T
tedwhite
Guest
The old Super Takumar Pentax lenses in M42 mount are optically right up with the best and built like tanks in the bargain.
Why WOULDN'T You Buy Voigtlander Lenses?
- Thread starter Joe Mondello
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 308
- Views: Views 5K
wgerrard
Veteran
I understand what you're saying. Kevin. Given a choice between two lenses, with one that's heavier and with a better paint job, I'd assume it's the better lens.
What I'm getting at is whether those attributes translate directly to better quality. When I am in the shop comparing lenses, what kind of objective characteristics will each lens exhibit that I can perceive and use to evaluate and rank them?
Besides published test, reviews, anecdotal reports and subjective things like weight and feel, is there anything else to go on?
Probably should be another thread.
What I'm getting at is whether those attributes translate directly to better quality. When I am in the shop comparing lenses, what kind of objective characteristics will each lens exhibit that I can perceive and use to evaluate and rank them?
Besides published test, reviews, anecdotal reports and subjective things like weight and feel, is there anything else to go on?
Probably should be another thread.
T
tedwhite
Guest
"...is there anything else to go on?"
Yes: The photograph you get from the lens. If it's what you want, then weight, feel, heft, tests, anecdotal stuff, good or bad paint....none of that matters.
But you may be talking in terms of what lens to buy. I have no easy answer for that, other than looking at photographs taken with that lens, or better yet, finding a friend with that lens and conning him into letting you use it for a few days.
Ted
Yes: The photograph you get from the lens. If it's what you want, then weight, feel, heft, tests, anecdotal stuff, good or bad paint....none of that matters.
But you may be talking in terms of what lens to buy. I have no easy answer for that, other than looking at photographs taken with that lens, or better yet, finding a friend with that lens and conning him into letting you use it for a few days.
Ted
kevin m
Veteran
Picture quality? No, not necesarilly. The VC 50 Nokton, for example, is a better picture-taking lens than any "classic" 50 even though its finish can't match them.
ernesto
Well-known
The Price does not tell the quality.
In our world, price is the balance between offer and demand.
So, if something is cheap, it means that the offer is proportional to demand.
And if something is expensive, it is because offer is not enough for the demand.
If Leica would lower their prices, they would probably not being able to produce enough for all new buyers.
If Voightlander and Leica would be the same price nobody would buy a Voightlander, because demand is related to the concept every person have in their mind about the product, although it doesn´t matter if they are right or wrong.
So, it is perpectly possible that Voightlander Lens could be the same quality as Leica Products, since price is arbitrary.
Ernesto
In our world, price is the balance between offer and demand.
So, if something is cheap, it means that the offer is proportional to demand.
And if something is expensive, it is because offer is not enough for the demand.
If Leica would lower their prices, they would probably not being able to produce enough for all new buyers.
If Voightlander and Leica would be the same price nobody would buy a Voightlander, because demand is related to the concept every person have in their mind about the product, although it doesn´t matter if they are right or wrong.
So, it is perpectly possible that Voightlander Lens could be the same quality as Leica Products, since price is arbitrary.
Ernesto
waileong
Well-known
"In our world, price is the balance between offer and demand."
There is some truth in what you say, although that does not mean price cannot be used to signal quality. There is in fact a new theory which says that for certain products, a higher price increases demand because it makes the product more exclusive.
"If Leica would lower their prices, they would probably not being able to produce enough for all new buyers."
That is misleading, it assumes quality does not suffer with price change. It must, and hence demand would adjust accordingly.
"If Voightlander and Leica would be the same price nobody would buy a Voightlander, because demand is related to the concept every person have in their mind about the product, although it doesn´t matter if they are right or wrong.
So, it is perpectly possible that Voightlander Lens could be the same quality as Leica Products, since price is arbitrary."
This is defective logic. Price is not arbitrary, it's one of the most important decisions companies make in a free market, and quality is at least partly dependent on price. A $1 lens cannot be as "quality" as a $100 lens and a $100 lens cannot be as "quality" as a $10,000 lens.
Mind you, "quality" here does not mean lpm or Photodo scores. Quality here is the difference between a Porsche and a Subaru WRX-- both can do 65 mph in 5 s, but no prizes for guessing which one feels more pleasant to the driver, and makes the driver happier.
There is some truth in what you say, although that does not mean price cannot be used to signal quality. There is in fact a new theory which says that for certain products, a higher price increases demand because it makes the product more exclusive.
"If Leica would lower their prices, they would probably not being able to produce enough for all new buyers."
That is misleading, it assumes quality does not suffer with price change. It must, and hence demand would adjust accordingly.
"If Voightlander and Leica would be the same price nobody would buy a Voightlander, because demand is related to the concept every person have in their mind about the product, although it doesn´t matter if they are right or wrong.
So, it is perpectly possible that Voightlander Lens could be the same quality as Leica Products, since price is arbitrary."
This is defective logic. Price is not arbitrary, it's one of the most important decisions companies make in a free market, and quality is at least partly dependent on price. A $1 lens cannot be as "quality" as a $100 lens and a $100 lens cannot be as "quality" as a $10,000 lens.
Mind you, "quality" here does not mean lpm or Photodo scores. Quality here is the difference between a Porsche and a Subaru WRX-- both can do 65 mph in 5 s, but no prizes for guessing which one feels more pleasant to the driver, and makes the driver happier.
kevin m
Veteran
I wonder if the "quality" of his car makes a Porsche driver happy when the WRX blows by him in the snow?
GrahamWelland
Well-known
kevin m said:I wonder if the "quality" of his car makes a Porsche driver happy when the WRX blows by him in the snow?
Oh no, not another WRX/EVO vs exotic (ok, Porsche isn't exotic ...), children's navel gazing exercise ... :bang: How about we keep the thread on lenses.
Last edited:
R
rich815
Guest
kevin m said:
What does "better" mean? Sharper?
GrahamWelland
Well-known
It's tough to say what's "better" unless you pick a particular attribute. Otherwise it's pretty much subjective.
S
StuartR
Guest
It's ALWAYS subjective. You either like 'em or you don't. There are things that certain lenses do better than others, but beyond that, it's mostly what we want to work with. It does not make any sense to demean anyone for choosing a cheap lens, and expensive lens or a moderate lens...it's their money and they will spend it how they want. As this thread illustrates, there are just as many reasons why someone wouldn't use a voigtlander lens as there are reasons why they would. The only ones that matter are the ones that matter to you. Can we move on now?
kevin m
Veteran
OK. How about we keep the childish insults out of the thread, too? It's a forum. The discussion wanders. You don't like it, don't read it....
kevin m
Veteran
Sure. Better in every way it's possible to measure a lens scientifically. Sharper, less distortion, less prone to flare. Every bit of progress that lens designers have learned in the past fifty years. That's what "better" generally means. If you want a different look in a lens, or find that the technical flaws of the earlier designs yield an image that pleases you, then that lens is better for you. But then that's your personal definition, and it doesn't apply across the board.
Personally, I found the pre-asph Summilux 50 to be a "better" lens than the Nokton because it was more flattering to human skin because of its "flaws."
Last edited:
waileong
Well-known
1. Yes, but photography is an artistic endeavour, not a scientific one. We aim to produce pictures that people like, pictures with beauty or meaning. Not pictures of newspapers or test charts.
2. If you can accept the above, then it's obvious that measuring lenses on the basis of lpm or distortion control or MTF curves, assigning a weighted composite scores a la Photodo to a lens and declaring that Lens X is better than Lens Y on the basis of its composite score serves little purpose, and is really quite meaningless.
3. Quality is more than just raw measured performance. I used the example of Subaru vs Porsche to illustrate. Build quality, materials used, design, styling, handling, feel, etc. are also important components of quality.
4. There is no doubt that Leica lenses are better than Voigtlander lenses. This can be seen from the MTF curves, can be measured scientifically. The build quality of Leica is also better, and can be understood by anyone who has held or used the lenses.
5. Most Voigtlander users know this, and their reason for choosing Voigtlander is simple-- price/performance. The lenses are very good-- and good value for money.
6. A decision to use Leica or Voigtlander is thus not about which is better. There is no doubt which is "better".
The decision is about how much $$ you are willing to pay for "better".
7. Zeiss has exploited this gap by producing its own line of lenses with performance that is reputed to be as good or almost as good as Leica's, and yet costing half the price.
With a top notch brand reputation like Zeiss, this was a serious blow to Leica sales. Which is why Leica has responded with its new Summarit line.
8. We as consumers are beneficiaries. We now have at least four choices:
Voigtlander-- a very good line of budget-priced lenses.
Zeiss-- Higher priced lenses with legendary Zeiss reputation
Leica Summarits-- Lower priced Leica lenses
"Regular" Leica-- Top-drawer Leica lenses.
2. If you can accept the above, then it's obvious that measuring lenses on the basis of lpm or distortion control or MTF curves, assigning a weighted composite scores a la Photodo to a lens and declaring that Lens X is better than Lens Y on the basis of its composite score serves little purpose, and is really quite meaningless.
3. Quality is more than just raw measured performance. I used the example of Subaru vs Porsche to illustrate. Build quality, materials used, design, styling, handling, feel, etc. are also important components of quality.
4. There is no doubt that Leica lenses are better than Voigtlander lenses. This can be seen from the MTF curves, can be measured scientifically. The build quality of Leica is also better, and can be understood by anyone who has held or used the lenses.
5. Most Voigtlander users know this, and their reason for choosing Voigtlander is simple-- price/performance. The lenses are very good-- and good value for money.
6. A decision to use Leica or Voigtlander is thus not about which is better. There is no doubt which is "better".
The decision is about how much $$ you are willing to pay for "better".
7. Zeiss has exploited this gap by producing its own line of lenses with performance that is reputed to be as good or almost as good as Leica's, and yet costing half the price.
With a top notch brand reputation like Zeiss, this was a serious blow to Leica sales. Which is why Leica has responded with its new Summarit line.
8. We as consumers are beneficiaries. We now have at least four choices:
Voigtlander-- a very good line of budget-priced lenses.
Zeiss-- Higher priced lenses with legendary Zeiss reputation
Leica Summarits-- Lower priced Leica lenses
"Regular" Leica-- Top-drawer Leica lenses.
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Bah Humbug
Bah Humbug
I bought my OM2 Olympus for $2 and four Zuiko lenses all better than any CV lens for the cost of the lowest price CV lens new. There is no bargain in CV lenses. Look elsewhere and save yourself disappointment and money.
Bah Humbug
I bought my OM2 Olympus for $2 and four Zuiko lenses all better than any CV lens for the cost of the lowest price CV lens new. There is no bargain in CV lenses. Look elsewhere and save yourself disappointment and money.
T
tedwhite
Guest
Yer right about the "no bargain in CV lenes." Didn't use to be the case when they first came out. Glad I've got the cv 35/2.5. To buy it now would cost much more. Ironically, my only other LTM lens is the Canon 50/1.8, which I believe I bought from either Back Alley or Frank S. Boys from the frozen north. Excellent lens.
I feel the same way about my my old Pentax M42 stuff as you do about your Oly kit. They don't make 'em like that any more, sad to say.
Ted
I feel the same way about my my old Pentax M42 stuff as you do about your Oly kit. They don't make 'em like that any more, sad to say.
Ted
Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
OP chiming in here . . . in The Thread That Wouldn't Die!
When I first held the Leica M8 at the 2006 PhotoPlus Expo in New York, I was transported back in time. I hadn't shot with an RF since well before my DS M3 had been stolen 20 years earlier. So I was intrigued by the idea of the M8, but in serious sticker shock over the cost of both the M8 and current Leitz glass.
So I picked up a refurbed Epson R-D1 and attached my lonely 1963 DR 'cron to it. Wonderful! But then I wanted more lenses.
That's when Sean Reid came into the picture. I subscribed to www.reidreviews.com and read his lens reviews. Sean's reviews gave me the confidence to *consider* the idea of an M8 with other than Leica or Zeiss lenses.
My CV glass has performed remarkably well on the M8, and my kit of 5 CV lenses (see my sig) set me back less than $2K.
So I started this thread to see what the rest of you thought. And here we are lo these many months later.
Are CV lenses nirvana? no, but they sure as heck are useful and I for one am happy to have made the choices I did!
When I first held the Leica M8 at the 2006 PhotoPlus Expo in New York, I was transported back in time. I hadn't shot with an RF since well before my DS M3 had been stolen 20 years earlier. So I was intrigued by the idea of the M8, but in serious sticker shock over the cost of both the M8 and current Leitz glass.
So I picked up a refurbed Epson R-D1 and attached my lonely 1963 DR 'cron to it. Wonderful! But then I wanted more lenses.
That's when Sean Reid came into the picture. I subscribed to www.reidreviews.com and read his lens reviews. Sean's reviews gave me the confidence to *consider* the idea of an M8 with other than Leica or Zeiss lenses.
My CV glass has performed remarkably well on the M8, and my kit of 5 CV lenses (see my sig) set me back less than $2K.
So I started this thread to see what the rest of you thought. And here we are lo these many months later.
Are CV lenses nirvana? no, but they sure as heck are useful and I for one am happy to have made the choices I did!
kevin m
Veteran
Well, ignoring for the moment that there are less than a handful of current Leica lenses that have a clear performance advantage over the competition (and then only at a great cost,) there is a great deal of doubt if it even matters.
The Summicron 28 Asph, for example, is noticeably better than the Ultron only at f2.0. And then only if camera shake or subject movement isn't a factor. Which they are if you're shooting handheld at, say, 1/30, as is so often the case. If you're shooting the Leica M the way God and Oscar Barnack intended, ultimate lens performance is kind of a moot point. Sure, it's there. But so what. The 'rangefinder advantage,' when it exists, can be had from lenses much humbler and more affordable than the current Leica lineup. I'm glad they're making them, honestly, because now that we have access to 'perfect' lenses I think we can all learn a lesson that maybe perfection doesn't matter if you're hitting notes only a dog can hear.
T
tedwhite
Guest
Kevin, you should get some sort of award for that post.
I have never fully understood what, exactly the term "rangefinder advantage" means. Could you fill me in a bit?
Ted
I have never fully understood what, exactly the term "rangefinder advantage" means. Could you fill me in a bit?
Ted
back alley
IMAGES
sean reid has posted the start of his summarit reviews and his first was the 35/2.5 lens.
i wont give away the ending seeing how it's a paid site but the cv lens performed admirably in comparison to the biogon, summicron and the summarit.
today, it's more about the shooter than the gun.
joe
i wont give away the ending seeing how it's a paid site but the cv lens performed admirably in comparison to the biogon, summicron and the summarit.
today, it's more about the shooter than the gun.
joe