Voigtlander 28mm - as good as a Leica lens?

N

Nick De Marco

Well-known
Local time
5:30 AM
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Messages
902
View My Gallery
Had another evening out with the Voigtlander 28mm f1.9 lens last night. Still v. impressed with this lens. All shots on M8.


Railings



Islington Police Station



At dinner. This one f2.8


These three all in my June gallery
June 2008 Photo Gallery by Nick De Marco at pbase.com

Now I thought I was committing blasphemy when I recently admitted my favourite lens (on an M8 anyway) was the Nockton 35mm f1.2. I have a couple of other 35mm including the Summicron version 4 "King of Bokeh" pre-asph - which used to be my favourite lens. I don't know, maybe it is a better lens than the Nockton, certainly it's smaller and lighter, but the Nockton can do so well even at f1.2.

Anyway, I assumed this was a one off for a CV lens. Ok they make good ultra wides - but there is not really much competition in that area. But I have tried a 50mm f1.5 and a 75mm CV lens and I own the Nockton 40mm f1., and none of these lenses come near, in my opinion, to beating a Leica lens.

But now this 28 impresses me much. Shortly before buying it I bought the Elmarit f2.8 28mm ASPH current version. It's the only brand new Leica lens I have ever bought, and it was the best part of a thousand pounds. I intended to use it as my standard on the M8. I have absolutely no complaints about it. It's also so good its small and neat. But I have to admit I cannot see it being superior, in terms of image quality, to the CV 28mm - a lens I picked up only as it was on ebay for 220 pounds. The only difference I can discern is the CV is faster and has slightly more contrasty I think (Both qualities) but is a bit bigger (a disadvantage). Had I known before I could have save a grand and put it to another lens.

Am I missing something, or is this CV lens really in the same league as the Elmarit?

Anyway, well done Voigtlander. We now await a super 21 or 24mm f1.2 please.

Nick
 
The nice thing about the M mount nowadays - there are plenty of choices, each excellent. For instance I prefer the ZI Biogon 2.8/21 to the Leica offering - slightly more contrasty, it draws more to my taste, especially in low light. And I share your enthusiasm for the Nokton 35/1.2, a seminal lens imo. The Elmarit 28 / a fine lens, but I sold it because I found it boring....So we can pick and choose 🙂
 
Last edited:
I use the 28 CV a lot, also the 15mm. I too cannot see any difference in quality, but then I have not used any Leica lenses on my M8 yet. The reason is simply that I had some years off from photography, and when getting started again I could not see the point in spending that much money.

I think I will stick to CV, possibly add up with some cheap and old Leica optics, and be happy with that. For me the main thing is working with a rangefinder - I also very much like the R2A that I got last year...
 
back alley said:
so maybe the 35/1.2 is a better match for the zm 35/2.8 if one needed a fast 35 too.
Click to expand...


Aside from the size of the thing! 😛

The 1.2 feels a little unwieldy on my Ikon or on an M film body but for some reason feels a lot more at home on the M8. I guess the extra mass of the M8 balances a little better with the weight of the lens.

Probably ideal on an M5! 🙂
 
I am way behind with using CV lenses. I only have the 25mm/4 with the uncoupled RF version. Am I missing out? I have tested several CV lenses, including the 35mm/1.2and the 40mm/1.4.
 
the CV 21 f4 is rather impressive for its size and price. Some people here have not rated the 50 Nokton 1.5 that well, but Putz regards it as good or better than the pre-asph 50 summilux and X-ray, whose opinions I value, regards it as within a gnats hair of the asph summilux.

One thing in the OP that confuses me is the comment that the CV 28 1.9 is of higher contrast than the current leica 28 2.8 asph. The latter is regarded as one of the highest contrast lenses about - up there with ZMs - and the 28 1.9 a medium conrast offering well suited to digital.
 
You might be right there Turtle - I was using the CV on a very high contrasty day.

I did however use a CV 50mm f1.5 indoors once and it looked a bit flat. A bit like my Canon 50mm f1.2 that I was so glad to buy but is not as great as I hoped. The 35 1.2 however had none of that flatness, and nor does the 28 for me.
 
Nick

If you like the 28/1.9 you should try to find a s/h cv skopar 28/3.5. You'll lose a stop but I can't believe the 28/2.8 asph is that much better that it is worth the best part of £800 more. Since buying mine s/h I've used it regularly for my early morning photography outtings 😉

You should also think about the 50/1.5 - which is the star of the cv line up, imho

LouisB
 
Try the CV Ultron 35mm f1.7. It's nearly as fast as the 1.2 for a lot less money and considerably less weight, unless you need the 1.2 for bragging rights. Check out Sean Ried's review website. I don't have it handy, but you can google it. You'll have to subscribe, but it's worth it.
 
I'm very tempted by the 28/1.9. I just wish it had a real focusing tab and an m mount.

Keith said:
Aside from the size of the thing! 😛

The 1.2 feels a little unwieldy on my Ikon or on an M film body but for some reason feels a lot more at home on the M8. I guess the extra mass of the M8 balances a little better with the weight of the lens.

Probably ideal on an M5! 🙂
Click to expand...

Isn't the M8 (about 21oz) only about 2 ounces heavier than an m6/m7?
 
Last edited:
The Summicron 28mm f2.0 ASPH is sharp from edge to edge and corner to corner with very little barrel distortion. The Voigtlanders are not. But fortunately, the M8 doesn't use the corners, so you don't necessarily miss anything. The question above is the better one to ask though - is the difference in optical quality worth the difference in cost. As with anything, that depends on the user and the use.

I also owned an Elmarit (version before the current one) which was still better than the Voigtlanders. The advantage that the Voigtlanders have is price (astonishingly low in some cases,) low light shooting (no Leica is faster than f2.0) and (with the f3.5) size. The Summicron is very long for a 28mm lens I think, and the Elmarit is only slightly shorter than that. Add on the criminally huge lens hoods, and you have yet another variable to consider when you purchase. These are, after all, supposed to be in keeping with the Barnack ideal of size - which I guess they are in comparison to a Canon 1DsMkIII + lens.
 
Last edited:
Get an LTM/M mount adaper and leave it on the lens. It is then am M mount lens. 😀

I can't offer a suggestion for the tab though. 🙁

As a matter of interest, I got rid of my Leica 28 Elmarit and have replaced it with the CV 1.9. Two reasons really. I tend to use the ZM25 more and so was not getting that much use out of it. Personally, I am not that keen on the tabs and the whole deal enabled me to get a ZI body. I haven't regreted it. The leica lenses probably do have a very sklight edge in image quality but you would only notice this in very critcal situations and to my mind, that difference is not worth the huge extra outlay.

Kim

Sam N said:
I'm very tempted by the 28/1.9. I just wish it had a real focusing tab and an m mount.



Isn't the M8 (about 21oz) only about 2 ounces heavier than an m6/m7?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I previously owned the v1 and v2 Elmarits but have no experience with the later versions. However I have shot some side by side with the 28 Summicron and the CV 28 1.9. Let's say until the CV 28 1.9 came out I could never get emotional about a 28. Now I can say I really love the 28 FL and particularly the CV 28 1.9. I can afford pretty much any lenses I want but I'm more interested in performance and ergonomics for the documentary style I shoot. One thing is I hate tabbed lenses. Some I can tolerate but the later version Leica tabs are an irritation to me. I personally like a focusing ring I can grasp and focus quickly and precisely. The CV 28 is that lens foe me. Besides the ergonomics I find the lens to be a stellar performer in real life. Even at f2 I find the contrast to be superb and sharpness is excellent even to the edges. There seems to be less flare in the CV lens which I noticed to be what I would term excessive particularly for the price in the Summicron. I took a 28 summicron and shot side by side with the CV. To my surprise the Summicron really was only marginally better at f2. I wouldn't give the Summicron a 5% edge on performance over the CV at f2 and at 2.8 I could see no difference. I was shooting Efke 25 and using a very high quality 8x loupe to examine the negs. Sorry to the Leica gang but I wouldn't trade my CV even for a 28 Summicron.

The other CV lenses that I have are equal performers overall. I feel equally good about the 35 Nokton and feel it actually has lower flare than the Summilus asph 35. Mechanics are super and optical performance even at 1.2 is exceptional. I've said a number of times that this lens would be $8K if it had the Leica name on it and it would be hailed as the finest 35 ever.

The 50 Nokton is another sleeper in my opinion. It's erformance is so close to the performance of my asph summilux 50 that I'm considering selling the Summilux. In many cases I actually like the Nokton better. It's another one of these times that I would only give the Summilux a 5% edge at max aperture over the Nokton. At f2-2.8 and down the differences are basically gone. My personal opinion, again, is the ergonomics of the Nokton is more to my taste. It has a nice fat focusing ring that I can grasp with no problem vs the tiny ring and tab of the asph summilux. The mechanics of the Nokton are smoother than the rather rough focusing of the Summilux. The Nokton is a true beauty with excellent contrast, resolution, and ergonomics.

I have a PII 35 and 75 CV but haven't done any critical shooting with them but can say they perform quite well. I also would say that I wouldn't hesitate to shoot an assignment with them. They're that good IMO.

Really it comes down to a flip of the coin as to which is the best. I've owned and shot Leicas for over 40 years and now have a number of the new and older lenses. I find that I don't care for the asph Leica glass quite as much as the older non asph. I also have a Zeiss 25, 35 and 50 Planar that I'm absolutely nuts about. In my opinion I would rate the Zeiss above any of the Leica lenses I have or have had over these years. Zeiss has their act together and optically these lenses are the tops. The images are exceptional in every respect with cutting edge sharpness without the weird look of some aspherics and particularly the edgy over compensated look of some of the Leica glass. This is a look that seems to be a Leica characteristic in most of their asph lenses. Somehow the CV designers have used asph elements without the harshness that Leica seems to have.

Disregarding price I don't think you can go wrong with CV glass vs leica.
 
I adore CV (despite my even greater love for Leica). The 15/4.5 is really an amazing lens for the price. I got mine second hand for about $200 -- the finder had a nick on the glass. This is incomparable value. I also own the 28/3.5 in Contax/Nikon mount and I can vouch for it's superb image quality especially for $300, which is what I paid for it new.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom