Voigtlander lenses again

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

There's been some discussion here about how various Voigtlander TM lenses compare to modern Leica ones, and I've read Irwin Puts' site, where he says that the Voigtlander/Cosina lenses are not as good as the current Leica examples. Then he mentions very quickly, in passing, that they might be as good as the older Leicas.

To me, the comparison with the older lenses is absolutely crucial, and deserves more attention.

It's not at all surprising that a $2000 lens is better than a $400 one. But as much as I love my Leica M's, and their exquisite rendering in B&W, I will never, in this lifetime, be able to spend 2 grand on a single lens. All of my Leica experience is with used lenses of older styles.

So the real question is: How does the Voigtlander 21mm compare with a Super Angulon from the 60's? or the Ultron 35mm versus a Summicron from the 70's, which is available in the same price ballpark? Or their 50mm with an older Summilux...I guess you get the idea.

Does anyone have any experience with this? I'd really like to hear about it.

Be well...

-- Scott Paris (asparis@ix.netcom.com), June 03, 2001

Answers

I did considerable shooting with a late 60's 35/2 Summicron, and now have a CV 35/1.7 Ultron. Most of my work is hand held, daylight, with fast black and white film. All I can say is that both lenses were (are) great. Leica seems to stress performance at the widest aperture when compared to other lens makers; so I would say get the Leitz lens if you frequently shoot wide open. I also expect you'll see some real bargains after the CV lenses begin appearing on the used market, as I doubt that they'll hold their resale value as well as the Leica. I paid less than $400 for my Ultron, and I didn't see any Leica equivalent at that price.

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@s-way.com), June 03, 2001.

Scott, the Voigtlander lenses offer great performance at a fraction of the cost of the Leica lenses. The only drawback I can see right now is having to use the screw to M adapter. To put it into perspective, even the little 25mm "snapshot" Skopar is a better performer than the older Leica 21mm lenses. You won't be disapointed with the image quality, and if you are for some reason, the lenses are selling on E-bay used for nearly 90% of what new gray market ones sell for.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), June 03, 2001.

I have the 75mm/2.5 Voigtlander. While it is a very sharp modern prime lens, it does not compare in image quality to the 75/1.4 which I have borrowed and used on several occasions. That "Leica look", consistent across the lens line, is absent. And the sharpness and micro-contrast are not the knock your socks off phenomenon that say so many Leica M lenses have. But I still like the Voigtlander, because it is a lens that is almost as tiny as the 50 Summicron, and a welcome, sharp alternative to the heavy M tele lenses. Just IMHO ;-)

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), June 03, 2001.

Scott, I have the 21mm SA f/3.4. It does vignette very obviously with slide film, when ever there's blue sky across the width of the shot. On the other hand, with black & white, especially if not a lot of sky is in the shot, I don't notice any vignetting, and the lens is very sharp. So if uniform illumination with color is important, I'd go with the more recent designs. As far as the 35mm Summicron goes, I have a chrome one I bought around 168 or 69, sn. 216xxxx, and it's a favorite I'll never part with, even if I buy an ASPH. I think the 70's version is a little better: It's the 2nd version of this lens. Probably well worth the bucks if you can see your way clear.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), June 04, 2001.


Oops. I meant I bought it in 1968 or 1969.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), June 04, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ