OVERVIEW

The “F” in the Contax 16mm F-Distagon’s name stands for fisheye. The Contax was my first experience using a fisheye lens, so other than see pictures on the web here and there, I really did not know what to expect. The Contax 16mm is consistent with the other better Contax C/Y lenses - solid build, well dampened and smooth focus, great sharpness and contrast, high resolving power, pleasing color and so forth.  Optically I could not find anything to complain about, so the question (at least for me) was whether or not a fisheye lens suited my style.

LENS PERFORMANCE

Even after owning so many Contax lenses, the one aspect which really stood-out was the Contax 16mm’s resolution at F2.8 (wide open) on the Canon 1Ds Mark II, The lens was capable of out-resolving the sensor even when shot wide open. This is especially amazing considering the field of view (FOV) is 180 degrees, so the 1Ds Mark II pixels had to cover alot of ground.

Chromatic aberrations (such as purple fringing) is well controlled; there is  some, but it is very minor and only visible when viewing the image at 50-100% in Photoshop. The CA is less than that found in the Canon 16-35mm L F2.8 (Mark I) and Canon 17-40mm L F4.0. Not meaning to minimize contrast and color, the results are consistent with other Contax Carl Zeiss lenses.

The two big surprises with the 16mm Fisheye is how neutral it can be when held even with the horizon. The fisheye effect is increasingly amplified as the lens is tilted upwards or downwards, but when held level the Contax performs surprisingly similar to a ultra wide angle (UWA) prime. There is some fisheye effect at the top & bottom, but it is very minor. This could be corrected in Photoshop, or cropped out which is most likely the case when cropping to a 4:5 aspect ratio.

Again, the other big surprise is resolution. Wide angle lenses tend to have low resolution on digital SLRs because FOV to pixel ratio is very low. Meaning, one pixel covers a large area, so such as distance leaves only have a couple pixels. Those couple pixels are already stretched as it is, but add in the dSLR’s in-camera DSP processing along with the AA filter and the detail looks ho-hum. Somehow the 16mm manages to overcome those barriers and delivers an amazingly sharp, detailed image. The Contax 16mm Fisheye easily proves that Canon’s wide angle lenses come up short in the resolution department.

The 16mm Fisheye also has very little light fall-off (ie - dark corners when shot wide open or at faster apertures). After using the 18mm F4 Distagon a couple years ago, I expected light fall-off to be a problem with the 16mm Fisheye. Corner illumination on the Fisheye is excellent. For experienced fisheye users, I suspect the 16mm Distagon-F will be joy to use. For fisheye newbie’s such as myself, finding appropriate subject matter is the tricky part.

PARTING THOUGHTS

I have read that the Canon EF 15mm F.8 Fisheye is also an excellent lens, though I have never shot with the one. In terms of outright sharpness, the Contax is stunningly sharp and I have shot with the Contax 21mm F2.8 Distagon, 25mm F2.8 Distagon, 28mm F2.0 Distagon and 28mm F2.8 Distagon. It is hard to compare sharpness when the difference in focal lengths is so great, but the 16mm felt every bit as sharp.

Ultimately the 16mm was sold because my favorite focal lengths are 35mm to 200mm. Creatively I have difficult time with wide angle lenses. The original seller said he did not use it much either. The person I sold it to said they have not used it much either. The Contax 16mm Fisheye is a very good lens; based on its optical merits I would give it an A+. That said, the catch-22 is its price and a question of how often it would be used.

Most of us do not see the world in a fisheye perspective, so it is difficult to determine which scene would make a good fisheye picture. An expensive lens that does not see much use, usually finds itself on Ebay. If you are experienced photographer who knows and understands the fisheye perspective - and WANTS that look, then the Contax could be a good choice. For the rest of us, I think the Canon 15mm F2.8 is a more cost effective option.

(Continue to next page)