Hi - the current issue of Amateur Photographer (29 Sept 2001) compares Leica's and Voigtlander's 21mm optics. The screw mount Voigtlander scores very highly in the tests, despite being a stop slower and less than a quarter of the price of the German optic - interesting!

If anyone is having problems finding the magazine I'll be happy to email them a b/w scan of the 3 page review in Zipped .jpg format - unfortunately, file size is still quite big at around 1.3mb.

-- Chris Timotheou (nowayout@btinternet.com), September 28, 2001

Answers

Did they use slow, color reversal film? If not, then it isn't much of a test.

As Erwin Puts points out in his latest newsletter, these cheaper lenses appear to compete with Leica lenses at smaller apertures until you project color slides and see the color fringing, dull colors, distortion, etc.

IMHO, there is only one way to compare lenses and thats to examine slides with a good loupe or to project them with a first class projector like the Prodovit.

There is no free lunch.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), September 28, 2001.

Stewart Bell, AP's chief lens tester is a whole order of magnitude more rigorous than someone who simply uses a loupe! I read the comparison, and he concludes by giving the leica 21 incredibly high marks; it is simply that he concludes that the voigtlander punches way above its weight -- and gives the leica a run for its money in SOME attributes. His piece was not one of those attention seeking damming leica with faint praise pieces (and it contained some interesting reflections on the different aspherical processes at work with the two manufacturers.)

His conclusion? Pros should buy the leica, everyone else would be better than well served with the voigtlander.

Seemed pretty fair to me!

-- Martin Davidson (martin@foxcombe1.demon.co.uk), September 28, 2001.

If a magazine catering to amateurs wrote that pros should buy a particular lens but another one would be good enough for amateurs, and was speaking in terms of optical performance, not heavy-duty-use build-quality, then I would hope there would be a lot of very insulted readers cancelling their subscriptions.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), September 28, 2001.

Erwin Puts would chew off his own foot before he admited that any lens in the world was better than a Leica lens. I am seriously tired of him and his leica fetish.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), September 28, 2001.

There is no doubt that the Leica 21mm lens is a superior lens in both imaging qualities and build quality. There is also no doubt that the Voigtländer 21mm is an exceptionally good value for money, with excellent performance and build quality for a very reasonable price.

Which one you should buy is determined by both your appreciation of the differences and by your wallet. If you can't afford the Leica lens and want/need a 21mm lens to work with, fer gosh sake just buy the Voigtländer! If you don't use a 21 that much but would like one to shoot with occasionally, again the VC lens makes a lot of sense (as does the Kobalux). If you want the best and can afford it, buy the Leica lens.

There's no need to get into Leica "fetishisms" or brand bashing.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), September 28, 2001.

Bud - I take it you won't be wanting a copy of the review! Here in the UK the Leica lens sells for about 1300 pounds (plus the cost of the finder) which totals to over 3000 US dollars. This is serious money and I would certainly expect a lens of this price to knock the Voigtlander for six! But - the Voigtlander is there and it is another option and NO - it didn't score as high as the Leica in the test - and it is a stop slower - but everyone is raving about it and it did very, very well in the test.

For those of us with a mortgage, a family to support, two cars to run and a dog and two cats and rising fuel bills and...........blah, blah, blah it's a good lens to consider and won't break the bank - and, frankly, I am interested in taking photographs rather than spending evenings looking at edge to centre definition of transparancies with a loupe.

-- Chris Timotheou (nowayout@btinternet.com), September 28, 2001.

I'm with Chris...It would be nice to always have the best, I prefer to have a second-choice lens rather than pine away while saving (indefinitely!) for the very best.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), September 28, 2001.

Another factor in the defense of the V' Lander is that for many people this is not a focal length that is going to be used for a large percentage of their photos in general use. Some people couldn't live without a 21mm lens, and the expense of the higher performing Leica would be easy to justify. For many people, the bulk of their shots could be accomplished with lenses in the 35-90mm range... or possibly even more narrow, for me it would be 35 and 50.

If I had a 21mm lens it could solve some problems once in a while, but I have lived without it on my Leicas for many years. Putting that V' Lander lens in the bag for such potential use would still make it a bargain. I doubt it could be wore out from the low amount of use it would get.

I'll put my money into the glass that lives on my cameras every day. For the once in a while shots it is nice to have these low price options. They didn't exist 10 years ago.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 28, 2001.

I think comparing glass for the Leica is a lot like comparing fine Scotch... They're all good, it's just that some are better than others! - And once you've tasted the best it's hard to step down to anything else! :-)

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 28, 2001.

I didn't intend for my post to come across as snobbish. I scrimp and save for everything I have. Because of that, I usually don't buy *best buys* but wait until I can get what I think is the best long- term investment. I've been around long enough to know you don't get what you don't pay for. Mostly, my post was just a knee-jerk response to another magazine test.

As for Erwin Puts, I disagree with him a lot. That doesn't mean he doesn't have some good Info. Like everything else, you simply have to apply your own personal filter to it.

As for the comment about Pros buying Leica, I suspect there is more Leica gear in the hands of those of us that do not make a living with cameras than so-called Pros. I also suspect that many of us amateurs are far more critical of the results we get than people who make a living in photography.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), September 28, 2001.

I have the VC 21mm and like it very much on my IIIf. Then I loaned it to a friend and he shot some billboards and showed me the very obvious barrel distortion. I have also have a 21mm/3.4 SA and I hope it doesn't do that. Anyway it is a great lens but just not for billboards and brick walls!

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), September 28, 2001.

The Voigtlander does what it does - if you don't need f/2.8 and ideal distortion correction it's a good deal. If you DO need f/2.8 and/or straight lines right to the edges it won't work. Take your pick.

I haven't encountered the 21 yet, but did test the VC 25 against my 21 pre-ASPH. At f/8 on B&W the 25 was right there with the 21, or even a hair sharper. At f/4 it was not quite as sharp as the 21 at f/2.8.

I will try out the 21 when it becomes available - the 2.8 is quite large and there are times when I'd like to be able to carry something wide in my pocket. If it's up to the job within its limitations I might get it in addition.

I think the rule of thumb is that increasing the aperture one f/stop requires 3-4 times the optical correction - so it should be no surprise that by limiting themselves to f/4 Voigtlander does pretty well. Distortion aside, Steve Gandy (cameraquest.com) rates the 21 VC as better than the f/4-f/3.4 Super Angulons (sharpness/contrast/fall-off). But A) he's selling the VC, and B) given 35 years of improvements in optical technology, we should EXPECT a better cost/performance ratio from modern designs.

FWIW the Contax/Zeiss G-Biogon 21 is probably about the best-corrected 21 out there - at least equal to the 21 ASPH for sharpness/fall-off/ contrast/distortion, and half the price. But you have to put up with AF and an electronic body to use it, and its mount is nowhere near as solid as the Leicas.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 29, 2001.

We will all benefit from the Voigtlander and Konica competition.

Leica is facing competion from these companies and will have to step up their performance and efficiencies if they are to grow and stay in the market place. Competition is a good thing and Leica have been enjoying a monopoly that we as leica users have created for them. We have been sending a message to Solms saying, nothing but the very very best for up to $4k would be selling to us.

Voigtlander is now taking a position just short of that and offering 97% of the optical quality for 25% of the price. Will there be takers...definitely. 98% of the people we show these shots to couldn't tell the difference. In the end we will all benefit, I'm sure. So even the diehard leicaphiles should welcome these product introductions for it will have a positive impact on the leica product eventually, either in price or performance, or both.

-- Bas Wip (bas@baswip.com), September 29, 2001.

I notice on Kirk Tuck's Leica Review on photo net that he has added a comment stating that he has sold his Leica 21 in favor of the Voigtlander.

I used the Voigt 21/4 on a recent trip to Italy and can state that it was a joy to use because of it's wonderful small size and great viewfinder. I'm waiting for my slides to come back from the lab before I pass final judgement, however.

Also, for added information, I used the 21/4 on a Bessa L body which is a great, fast-handling match for this lens.

I post some shots when I get them back and scanned.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), September 29, 2001.

I just received my 21 f4 and I am at awe at how small this thing is. My only other lens is a noctilux (justified). The other amazing thing is how bright and easy to look through the briteline is. An the focusing lever and and.... I have not seen any pictures from it yet but I like it already.

-- Artur (aciesi8872@aol.com), September 29, 2001.

Don't take this the wrong way, as I'm not trying to stomp on anyone, but I am amased by how many of you there are that have seemingly fallen in "LOVE" with this lens, BEFORE you've even seen any images from it!!! (I realize it probably will make very nice images, but it seems odd to me to have such high regard for it before you've actually seen an image...)

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 29, 2001.

Actually I hope lots of you will fall in love with this lens and then maybe one of you will sell me your last pre-asph 21 at an unbelievably low price. A few months ago I had the chance for one with finder in mint condition for $900 but didn't have the cash. Don't get me wrong, I love V'lander lenses, I have two of them but for a 21, I want a Leica.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), September 29, 2001.

Jack, the 21mm VC is about three hundred and something dollars and you get a brightline viewfinder that is every bit as good as the $200 Leica finder. So even if in the near future a 21mm ASPH is in the budget the money for the VC is still well spent.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), September 30, 2001.

Ray:

I agree with the economics, but just don't fall in love with it untill you've actually used it! It's kind of like the movie "10", where Dudley Moore falls in love with Bo Derek on sight alone, only to find out she's a total loser in real life...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), October 01, 2001.

Mark:

PS: I just sold my pre-asph 21 for $800 (lens only) - and yes, it hurt...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), October 01, 2001.

Jack,

I don't know why other folks love this lens but I only like this lens very much and would prefer to remain just friends :) I have been using my IIIf and after learning how to properly load film I realize I really like this camera. To me the the compactness and simplicity of the IIIf is pure joy. As much as I prefer the performance of modern Leica glass I wish there were days when I can fit three lenses in my left coat pocket and a Leica on the right. I wish Solms would produce slower and smaller versions of their popular focal lengths but that isn't going to happen. For now the Voigtlander glass is the next best thing.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), October 01, 2001.

I tend to agree with Jack on this. We all tend to wax lyrical about something when we first get it, but really you need to have something for 6 months to a year before you can really judge. Often we impart this undigested enthusiasm on to others before, who then rush out in excitement and buy this item, only to find that the person who thought it was so great has subsequently sold it and got something else. It takes time to decide what we like and as a result I am always a bit suspicious of the "I've just bought x and have shot three films and I can can tell you it is fantastic..etc."

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), October 01, 2001.

I have 2 of the Voigtlander 21's. One in Screw mount with a M adaptor for my CL & CLE and one in Nikon RF mount. I originally purchased the nikon mount one and was so impressed I sold my pre asph Leica 21 f2.8 to buy the Voigtlander instead. It beats the older Leica for light fall off and distortion. I dare say the ASPH is better still but its way to large for a CL and doesnt take 39mm filters. The Voigtlander is a CL/CLE users dream, and you can get 6 of them for the price of the Leica lens. I believe no matter which you buy the ASPH or the Voigtlander you are a winner, one gets the finest optic available and the other gets the most compact, best value, with almost as good optic. Both may have the same focal length but each has appeal to different people for different reason. For me the Leica ASPH 21mm lens could be half the price I still wouldnt buy one because its not a good fit with a CL (ie too large) but those who have M6's will find it otherwise, you really should compare which is better for you as I believe they do have different niches although I believe price will have a bearing for most people.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), October 02, 2001.

I have both the Leica (Asph version) and the Voigtlaner 21mm lens. Both are optically excellent, and I can't tell which is better just by looking at the photographs, even when they're blown up to A4 size. The Leica lens (f/2.8) is a stop faster than the Voigtlander (f/4), and this is often useful when shooting in lowlight situations without the use of the flash. However, in terms of portability, the Voiglander lens wins hands down, as it is a light tiny thing compared with the Leica--this is something you'll appreciate after carrying a camera with the Leica lens on a neckstrap for a while! On the other hand, the heavier Leica lens contributes to a steadier camera, which helps to avoid camera shake. Anyway, for those who have not read the lens-comparison article that Chris refers to, here are some of the info quoted from the article.

Comparative technical data

Lens: Leica 21mm f/2.8 Asph | Voigtlander 21mm f/4
Colour shift: neutral | neutral
Distortion: < or = -0.1mm | < or = -0.1mm
Vigntting: 2.3 stops wide open | 1.8 stops wide open
Low contrast image quality: excellent | excellent
High contrast image quality: excllent | excellent
Ovrall quality: excellent | excellent
AP test rating: 95% | 91%

Excerpts from Dr. Bell's Report (Dr. Stewart Bell, AP's in-house lens expert; reported on page 50) ". . . Stacking the new Voightlander against the current Leica product, it is a pretty close run thing. . . . There is an underlying difference in the manufacturing processes for the aspheric surfaces used to control the hiher-order aberrations. The Voigtlander makes use of the glass/acrylic sandwich technique in which an underlying glass element has an aspheric plastic surface cast on one of its surface. The Leica method depends on a specially developed glass with a suitable coefficient of expansion which may be cooled without distortion after being surface shaped against a suitable aspheric mould. . . . Both objectives demonstrate heavy vignetting, of the order of 2.5 stops at open aperture. In both cases, stopping down to below f/5.6 reduces the effect to negligible levels. . . . edge distortion is all but undetectable in both. The Leica objective has extremely high resolution and contrast in the central field, grading off in the other zones to a degree of softness of contrast and reducing defining power. The Voigtlander does not show as much outer and inner field contrast difference. So which lns wins? . . . you pay your money and you make your choice. For the professional, take the Leica. For the rest of us, go for the Voigtlander."

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), October 16, 2001.