voigtlander lenses -how good?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

Hi, I'am contemplating buying 21,35(1.7),50,& 90 mm cv lenses for my newly aquired M6.The current spectacular deals from SOME UK dealers make them hard to resist.I am wondering though if these lenses will soon be available with M mounts rather than having to use adapters as the R2 BESSA may have an M mount. More importantly,although the Leica lenses are better,how much better are they? If twice as good ,I'll buy Leica,if CV lenses are 99% as good I'll go for them.I can get 5 (yes five!)CV's for 1 leica.(well almost).Cheers all!

What a superb site this is,and I thank all respondents to my previous queries.

-- steve (s.s2@uk.dreamcast.com), March 25, 2002

Answers

That's easy: if you can get 5 CV's for the price of 1 Leica; then the Leica must be 5 times as good ;-)

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), March 25, 2002.

Steve,

Our lenses are better than our photography. Leica, CV, Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, they all surpass the capabilities of the finest films.

For handheld, natural light photography, spend your money on film and paper; your photography will improve much more than whatever "better" lens you buy.

-- Robert (rm92@yahoo.com), March 25, 2002.

Leica lenses have their own special qualities,that is why they cost so much.Hand built etc.I have used the voigtlander lenses they are good,but not as good.They might appear great on a computer screen(AS ANYTHING WILL),but in the real world well.There is always cheaper and copies.Me, i would save for the real thing...you will enjoy it a lot more,and you would know you are using the best.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), March 25, 2002.

I'm agree with Allen. The CV lens offers no "added value" to the images. I think isn't possible compare the Ultron 28mm f1,9 (i owned) to the Summicron 28mm f2 (i used it), or the Ultron 35mm f1,7 (i owned) to the Summicron 35mm f2 (and i speak about the second version!) . These ones (Summicron) are better, better, better than the CV in all aspects. No lens testing can reveal the quality, the beauty of an image obtained using a Leica lens: only the eyes can reveals it.

The VC lens and Leica lens are simply two different things.

-- domenico (Giandom@comune.re.it), March 25, 2002.


Here's what Erwin Puts has to say about CV lenses:

http://www.imx. nl/photosite/japan/voigtl01.html
http://www.imx .nl/photosite/japan/voigt2890.html

On a personal note I used all the lenses you mention and am very pleased with their performance. 21/4 and 35/1.7 can be a little flarey in difficult lighting conditions, but 50/1.5 and 90/3.5 are flawless, IMHO.

You might want to consider new compact CV lenses that are coming later this year -- 28/3.5 and 50/2.5.

Alexander

-- Alexander Grekhov (grekhov@wgukraine.com), March 25, 2002.



I disagree with the above remarks about the optical quality of some of the CV lenses. I sold my pre ASPH 21 2.8 for a Voigtlander 21 f4. THe Voigtlander was superior in every respect in optical quality. It is slower but is way more compact which is great for a CL/CLE combination. No the Leica ASPH wasnt worth the 6 times extra price and was to large anyways. This is a Leica site after all so I wouldnt expect many praises for Voigtlander lenses on here so I suggest trying them for yourself and if you feel you can see that much of a difference to warrant the price then get the Leica one. Keep in mind too that there is a new Voigtlander 28 and 50 on the way higher build quality to their current lenses. May be worth a look too.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002.

Even the man who developed the voigtlander system(a lover of classical cameras)would stare you in the eyes and say they are just as good.He has probably more LEICAS than all of us put together.Apart from USA most Leicas are sold in the far east.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), March 25, 2002.

Ooops not as good

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), March 25, 2002.

I have used the voigtlander lenses they are good,but not as good. ... There is always cheaper and copies.

Allen, care to explain yourself? What lenses 28/1.9, 35/1.7, 50/1.5 and 90/3.5 are "cheap copies" of, for instance? As far as I know CV's optical designs are original.

-- Alexander Grekhov (grekhov@wgukraine.com), March 25, 2002.


The immediate optical quality of leica lenses is only visible if you use top notch places to develop your film, plus if you tend to have large enlargements. The difference is there, though its not as 'in your face' as some people would lead you to believe.

The mechanical quality and 'feel' of Leica lenses though is without equal, tonnes better than VC lenses!!

I would go for a Leica lens if you can afford it, otherwise you will kick yourself in the butt afterwards! Afterall, why have a leica body and not have a leica lens on it!? :]

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), March 25, 2002.



I was not refering to voigtlander lenses as copies,sorry if i gave the wrong idea.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), March 25, 2002.

How good? Very good. Leica good? No - with some caveats.

I use CV lenses only where there is not a Leica alternative (15mm e.g.) BUT I have been very lucky in finding used Leica lenses cheap (and they were actually EASIER to find than the CVs - I found my 35 'cron while scouting shops for CV 35 1.7) If it's hard to find used Leica at good discounts in the UK, CV makes a lot of sense - at least until you can afford to upgrade to the real deal.

Overall the CV lens images look like exceptional Japanese SLR lens images - lots of macro-contrast, good sharpness wide-open becoming very good 2 stops down, slightly blue-pink color rendition relative to Leica.

MOST Leica lenses have a longer tonal range - retaining micro-contrast (edges) without as much macro-contrast (highlights to shadows). That's important for color slide work, but a little less critical for prints (esp B&W) where you can recapture the tones to some extent when printing.

RE M-mount CVs - I wouldn't hold your breath. They might announce them tomorrow, but seem to be doing OK right now selling screw-mount lenses (which fit almost ANY Leica from 1932 on) plus adapters for the M.

RE relative quality percentages: It varies from lens to lens and focal length to focal length: the 15 is infinitely better than Leica's (non- existent) 15, e.g.. On average CVs probably rate 90% of Leica.

Lens by lens from your shopping list:

90 - as good or better than any older Leica 90 - probably 90% compared to the current f/2.8 (which - used - sells for only 30% more in the States) and 85% compared to the APO f/2 - even though nearly 2 stops slower.

50 - better than the sky-high Leica 1.4, not quite as good as the Leica f/2, which again is often available used for only 25-30% more.

35 1.7 - pretty much equal to previous Leica 35s for sharpness, but not necessarily for color/tonal range. Maybe 90% compared to the current f/ 2 or f/1.4 Leicas at the center - 75-80% at the corners.

21 - I haven't tried it myself, but all reports I've seen are very consistent - for sharpness as good or better than Leica's old f/3.4-4 Super-Angulons; roughly equal to the older 2.8 (more flare but MUCH smaller - equal resolution); perhaps 85-90% compared to the ASPH Leica 21. Linear distortion on a par with the Leica 2.8s, but not as goos as the old SAs.

Short version: In the States you can find used current-design Leica glass for not much more than new CVs in the 50-90mm range, and the Leicas are sharper and have smoother tonality. ("Better" is a subjective term.) For the money the 21 and 35 CVs come close to/beat previous-generation Leica performance at a much bigger price advantage - even used - although you are losing a stop wih the 21.

If, in the UK, you can find used Leica 50/90s at prices as good as the US, get them. Save some money now with the CV 35 unless you stumble across an incredible deal. The CV 21 will always have a huge price advantage over Leica 21s - you really have to want/need that extra 10- 15% - and have the eye to see it - to make the difference in price worth it.

FWIW the FIRST Leica lens I bought was the 21 - I knew it was much easier to blow the 'big bucks' up front and then add the less-expensive mid-range lenses, than start with a 35/50 and keep agonizing over the price of the 21.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 25, 2002.


sorry if i gave the wrong idea.

Now that's funny! Someone whose Leica "experiences" are entirely fictional apologising for giving the wrong idea . . .

Steve, since the CV lenses are relatively cheap, you could get the set. If there are particular lenses that don't meet your expectations, you could later replace them with their Leica counterparts.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 25, 2002.


There's nothing wrong with CV lenses: they give exceptional value for the price charged. And they make some optically very fine lenses. However, I just don't see the point of going to the trouble of buying an M6 and then purchasing only non-Leica lenses. One of the great beautifies of owning a Leica M is the opportunity to use M-lenses.

One other thing to mention is that all of these lenses require a screw to bayonet adapter, and these things work but are very annoying to use. Frequently they get stuck on the camera and are difficult to pry loose. For me, CV is only useful for focal lengths that either Leica doesn't make (eg., 15 mm) or for a focal length that you don't use much or would just like to try out without spending the money on the Leica equivalent.

I can tell you about the one CV lens I have used (the 15 mm Heliar): it is inexpensive and of good quality for such an extreme wide angle. However, it does not give the sparkling imagery that is characteristic of the modern Leica WAs. Not even close.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 25, 2002.


One other point - the CV 50 and 90 do not focus quite as close as their Leica counterparts .9 meter vs. .7 meter for the 50s and 1m vs. .85m for the 90s.

That last little bit can mean a 15% tighter portrait crop.

Cosina designs their lenses for the short-based Bessa-R/R2 rangefinder - so they keep the min. focus long and the max. apertures (at least in the teles) slowish.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 25, 2002.



Allen, anyone who has followed the forum closely for a few weeks shares the relevant "wisdom." Steve (and others who are lurking) may not realize that your "experiences" change and grow each time you log on. It would be irresponsible to allow Steve to give any weight whatsoever to your fictional claims when trying to make his purchasing decisions.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 25, 2002.

In this case I have to dissagre with you Eliot. The M camera is not simply a means to using M lenses - it is a system I use for the body NOT the lenses. I cannot understand your problems with the LTM adapters - I simply mount it on the lens when I buy it and it never comes off, it doesn't "stick", it simply transforms it into an "M" mount.

I use Leica lenses AND Voigtlander lenses, like others I started with the 15mm an incredible lens, regardless of price - I recently added a 75 mm used twice, virtually NIB for £175 (£250) - Leica's 75 is too big, too expensive and virtually un-usable for portraits at 1.4 - too little DOF and VERY hard to focus.

Just look at the line up of bodies, lenses and accessories Voigtlander have created in a few years - it's a bit like the heyday of Leitz in the 1930's. They have shaken up the market, producing fantastic optics at giveaway prices and above all giving us a choice.

Steve, M mount VC lenses are unlikely given Voigtlander's MD's love of the LTM bodies and the fact the new 50 F2.5 will be LTM too. I don't know where you buy in the UK but Fieldgrass have just reduced all Voigtlander prices.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), March 25, 2002.


Another strategy you could use is to buy just one Leica lens (the one you would use most often) and get to know it, and the camera, very well. Then play the waiting game. If you read this site, and another one in Yahoo groups called MUGers (for M Users Group), you will eventually come upon lenses for sale. Unless you only want virgin lenses, this could save you a considerable sum for top quality glass.

The waiting game will allow you to exquisitely agonize over which lens to buy next, a highly regarded preoccupation. The thing to note is that once you buy a Leica lens you won't have to get that focal length again, since you are getting the ultimate in that focal length.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), March 25, 2002.


Well Mike you are actually calling me by my name, how nice.Anyone following this forum would know that you and friends(lurking)have very little good to say about Leica products.Indeed you are going digital(i bet not Leica).Why are you here.I will tell you why you like being head boy to censure the site,and your lurking friends to tell you how wonderful you are. Regards Allen

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), March 25, 2002.

Your mum really should make sure you stick to your medication schedule . . .

Anyone who is bored enough can look back through older threads and see that what you say about me is entirely false and that what I've said about you is true (even though many of your more-nonsensical posts have been deleted).

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 25, 2002.


False, really ,you only have to look at this thread.

Steve, since the CV lenses are relatively cheap, you could get the set. If there are particular lenses that don't meet your expectations, you could later replace them with their Leica counterparts.

They are not that cheap and he will loose a lot of money in the trade in.

Mike why do you not do some postings to show me what it is all about.I have not seen any by you.Indeed the only postings i have seen by you are on my postings,name calling Troll etc.

Grow up Mike, you might have been a big man in the army.This is the real world saluting is finished.Regards Allen

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), March 25, 2002.


Mike why do you not do some postings to show me what it is all about.I have not seen any by you

Maybe you should try reading other people's posts instead of your own...

One here

One here

One here

One here

One here

One here



-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 25, 2002.


All your posting seem to be about your glorification Your lurking friends telling you how wonderful you are.Can you only take photos of women,you are obsessed,i bet you wear a raincoat.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), March 26, 2002.

All your posting seem to be about your glorification

I don't actually get paid to work here, so I try to make the most of the fringe benefits.

Your lurking friends telling you how wonderful you are.

You should hear what you're lurking enemies are saying about you . . .

Can you only take photos of women,you are obsessed,i bet you wear a raincoat.

No, probably, and yes (but only in the shower).

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 26, 2002.


Steve, what I did was purchase the 35mm Lux Asph and 90mm APO because of their reputation and of course, by owning a Leica M6, it would be nice having at least 1 Leica lens.

And the two other focal lengths I wanted are the 50mm and 21mm. And maybe a 28mm, but they won't be used much. So I intend on getting VC lenses in those focal lengths. I already have the 50mm and the next is the 21mm folowed by the 28mm.

Just another smart option. Financially it works for me and is quite the sensible idea.

As for Mike and Allen.....you too shhould just stop. Mike you started this one. Let Allen say whatever he wants as long as he's contriibuting and not insulting others.

But Allen, you should've ignored Mike's comments as per Tony R's instructions.

Let's keep this forum clean.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002.


CV lenses are very wonderful. I have able to nab 3 so far for my collection, the 50 1.5, 28 1.9, and 35 2.5 pancake version. I have one Leica M-lenses- the 40mm Rokkor. Call me a cheapskate but the VC lenses have a wonderful quality which beats the old Nikkors (and that's saying a lot). After they are modern screw mount lenses. For me, there isn't a point using my old time screw mount Leitz lenses except when I need that classic effect.

Erwin Puts rates the Nokton above the 3rd version Summilux. Dang! I trust that guy. He ranks the 28mm very well too, slightly lower than the ASPH 28mm which Leica makes nowadays.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002.


But Allen, you should've ignored Mike's comments as per Tony R's instructions.

Let's keep this forum clean

Yes, you are right.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), March 26, 2002.


Well Steve, you might have noticed that this site is not quite as superb as you might have thought.... ;-/

The Bessa/Cosina RF range is absolutely superb, and shows genuine love of "old world" photography from a maker who took an admirable marketing risk. Fishing in that range will allow you to perfect your M know how at a reasonable cost. You will certainly end up "upgrading" your favourite focal length(s) to the "real thing" when you feel like it anyway (hard to resist the mermaid calls of Lady Leica).

The Mike/Allen thing: if you are new around here, you will be happy to learn that Mike is an excellent professional photographer himself. A visit to his website is a great experience. His advice is based on first hand practical knowledge.

Self nominated pseudo experts such as the one who intervened in this thread abound on mailing lists. This site is no exception. The fact that they post under the guise of "polite contributors" does not excuse the false knowledge they are spreading. It is no use pronouncing anathemae against them, as such denunciations are perceived as rude, not "nice" or politically incorrect. You'll just have to learn to quietly identify them yourself.

But I undestand Mike. Sometimes it is impossible not to explode.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002.


Sure, Mike is a fantastic photogrpaher, and so too may Allen. But it doesn't mean that attacking another is ok. I was hoping to leave all that in the past.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002.

Steve:

Everything and its opposite have been said already. Your plan is fine, however, please consider buying a Leica 35mm /F2 for instance, aspherice or not, your piggy bank decides.

See, 35mm is the battleship of Leica, it would be sad not to have it.

Even on a Leica R7, which I happily own, the 35mm is an experience. Like if the camera was tuned to explore the depth of that focal length.

Be careful, there are no lens so far for the R2. It looks like this camera was made to exploit the older M mount lens. JMHO.

Regards. Xavier.

-- Xavier d'Alfort (hot_billexf@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ