Why WOULDN'T You Buy Voigtlander Lenses?

[tedwhite]

Well said, Joe.

 

[rxmd]

the more i play with the cv lens group the more i wonder why most of us don't use them all.
if your a so-so shooter you wouldn't notice the slight difference between the cv and the other way more expensive glass out there and if you're a good shooter, the lenses don't get in the way at all and offer 95% of the quality at 1/3 the price.

In plain terms, that's probably because brand names matter for some people, and because the very slight performance gain from spending 10 times as much money and the more or less noticeable differences in build quality deliver an excellent pretext for rationalising a brand name choice.

And because there's always the Internet with which you can support anything; just fire up Google and you will find some horror stories about "decentering" and "lack of build quality" and all sorts of intimidating things about CV lenses to support your decision against them - just like you could find the same for any other brand, but brand aficionados tend not to look for these for obvious reasons.

Philipp

 

[alan davus]

When I think about all the great photographs I've seen, ones that make me think , gee, wish I had the ability and creativity to take that, few if any had anything to do with the sharpest this, the fastest that, the bestest bokeh and so on. Thus I wonder sometimes why we spend so much time chasing the holy grail when it comes to gear. Of course I'm as guilty as any in this regard. I, myself have 2 CV lenses and think they are probably just a tad behind my 4 Hex lenses. But put me in a blind test and I probably wouldn't have a clue.

 

[etrigan63]

Has anyone tried the CV 35mm Pancake II M? It has a fabulous price over at CameraQuest and I was thinking of getting it in anticipation of getting my M8. Sean Reid's site does not cover this lens in his 35mm report but he covers the 35mm Skopar which is LTM. Links to samples would be great!

UPDATE: Checking the Voigtlander site, I see that the CV 35mm Pancake II M (as it is referred to at Cameraquest) is the Color Skopar 35mm with a M-mount. Thus, I am forced to quote Homer: DOH!

 

[cmogi10]

the Pancake II is a great little lens, good optics and the size is a great selling point as an everyday walk around lens.

If I need a faster 35 if I don't need the extra stop the Pancake is on there because of it's small size.

 

[etrigan63]

Thanks Carl! I've decided that will be my first lens! What size filter is that? 39mm? Also, could you post some shots with the M8 and that lens?

 

[cmogi10]

39mm

It will be the only lens i bring out tommorow and hopefully I'l have some shots.

I can never remember what lens I'm using when I upload the pictures but this way I'l have no choice.

 

[Dektol Dan]

I've read all 9 pages so far and here's my take.

I've read all 9 pages so far and here's my take.

I've owned only a couple of CVs, an Ultron and a Skopar. I've handled a number of them and very carefully I have waded through the examples found in Flickr, Photosig and elswhere. Vanity, experience, and my wife all think I am a professional photographer. I think they are good entry level lenses, but my suggestion to the serious photographer is to buy the older marks first as used.

If you need to experiment with another focal length they are a good idea but remember, the may not hold their value. But as all real artists know, often one has to 'pay to work'.

Many CVs are very optimistic in their performance. My Ultron, often presented as the new Summicron IV, is wortheless at 1.7 and 2. It's okay at f4. My old 2.8 Summaron runs circles around it. Ergonomicaly it's not so hot, and it's way too big for a 35mm. CV performance may vary from lens to lens. What do you expect from cast plastic lenses?

The built in lens hoods found on many are half joke and half after thought. They actually get in the way by way of their cost compromise.

I like my 25mm Skopar, but I bought it to try out something wider than the 28mm I normally use. It's stick shift focus makes it something of a toy, but admittedly, I now want a REAL 24-5mm lens. It's served its purpose.

The good CV lenses, viewfinders and other products, those almost matching their Zeiss brothers, are not really that cheap. That being the case, buy Zeiss.

The CV lesson is that there is no free lunch and you get what you pay for.

 

[Bertram2]

I like my 25mm Skopar, but I bought it to try out something wider than the 28mm I normally use. It's stick shift focus makes it something of a toy, but admittedly, I now want a REAL 24-5mm lens. It's served its purpose.

If scale focussing makes this f4 (!!)/25 lens beeing a toy for you then you let me doubt how experienced you really are, concerning not only the CV lenses and their performance but concerning photography in general. You simply have not understood, for what it was made for, tho the original name says it .

You seem to be one of those who prefer fat lenses and shoot everything wide open, a CV 1,2/35 should make you happy....

bertram

 

[Paul T.]

"If scale focussing makes this f4 (!!)/25 lens beeing a toy for you then you let me doubt how experienced you really are, concerning not only the CV lenses... but concerning photography in general. "

"With all due respect: Absolute 100% BS! "

Wow! Let's shoot the messenger!

As for the 25mm, of course the scale focus affects its use. In some ways it's good, because it's quicker. In other respects it's more limited - and in fact, I can think of a recent thread extolling this lens where the photos were fuzzy, because the photog had presumably scale-focused incorrectly.

Like many here, I applaud Mr K, who has done more to revive the rangefinder market than any other designer in the last 15 years. But if someone chooses to present their own observations on VC lenses and finds them wanting, that's their prerogative, and I believe it's one of the tenets of this board that we should listen respectfully to their opinion.

 

[jdos2]

I hope my 40mm f/1.4 comes back from Japan (to which it was sent for calibration) soon. 6-8 weeks.

I got rather less than I paid for: at least at this point. Include the return-shipping premium, especially. I've not sent the others, but will after pay-day.

 

[back alley]

a reminder gentlemen...no name calling or derogatory personal comments.

joe

 

[Dektol Dan]

Scathing, no empirical evidence, blah & BS.

Scathing, no empirical evidence, blah & BS.

Someone out there doesn't like what you bought and YOU take it personally. I believe the title of this thread is 'Why WOULDN'T you buy a Voightlander lens'. Absoulutely NONE of you have been on point, and you all take your misguided ballyhoo personally.

I hear, Joe Blow says they are great. I hear, I sez they are great. Let me clarify why I would think twice about buying VC lenses:

One may be better off investment wise buying used premium lens (read what I wrote).

The best performing VC lenses cost as much as a better brand, and as much as a used premium brand.

VC lenses cut corners in features (I believe I mentioned lens hoods).

They are often awkward egonomicaly.

They don't hold there value.

They are often, but not always, entry level gear, and if it isn't they cost as much as the next better brand.

A famous quote by those who just love VC lenses: they 9/10 there for 1/4 the price, when comparing them to a premium lens. And believe me they will never be better than that. It should be rembered that '9/10 there' means that most are as good as a 1970's premium lens. Can you live with that? Is that emperical enough? I didn't make that up. That's their best review by published big shot promoters.

If you can't afford the best, that's a problem. It's my problem, it's your problem.
Hey, I've owned two of them, because I needed a stop gap. They're good enough, but that's all! A Chevy is a Chevy!

And what I forgot to mention is that I don't like the 'look', 'signature' of half of them. They are often devoid of any character or personality and are just plain bland.

Go buy and old Elmar or Summitar and remember where it all came from. (And save some money to boot too!)

 

[jaapv]

without sounding elitist or snobby, i did agree with dan on regards that one gets what they pay for, to an extent.

In this context of limited truth. For instance, I am hard put to find a quality difference between the Zeiss Biogon 21 and the equivalent Leica offering, despite a triple price for the latter. In fact, I bought the Zeiss because I liked the fingerprint better. And there is really no competion for the CV Heliar 15/4,5 - at any price. And more examples. That is the nice thing with M-mount lenses: there are so many excellent choices out there that everybody can pick a lens at basically any price level without feeling that quality is compromised.

 

[jaapv]

They don't hold there value.

That is nonsense. A CV lens costs less than the first week writeoff on a Leica ASPH lens. So even if it lost its whole value.....(which it doesn't)

 

[ferider]

If you can't afford the best, that's a problem. It's my problem, it's your problem.

Not "The best" means that there must be something better to compare to.

CV 15 (angle), 28/1.9 (speed), 28/3.5 (size + signature), 35/1.2 (speed),
40/1.4 (speed) and 75/2.5 (size) are unique in technical
specs - as simple as that. I wouldn't buy the 35/1.2 because I have
no need for it.

Lens signature for modern wide angles is grossly over-estimated, IMO.

Roland.

 

[Bertram2]

"
As for the 25mm, of course the scale focus affects its use. In some ways it's good, because it's quicker. In other respects it's more limited - and in fact, I can think of a recent thread extolling this lens where the photos were fuzzy, because the photog had presumably scale-focused incorrectly.
.

There has been a certain idea behind the uncoupled 4/25, which best works on a Bessa L btw because of the external light meter readout.

This combo is lightning fast out on the streets and the only prob is when you go back to a coupled lens/body combo you tend to forget that you now must focus again.

Of course this idea has it's limitiations, as each other design has them ! But there was the word of a "toy" and a "real lens" and this derisive and quite bigmouthed choice of words is usually significant for a lack of knowledge and practical experience.

As for the fuzzy pics, if you are not able to use any gadget correctly you will always get in trouble, no matter if it is a hairdryer or a lens. So don't blame the lens for the mistakes of it's owners.

bertram

 

[Paul T.]

"this derisive and quite bigmouthed choice of words is usually significant for a lack of knowledge and practical experience. "

You said it!

 

[ttriolo]

Does anyone know if CV or Zeiss have a credible substitute for the 135 Telyt-M?

 

[tedwhite]

I had the L and the 4/25 for a year and used the combo often documenting construction projects for a contractor.

There were no fuzzy pics.