-frame is about as wide as it gets, especially when we exclude the non-rectilinear designs known as fisheyes. Among this ultrawide echelon there’s the Fujifilm 8-16mm, which is equivalent to a 12-24mm on full frame and the mind-blowing Voigtlander Heliar Hyper-Wide 10mm for Leica and Canon. This year, James reviewed 7.5mm fisheye for Minolta, which is insanely wide but also extremely silly in that it produces orbs for images.

The truth is that 90% of my photos are in that sweet spot of 35-50mm. My favorite lenses are the Carl Zeiss Contax G 45mm, the Pentax Limited 43mm, The Carl Zeiss ZM 35mm, and the Carl Zeiss Hasselblad 80mm. (Can you tell I like Zeiss?). 

So why shoot something as freaking wide as 12mm? Because it is so freaking wide. 

First Things First

Cosina-Voigtlander (CV) is a popular lens maker for Leica-shooters particularly. Voigtlander offers an extensive M-mount lineup at far more affordable prices than Leica. Having shot a handful of Voigtlander lenses, I can say that contra the crowd, I am not overwhelmingly in love with the build of CV lenses. Oftentimes, I find the aperture and focus rings too loose for my tastes and the finger tabs for the aperture rings are often too thin to inspire awe of their quality. The Voigtlander Ultra Wide-Heliar 12mm f/5.6 Aspherical III lens is a general exception to this feeling, probably owing to the fact that the lens is a hefty chunk of metal. Weighing in at 10 ounces, this lens is what the meme-folk might call “thicc.” 

Everything about the Heliar is oversized, from the beefy focusing ring with its Grand Canyon-esque knurls to the integrated petal-style hood. I think that heft can go a long way toward inspiring confidence in a lens that is not naturally as well finished as a Lecia lens might be. 

The front element is also big, though not as large as the seductive glass of ultrawide fisheyes (seriously, is there anything more beautiful than the front element of the Minolta 16mm?). Surrounding the glass are concentric ridges that remind me of a recessed watch sub-dial. 

In contrast to other M-mount Voigtlander lenses, the 12mm Heliar lacks the slim fin that acts as a finger tab for the aperture ring replacing it with a simple knurled ridge on otherwise smooth aperture ring. For me, this is an unobtrusive replacement for what I feel is not only an obtrusive piece but also an embarrassing one. The fin tab on other Voigtlander lenses reminds me of the flexible, plastic nose pads on wireframe glasses. Though it serves a purpose, it seems flimsy and distracts from the overall design. 

As for the aspect that I am less enthusiastic about, I still take issue with the standard Voigtlander typeface design choices. Leica, I think, is perhaps the pinnacle of distinctive and unique typeface design when it comes to their lenses. In comparison to Leica with its unique orange numbering and its own variation of the standard Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) typeface, the Voigtlander seems clearly more boring. 

But even compared to the Zeiss ZM lenses, the Voigtlander just doesn’t have much going for it. The typeface is as plain-Jane as any sans serif, the font is generally small, and the only two colors Voigtlander uses in any capacity are white and red (save for black). 

I know I’m taking issue with something incredibly minor, but if not now, when? If not me, who? All in all, I find Voigtlander lenses to look like a black Hyundai Elantra in lens form.  

Shooting Blind

Elanta or not, any good ride can be pimped out. The same is true for most lenses. In this case, you won’t be adding filters, but the easiest (some may essential) way to sex-up your wide angle lens is to use it in conjunction with an external viewfinder. In this case, any viewfinder with 12mm frame lines will work (though for most cameras, any finder with frame lines under 28mm will help). 

External viewfinders are an undeniably neat photography accoutrement. It’s like having a lens with your lens in true Xzibit fashion. That said, a 12mm external viewfinder will set you back about 200 dollars. Is it worth it? 

In all honesty, I can’t say, because I didn’t use any external viewfinder when shooting with this lens. What I can say, is that shooting blind was not an utter failure. The outer edges of my viewfinder essentially represent 26mm frame lines— a far cry from the 12mm frame lines I should technically have in order to accurately frame my shot. 

Shooting blind is an awkward sensation, no doubt, but not impossible. The key refrain I kept in my mind while shooting was, “Remember, you’re getting so much more than you think.” My viewfinder provided to me what I essentially thought of as the center of my frame, and from there I then forced myself to consider what might be slipping into the periphery of the shot. 

The second and third versions of this lens are rangefinder coupled, meaning that looking through my internal viewfinder did allow me to confirm focus. However, with a lens as wide as 12mm, almost everything is in focus all of the time, particularly since the lens aperture only opens up to f/5.6. 

I cannot imagine using this (or any) lens without any framing whatsoever, but a normal viewfinder will get you enough of the way that you’re somewhere in between slicing sashimi with a splitting axe and slicing it with a yanagi. 

Perspective, perspective, perspective 

I recently moved from Boston to New York City to start a Ph.D. program at Columbia University. There is a total sense of strangeness to that fact not made the least less strange by the raging pandemic. The joke is stale by now, but Ph.D. by Zoom is not exactly what I had in mind in the years spent dreaming about this season of life. 

I can’t say that I’m crushed by any aspect of the situation—I’m exceedingly lucky—but I can say that the walls of my apartment seem so much closer nowadays and that sitting at my desk in class feels increasingly claustrophobic. 

It is hard for anyone to push their sight into frames other than their own. To do so is what we spend years teaching in school, be it seeing, for example, from the perspective of Okonkwo from Things Fall Apart, or, as another example, from the perspectives of Irish living through the Great Famine. 

However, the main vocation each of us must come to intimate terms with is understanding what it means to see from own perspective. This is the task of self-understanding. When I shoot with my 43/45/50 lenses, I am in the mode of seeing naturally. It is through my eye that the image is composed, and that composition is inherently tied to what I see when I’m not looking through a viewfinder, that is, what I see normally. 

With longer and shorter lenses, compression and expansion are introduced to our images and suddenly the images we’re producing are, at some level, unnatural. With a 12mm lens, the images produced are as removed from our eyes as I am removed from the experience of Okonkwo. But to produce an image with obvious difference from my normal images can be as rewarding as taking up Okonkwo’s frame of view through Chinua Achebe’s writing. 

Armed with the expectation that the Heliar would produce images alien to my normal portfolio, I set out to a place that produces in me the sense of distance and awe I hoped the 12mm would: the main campus of Columbia. 

The 32-acre Neoclassical campus is magnificent. I am vastly underqualified to describe it adequately, so I can only say that it is a place for me that is beautiful. I knew, of course, that the wider a lens is the more it is suited to architectural photography, so Columbia made total sense as a photographic destination. 

As it turned out, I do feel that the Heliar captured the place better than my normal lenses had before. There is something so essential to feeling small amid places like Columbia (or inescapable, perhaps, at least for me) and the 121-degree field of view of the Voigtlander Heliar 12mm captures that sense of smallness perfectly. 

In that way, the 12mm lens helped me feel the expanse that really surrounds me as I make this move to Manhattan and begin this particular program at this particular institution. 

To buy or not to buy? 

Sadly, I had to send this lens back to James as it was on loan from the wonderful folks at B&H. In the time since, I have not infrequently pined for its dramatic angles. Somehow, my 25mm Voigtlander doesn’t seem dramatic enough after having tasted the intoxicating substance of the Voigtlander Ultra Wide-Heliar 12mm f/5.6 Aspherical III lens. 

I can say, since this is a review of the lens, that the images I got from it were extremely sharp without problematic flare, and that they were overall optically excellent. After all, the Mark III version of this lens introduces two more elements (in the same number of groups) over its predecessor for a Heliar design that is ultimately cleaner. And, of course, its aspherical element goes a long way in keeping abberations low. 

The Mark I and Mark II versions seem to hover between $400-$500 on eBay, which, in my mind, is a great deal. Even for a new Mark III, you are still well under $1,000. If I had a standard lens I was in love with and had a secondary lens I used often (for me, those are my Zeiss 2/50 Planar and Zeiss 2.8/35 Biogon), I think an ultrawide lens is an easy third choice. 

It’s just straight up wild in a way that is not as gimmicky as a fisheye lens or flat (literally) as an extreme telephoto lens. Throw in the fact that focusing is no biggie and you’ve got an easy to use lens which makes consistent dramatic results. You just have to get closer and closer to your subject until it works. If you can handle the fact that it gives off Hyundai vibes, I think it’s worth owning. I can entirely imagine that the next M-mount lens I’ll own will be this one. 

Get your Voigtlander Ultra Wide-Heliar 12mm f/5.6 Aspherical III lens from B&H Photo

The post Voigtlander Ultra Wide-Heliar 12mm f/5.6 Aspherical III M Mount Lens Review appeared first on Casual Photophile.