Voigtlander vs Leica: A dilemma.

H

hamzaaytac

Newbie
Local time
5:53 PM
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
6
I used Leica lenses with my M8. Also Zeiss. But I met Voigtlander thanks to a friend. I purchased 50mm 1.5 Nokton, 28mm 1.9 Ultron and 90mm 3.5 APO Lanthar. I am totally impressed. These lenses produce superb quality images. Razor sharp, contrast. After 10-15 days usage, I am waiting 35mm 1.2 Nokton and 15mm 4.5 Heliar.

I purchased Leica for its superb quality images. All Voigtlander lenses are priced at 1/8 according to Leica. 400/3200 500/4000 vs...

Please share your opinions about these wonderful lenses... Can anyone tell me why these lenses are not popular? Why did you purchase Leica lenses? For brand value? After many shots, I did not think that Leica lenses' image quality is not better than Voigtlanders'.

Thanks for all replies.
 
I've had a 15mm for 4 or 5 years now. Aluminum is showing through the black anodizing in places but I love the lens. The 15 and a Bessa L are always with me hanging fronm my left shoulder. When my son wanted a 21mm lens I bought him a Voigtlander lens. If you shoot a lot and beat your equipment around the Leica lens wil do a better job of holding up.
 
I can't think of a single VC lens I've tried that was actually bad from an IQ standpoint. The usual beef, which I agree with, is that their build quality isn't up to Konica and Leica standards.

It's pretty impressive that, in many cases, they deliver 90-95% of Leica optical performance for a fraction of the cost.
 
Leica build quality in the last 15 years so so has not been consistently good anyway. For instance the focusing on my 35mm Summicron (bought new in 1996) has always been very stiff. Neither Sherry nor Leica NJ could do anything about it. "Bad build quality" is the culprit accoring to Sherry. Every CV lens I have fosuses easily and smoothy.
 
Visibility depends upon which way you get into RF photography. CV does not have an advertising budget the size of Leica's, I think they depend upon the Internet to generate much of the pull (demand).

While I had two Ms and several Leica lenses I looked to Bessa cameras and started with CV glass when I got back into RF. I found many of the CV lenses were more than good enough for my needs. Now I've moved on to Nikon RFs and have CVs for my wides and Nikkors for my normal and telephotos.

CV gives you the ability to buy a 12 or a 15mm lens for a reasonable price. While I had a 21 Elmarit I never really liked it. I LOVE the 25 and 15mm CV lenses. I picked up an early 40/1.4 and it did not focus as smoothly as I liked. I sent it back in for tweaking and it came back under warrantee as smooth as my 35 'Cron. I'd be afraid to see what the price of a 35/1.2 from leica or ZI would be.

Will they last as long, might not, but for the price I can buy a three new ones now, put two away for when one goes south in 10 years or so. I'm not convinced the new Leica builds are that much better than the current ZIs and I think CVs are much closer than one might think.

B2 (;->
 
Only time will tell on build quality and neither the new Leicas or the cvs have much time. I suspect the M8 will never out live the older Leicas.
 
Well, I am most pleased with my 25/4 Snapshot Skopar, was very disappointed with two copies of the 28/2.0 Ultron and recently bought the 50/1.5 and 75/2.5; both of them are ok, but the rangefinder does not align properly on the M8 as well as the M6, but shows beyond infinity. No, it is not the adapter, as my professionally cla'd Summitar works fine with it.

The CV lenses are great value for money if you get a good one and/or are willing to send it off to rectify apparent QC issues.

Merry Christmas,
Uwe
 
I have the CV 21mm/f4, 35/f1.4, 40mm/f1.4,50mm/f2, 75/f2.5 and 90/f3.5. I have owned Leica and Zeiss lenses all great. But to my 59 year old eye, CV's are as good as they get. plus you can buy a lot of them for not so much $$$.
 
IdeaDog said:
.....................................................
..............................................................................

Bad copies of anything are possible. I have had two VC lenses (bought used) and also two Zeiss 35 f/2 Biogons (bought new, returned) that consistently back- or front-focused on all my cameras (where all my other lenses were spot on with every camera).

The Zeiss mis-focusing was a real shame because it gave otherwise gorgeous results. I would really love to have a good Zeiss 35mm Biogon but I think B & H would hate me if I kept testing and returning them.
Click to expand...

Holy smoke....after reading your comment , I check my Biogon 28mm with M8 at once....**** , it really back- or front-focused !!
:eek: what can I do ???????
 
kevin m said:
I can't think of a single VC lens I've tried that was actually bad from an IQ standpoint. The usual beef, which I agree with, is that their build quality isn't up to Konica and Leica standards.

It's pretty impressive that, in many cases, they deliver 90-95% of Leica optical performance for a fraction of the cost.
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact I was pleasantly suprised with my 35/1.2 Nokton. It matches anyting Leica has built mechanically, and the optical quality is excellent as well.
 
IdeaDog said:
two Zeiss 35 f/2 Biogons (bought new, returned) that consistently back- or front-focused on all my cameras (where all my other lenses were spot on with every camera).

The Zeiss mis-focusing was a real shame because it gave otherwise gorgeous results. I would really love to have a good Zeiss 35mm Biogon but I think B & H would hate me if I kept testing and returning them.
Click to expand...

I had the same problem with my Biogon 35/2. Sent it to Zeiss in Oberkochen and they fixed the problem, free of charge. After fixing it I gave it to a friend.
 
As a matter of fact I was pleasantly suprised with my 35/1.2 Nokton. It matches anyting Leica has built mechanically, and the optical quality is excellent as well.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope that's true, I have one on the way. :)
 
kasey said:
ok, so which Voigtlander 50MM lenses delivered optical performance close to Leica's Summilux 50mm ASPH ?
Click to expand...

In my opinion none of them. I'm not a naysayer, but having owned many CV lenses and then having slowly purchased Leica lenses I'm convinced that Leica lenses simply draw images in a way, which to my mind can't be compared with anything else.

That said, the problem is of course that human perception, aesthetic judgement and subjective opinion all come into play, and that is something which is not often discussed. And of course the Leica name itself might have an effect on the perception of quality.

An example of my own experience is as follows:

I bought the 35mm Nokton and the build quality was superb. In use it was fantastic as well; however, I just personally thought that the drawing of the lens was too clinical, and so I tried the 35mm Ultron which I believed was the same. I then thought long and hard about the kind of images I enjoyed looking at and discovered that I liked a slightly softer, less contrasty feel. I then saved up and got a nice 35mm pre asph Summilux and have never looked back. The images that lens produces just seem right for me and since then I have added a 50mm Pre asph Summicron and a 50mm Noctilux.

But I guess that your own subjective opinion will have to be satisfied and that will only come through buying the lens and trying it. I would never actually proclaim that Leica lenses are better because there are too many outstanding photographers who uses anything but Leica: Ian Berry the Magnum Photographer swears by CV and if they are good enough for him ...
 
My experience with CV lenses have been hit and miss...and more miss than hit. I don't know if it's because I pay such a premium price for Leica that I prefer the leica lenses, and I am not an expert photographer but I really prefer Leica lenses, and I would like to eventually switch all to Leica glass. I also seem to have alot more back focus issues with CV lenses and that just drives me nuts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom