Could you share your opinions regarding the actual use of the various lenses that make up the Voigtlander lens lineup. I am interested in adding the 15mm and 75 mm to my M6 kit but am interested in any opinions from users regardless of which lens(es) they own. I have read the Potts bench tests etc., what I am seeking in this forum are opinions from actual users. Image quality, mechanical quality, glass quality etc.?

Thank you for your responses.

-- Richard Hoag (wpcdallas@aol.com), February 16, 2002

Answers

Generally speaking, the optical quality of Voigtlander lenses is excellent. Sharp, contrasty images. Nice color rendition. However, the quality of construction is not quite on the same level as Leica. They make an excellent alternative to Leica lenses. However, if you elect to use Voigtlander lenses I would suggest using Leica screw- mount to M adapters rather than those made by Voigtlander. The fit is tighter and with less likelihood of annoying little problems like the lens not lining up at the 12 o'clock position. I've owned several of these lenses and still use the 21mm f4 Color-Skopar which is a beautiful lens. However, to illustrate my comments above about quality of construction, this lens is a replacement for the first one I owned which had a very sticky focusing mechanism. Also, I recently had to have the front ring of the lens tightened as it came loose and caused a rattling sound. My 35mm Ultron, which I have since sold, also had a loose front ring that had to be tightened. Minor problems, but the lenses are not made as well as Leica lenses. But then you get what you pay for. Nevertheless, I would still consider these lenses an excellent value.

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), February 16, 2002.

The 15mm CV Leica SM lens is a good but not spectacular performer. Probably well worth the price (which is far less than any major camera manufacturer would charge), if you have occasional need for such a wide lens. It has significant vignetting, and unfortunately, CV did not provide for a spot filter to even out the exposure as Contax did with their 16/8 Hologon. Don't expect the crisp contrast and sparkle of Leica wide angle lenses with the 15/4.5 CV, but it is a fine lens as far as it goes, and I recommend it because of the price.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), February 16, 2002.

Hi Richard! I've had the 15 for just over a year, but I've used Leicas for about 30 years. As posted above, its a good lens for the money. Maximum performance at around f/8, doesn't flare too badly. Construction quality about on the level of Minolta/Pentax/Olympus. I use the 15 in situations where I can capitalize on its unique WA qualities, where across-the-field flatness, sharpness, and contrast are secondary. Goes just about right with ISO 400 films. If I needed this lens for more than about one twentieth of my Leica-M work, I'd probably want Leica to make one, and would guess that if they did, and if they could avoid the temptation of coupled focussing (really unnecessary with a 15) it might sell for around 2500.00.

-- John Layton (john.layton@valley.net), February 16, 2002.

There are many threads on these lenses and I am a big fan - I have had the 15mm since it was launched and find it incredibly useful and a fine optical performer with superb build quality - the price is simply incredible.

Here in the UK the press have given it rave reviews, highly respected pro's mag' BJP rated it very highly indeed.

At the price (and tiny size) I feel it is essential, once you have used it in a small interior room etc you will wonder how you ever did without it.

As for the 75mm I intend to buy one very shortly!

Voigtlander have been a breath of fresh air in the RF market and products like the new Bessa R2 (see other thread) should continue to push Leica into new developments - competition is ALWAYS a good thing.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 16, 2002.

Regarding the fit and finish of VC lens. Perhaps I've been lucky and gotten good batches, but the finishes on my 15 and 21 are great. The 15 especially is very well crafted, the focus and aperture rings are nice and smooth, especially when you consider the price. The only peeve I have is that on the 21 (which has had heavy usage) the numbers on the DOF are beginning to rub off.

As for photos, true they don't have the "Leica" look to them, however, they are are nice and contrasty and are totally suited for my needs (I shoot mainly Tri-X and TMax).

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), February 16, 2002.

I've put several of my Voigtlander lenses up against my Leitz ones, to unknowing friends, asking which has the better feel--Voigtlander wins, and I agree. The clickstops are particularly smooth, compared to the Leica ones. I've got nothing but praise for Voigtlander, except for the visual aesthetic of their mounts.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), February 16, 2002.

One other thing to consider when you buy CV lenses. Not that it's a big deal given the price, but the black lenses lose their black finish with any kind of regular use, the finish isn't as soldily put on as Leica: so you might consider the chrome version, unless you don't mind a well worn appearance.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), February 16, 2002.

Hello Richard,

In general they are good lenses and the construction, though not Leica level, is (in my experience) quite good. I've not had a VC lens fall apart yet (knock on wood). I think the silver finish is tougher than the black. Also the red ft. distance scale on the black is hard to read--a problem I've solved with a little yellow acrilic paint.

I have no gripes with the optical quality. My 35/2.5 Skopar "Classic" is a far better optical performer in daylight than my old 'lux 35/1.4 (no flare or ghosts). My 20/4, 15/4.5, 12/5.6, 75/2.5, 25/4, 28/1.9 all are fine optical performers. What I do love about them is their lightness and the fact that you don't have to go into debt to buy them. Are they up to Leica standards in the practical world of the field? I don't know. I feel they are when I am doing well; when I'm not doing well it does not matter. Importantly they are different lenses. A 15/8 Hologon might out perform the 15/4.5, but in certain low light situations the Hologon would be worthless whereas the 15/4.5 would be great.

I cannot emphasize enough that Voigtlander lenses are light and wonderfully portable. Imagine carrying around Leica's 21/2.8, 24.2.8, 75/1.4 along with with your standard 50, 35, 28 and 90. Guaranteed you'd leave one of the Leicas at home. Yet you can carry your VC 20 and 25 in your pockets. They are that small. The 75/2.5 is roughly half the weight of the Leica 75/1.4.

The biggest problem is psychological. How do you explain to fellow Leica nuts why you are using a Voigtlander instead of a Leica lens on your M6 TTL? Um. My 21/2.8 is being repaired. Er. I mix and match you see. Light lens and heavy lenses. Leave some of the heavy one at home. Um. Well this is a rough area; don't want take those expensive lenses with me. Er. The Leica Whoseitlux sticks out into the finer too much.

You know there was a guy on another threat who wrote in to say that he had traded up his M equipment for a new Canon EOS and berated all of us for being duped by father Leitz. Well, I found all that liberating somehow. I've been wearing my 35/2.5 Skopar with pride since then.

I love the 15.4.5 and the 75/2.5. If it will make you feel any better, "Leica Photography" magazine gave a favorable (if restrained) review of the 15/4.5. And if it falls apart on you in ten years, it's still cheaper than a Hologon.

The 75/2.5 is a nice light lens. Period. I do not use a 75 often and so would never bother with the heavy and expensive 75/1.4. In fact I bought the 75/2.5 when I was suddenly desperate for a medium telephoto. I'm not sure what your situation is; but if is sort of like mine go for the 75/2.5 with no regrets.

Also, I've found the current Voigtlander M adaptors to be excellent. The construction is lovely and they fit tightly on my M's. In a few years it might be another story, of course. I also use the old Leica M adaptors. They do endure but are very expensive. I bought mine years ago when they were the only alternatives -- save for some truly awful Komura adaptors.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), February 16, 2002.

The biggest problem is psychological. How do you explain to fellow Leica nuts why you are using a Voigtlander instead of a Leica lens on your M6 TTL?

By showing them your prints?

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 16, 2002.

Once again, Jeff Spirer is the voice of wisdom. It's the images that count and the VC lenses have not let me down.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), February 16, 2002.

How about showing your published prints?

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), February 17, 2002.

There have been several lenses that I've fallen in love with over the years. One was the 35 Summicron (w/eyes) for the old M3 I once had. The other is a 60 Distagon for the Hasselblad. I obviously like the mildly wide perspective of these lenses, but others I've had.. like Canon EF 35/2.0, and the Nikor AI 35/2.0 just didnt do it for me. The ULTRON 35/1.7 is rapidly getting close to being one of those "all time favorites". My only peeve on it, and its very minor, is that I'd like a focusing tab, like the 21 CV has.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), February 17, 2002.

I just recently acquired the leica 24mm and Voightlander 15 mm/4.5 for "tight" situations. The V'lander is an intresting lens and well worth the money. Below is a URL for my first pic with this lens. Subject about 15". Excuse the sloppy water marks. I was in a rush to see the results. Developed with Diafine / HP5+ @ 800 / F16+

http://www.fototime.com/ABA9EE1168902EB/standard.jpg

-- Don M (dmaldonadomd@excite.com), February 17, 2002.

Peace Rally, Oct 2001, NYC
M6, VC 21, TMax 3200 @ 3200, (c) 2001 Richard V. Le

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), February 17, 2002.

I want to thank all those who responded to my question regarding Voigtlander lenses. You all have given me what I was seeking, practical opinions from actual USERS without the "Leica walks on the moon" approach.

I have shot w/ an M for many years, own most of the lenses that have been produced over the last thirty years, including a 75/F1.4 and have great respect for Leica and what they produce. All that being said, the new glass is getting very pricy, 21mm is as wide as they go and the 75mm is really a speciality lens (great glass, heavy with a beautiful big element that seems to be a magnet for everything that harms it).

As a street shooter who likes to travel light (I will never give up my Tri-Elmar) the Voigtlander lens line seems a great alturnative. Again, many thanks to all who responded.

-- Richard Hoag (wpcdallas@aol.com), February 17, 2002.

Richard, I've had a 35mm Classic for a little over a year. I believe that it is a very good lens, not sure if really Leica quality, but for the price it is an excellent alternative. I have gotten excellent pictures with it and have few regrets in regards to buying it, however the build quality simply does not compare. After a year I noticed dust, or flecks of something, inside of the lens. I use this lens alot, but it has never been abused and always has the caps on it. I've been told by a local Leica dealer that Cosina used india ink inside the lens barrel to fend off light leaks, not sure if this is true, but he stated that this situation is not uncommon. So you make the call, if you can live with that buy it, wont effect the results, just an annoyance. In my case I would most likely buy another since the result/cost ratio is so damm good, but beware. Also anyone else experience this situation with Voightlander lenses? Enjoy, Steve Quatrale

-- steven quatrale (stevenquatrale@aol.com), February 18, 2002.

Richard,

You're welcome. I've not heard the india ink story and somehow I doubt it. I got my 15/4.5 (silver) when it first came out (1999), have used it extensively, and it is still fine. But I think the point about build quality is important. VC's build quality certainly isn't bad, but it is certainly not as tough as Leica. The black paint tends to wear quickly for one thing.

I also have a 35/2.5 Classic, bought used. So far no major internal problems and it is a fine, fine shooter.

I believe the build quality is higher in an upper end lens like the 12/5.6 but I might be wrong.

Our friend Erwin Putts is very right about one thing: You do get what you pay for.

But that said, VC is much, much better than a few third party lenses I could name.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), February 20, 2002.