Designed in the 60s, and manufactured for just a few years. Only pros and wealthy amateurs could afford to buy one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hologon

https://www.google.com/amp/s/w...on-hologon-ultrawide

A remarkable camera+lens. They were wonderful tools for interior architecture photography. Almost zero curvilinear distortion, thanks to its symmetrical lens design. But there was lots of “volume anamorphosis distortion”. I put that in quotes because it’s not actually distortion: it’s an intrinsic effect, more prominent with wide angle lenses, of flat film cameras that makes objects near the edge of the frame appear unnaturally wide.

The reason: the distance from the optical center of the lens to the edge of the frame is greater than the distance to the center of the frame, so the focal length is greater at the edge, hence more magnification there.

Part 2

Fast forward to 2020 – Apple introduces the iPhone 12 Pro with 3 cameras, each with 2x optical zoom. The 35mm-equivalent focal length of its widest lens is 13mm – even shorter than the Hologon! And it’s f/2.4 rather than a dim f/8 (*1). Its other lenses: an f/1.6 26mm and an f/2 52mm. So continuous optical zoom from 13mm through 104mm. Enough span for 95% of my photographic needs. Digital zoom suffices for the rest.

*1 – Furthermore, the Hologon lens was even dimmer than f/8 in practice. The camera suffered severe vignetting, due to the cosine effect. A graduated neutral density filter, which dimmed the image more on axis, than off, was usually used with the lens to reduce the vignetting effect. The iPhone 12 Pro ultra wide camera suffers less vignetting because it’s a retrofocus design. Any remaining is corrected by digital processing.

$5,000 in today's money!



I tell you, I have great admiration for the talent of photographers. That's artistry there. I had a decent compact Nikon set up with various lenses which I sold on the forum here last year. But I didn't consider myself a photographer just like I have a guitar but don't consider myself a musician.

Back in the day, I used to rent the Nikkor 15mm rectilinear wide angle for a 35mm Nikon when I had a project that needed it. GREAT lens! Could never afford to buy one but still desire one now, for the bucket list.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Fast forward to 2020 – Apple introduces the iPhone 12 Pro with 3 cameras, each with 2x optical zoom. The 35mm-equivalent focal length of its widest lens is 13mm – even shorter than the Hologon! And it’s f/2.4 rather than a dim f/8 (*1). Its other lenses: an f/1.6 26mm and an f/2 52mm. So continuous optical zoom from 13mm through 104mm. Enough span for 95% of my photographic needs. Digital zoom suffices for the rest.

The misleading way they advertise smartphone cameras has led to a misunderstanding here.

The iPhone 12 Pro does not have any zoom lenses. It has three fixed focal length lenses (with the focal lengths and apertures you list).

The official Apple specs say: "2x optical zoom in, 2x optical zoom out; 4x optical zoom range"

In marketing-speak, "2x optical zoom in" is switching from the 26mm lens to the 52mm lens. "2x optical zoom out" is switching from the 26mm lens to the 13mm lens. "4x optical zoom range" is switching between the 13mm and 52mm lenses.

The optical zoom is not continuous and it doesn't go past 52mm.

I have a Zeiss Ikon Contessa camera with the Zeiss 2.8/50mm lens. That old camera takes phenomenal photographs, images are razor sharp. When flipping through our old photo albums, the pictures taken with that camera still jump out at you.

I need to bring it out and use it again.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tonydec,

The new iPhone 13 Pro has an ultra wide lens that's 13 mm, f/1.8, 6-elements. I've already ordered my upgrade, just for the camera and video improvements. I find myself using the iPhone a lot more than my Olympus E-M5 Mk III for video of the grandkids.

Many years ago when I was using a Leica SM camera (1948 IIIC), I borrowed a Contax IIA with a Zeiss 50mm 2.0 lens (W. Germany) for a few weeks and a couple of rolls of Kodachrome 25. What a lens. Incredible sharpness and silky smooth focusing.

I have a 12-24mm Full Frame Sigma lens in a Nikon mount. Use in on my D750 and I must say that 12mm is VERY wide. Pluses for the Sigma is that the rectilinear distortion is near zero which isn't the case with the similar Nikon lens. Downside is that it's not the sharpest lens and the Nikon wins big time in that aspect. However it's sharp enough to produce a very good looking 16x20 print.

PS, I am planning on reviving my old 4X5 Monorail via a film scanner because you just cannot beat the ability for correction that swings and tilts provide and with 100 speed film digital can only approach what that whopping big negative can provide.

Thanks for the articles. Although photography was a major hobby of mine at the time, I was unaware of the lens. It would of course have been far too expensive for me to have even considered owning, I might have coveted one.

My father still has his Zeiss 35mm camera with a Zeiss lens that he bought in Berlin in the early 70s, the pictures this camera produced are unreal. The sharpness and clarity are unreal...

I have an old Hasselblad Super Wide, which is a super wide angle lens on a Hasselblad body, but the lens is not removable, because the body is a purpose-built body for that lens. It takes great, low distortion wide angle photos. (I wish I used my Hasselblads more, but they are film cameras, with all that means. There are digital backs for Hasselblads, but they are new-car expensive, so I can buy and process a lot of 120 film if I want to use those cameras.)

But it isn't as wide as that Zeiss Ikon, which gives some great options. The photos are very striking. I could have some fun with this camera.

^^^^^^^^
The second link in my OP mentions, and pictures, that Hasselblsd SWC Superwide, and has a clickable link for an article about it (and an obscure and interesting 35mm Hasselblad). The link is titled, “Two of the coolest Hasselblads ever made”.

The physical aperture of the iPhone lens is very small compared to an f/2.4 35mm lens. The iPhone light gathering capability must be diminished in comparison. To get the same low light performance it will need longer shutter speeds I assume.
Remarkable nonetheless.

ETA: I mean 35mm format camera, not lens.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
The physical aperture of the iPhone lens is very small compared to an f/2.4 35mm lens. The iPhone light gathering capability must be diminished in comparison. To get the same low light performance it will need longer shutter speeds I assume.
Remarkable nonetheless.

ETA: I mean 35mm format camera, not lens.

The f-number is the f-number.

Let's take the f/1.6 "26mm" lens as the example.

It's an f/1.6 lens. At the same ISO and shutter speed, it will give the same exposure as any other f/1.6 lens (subject to small variation for a variety of reasons).

Another way to say that is that in the same lighting conditions, the same intensity of light will hit the image plane (the film or sensor) as with any other f/1.6 lens - so the same amount of light energy will hit each square millimeter of image plane (film or sensor) as with any other f/1.6 lens.

So how do you make an f/1.6 "26mm" lens the size of a split pea?

Well, it isn't actually a 26mm lens. The sensor behind the lens is TINY. If you put that sensor behind an actual 26mm lens, it would be extreme telephoto - because you are effectively cropping a tiny little frame out of the center of a 35mm film frame.

I can't find a listing of the actual specification, but from the resolution and sensor specs they give, the sensor behind the 26mm lens is 4mm x 6mm. A 35mm film frame or full-frame digital sensor is 24mm x 36mm.

So there is a 6x crop factor. The "26mm" lens is actually a 26mm / 6 = 4.3mm lens.

The iPhone 12 Pro's 4.3mm (26mm equivalent) f/1.6 lens will frame and expose photos the same way as a 26mm f/1.6 lens on a 35mm or full-frame digital camera.

There are two major differences between the two "equivalent" cases:

1. The shorter focal length lens on the smaller sensor (the iPhone) will have MASSIVELY larger depth-of-field. The "portrait" modes on smartphones that do bokeh or very out-of-focus backgrounds are using digital processing to create the out of focus areas. It is effectively impossible to get that kind of narrow DOF at portrait distances with such a tiny sensor.

2. Let's go back to that "same amount of light energy per square millimeter of image plane" idea from earlier. This absolutely means that the exposure is the same, but it does cause a different issue. Consider the iPhone's 4mm x 6mm 12 megapixel sensor vs. a full-frame 24mm x 36mm 12 megapixel sensor. The individual pixels on the iPhone's sensor have 1/36 the surface area of the pixels on the full-frame sensor. If we assume similar technology between the two sensors, then the noise floor should be about the same - but the signal (the light) on the larger sensor is 36 times (more than 5 stops!) larger. In dim light, the smaller sensor will not perform as well because the electrical noise is (relatively) larger.

If you're not comfortable thinking about it in electrical terms, it works out the same for film.

Take your 35mm film camera with 26mm f/1.6 lens and 100 ISO film and take a properly exposed picture at 1/500s shutter speed.

Take the same picture with a 4mm x 6mm piece of 100 ISO film behind a 4.3mm f/1.6 lens with a 1/500s shutter speed. The exposure and framing will be identical (although the depth-of-field differences mentioned above will still apply).

Now take your 24mm x 36mm piece of film and your 4mm x 6mm piece of film and make 8x12 prints out of each one. The print from the 4mm x 6mm piece of film will look like crap because it is (relatively) blown up 6x more. This case isn't exactly the same as a smaller sensor of the same resolution, but it also isn't exactly the same a smaller sensor with the same pixel size. It's somewhere in between, but you get a similar result.

There are some smartphones that use various tricks to get around the small-sensor problem, like stabilized long exposures or taking multiple pictures and doing some digital magic to combine them and average out the noise.

^^^^^^^^
Re: “There are some smartphones that use various tricks to get around the small-sensor problem, like stabilized long exposures or taking multiple pictures and doing some digital magic to combine them and average out the noise.”

I had suspected that myself. And I also suspect that, when using its 13mm-equivalent camera, the iPhone is simultaneously using the longer focal length cameras to improve resolution in the central part of the image. There would be some parallax to be fixed by digital processing.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
^^^^^^^^
Re: “There are some smartphones that use various tricks to get around the small-sensor problem, like stabilized long exposures or taking multiple pictures and doing some digital magic to combine them and average out the noise.”

I had suspected that myself. And I also suspect that, when using its 13mm-equivalent camera, the iPhone is simultaneously using the longer focal length cameras to improve resolution in the central part of the image. There would be some parallax to be fixed by digital processing.

Specifically, I know the Google Pixel 5's astrophotography mode does the multiple-picture thing, and I know some other phones use similar tricks but can't remember which ones off the top of my head.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
^^^^^^^^
The second link in my OP mentions, and pictures, that Hasselblsd SWC Superwide, and has a clickable link for an article about it (and an obscure and interesting 35mm Hasselblad). The link is titled, “Two of the coolest Hasselblads ever made”.

Thanks for pointing it out. And now I know mine was probably assembled by Florence at the Hasselblad factory. It is a remarkable lens.