Leica glass vs Voigtlander glass

[Steve_F]

Hi all,
Without wishing to duplicate the ongoing thread regarding an M4-P and lenses I too am looking at an M4-P or M6.
Now baby No.2 is on it's way my budget is going to be even more restricted than before. (Doh!)
Would I really see a difference between Leica and Voigtlander glass? I print in my own darkroom on Ilford MGIV FB.
Speed wise I've been happy with my Nikon 35f2, 50f1.8, 135f2.8
Some of the Voigtlander lenses such as 25 f4 and 35 1.7 look really tempting.
I did start a thread many months ago wondering if I was a "Leica snob", but as much as the Bessa rangefinders felt good in my hand I just couldn't believe how quiet the Leica shutter was, and that's what swayed me.
Many a shot I've shied away from for fear of getting walloped!

Thanks,

Steve.

 

[waileong]

You ought to, esp. wide open.

Erwin has it down pat here: http://www.imx.nl/photo/Opinion/page114/page114.html

Hi all,
Without wishing to duplicate the ongoing thread regarding an M4-P and lenses I too am looking at an M4-P or M6.
Now baby No.2 is on it's way my budget is going to be even more restricted than before. (Doh!)
Would I really see a difference between Leica and Voigtlander glass? I print in my own darkroom on Ilford MGIV FB.
Speed wise I've been happy with my Nikon 35f2, 50f1.8, 135f2.8
Some of the Voigtlander lenses such as 25 f4 and 35 1.7 look really tempting.
I did start a thread many months ago wondering if I was a "Leica snob", but as much as the Bessa rangefinders felt good in my hand I just couldn't believe how quiet the Leica shutter was, and that's what swayed me.
Many a shot I've shied away from for fear of getting walloped!

Thanks,

Steve.

 

[notturtle]

Yes and No and it very much depends on which lenses. I shoot CV, Zeiss and Leica M and have used them extensively. I wet print up to 20x16 from 35mm so the format is being pushed hard. Here are my thoughts:

Modest speed CV lenses like the 35 2.5 variants are superb and the difference between these and Leica glass are IMHO no worth worrying about unless you spend the majority of your time shooting wide open. I own the 35 pancake 2 and a stop or so down competes with the Biogon f2, which is well known to be top drawer especially a stop or two down. There really is nothing to choose between them apart from slightly less vignetting from the biogon at wider apertures and a touch sharper in the corners up to about f4/5.6. Bokeh is also almost identical to the biogon, but a fraction less smooth and I mean a fraction. Rumours of rough bokeh are simply rubbish. Although I do not own a 35 2.5 summarit, I am confident that under 99% of circumstances the CV pancake will produce effectively equal results. It si also quite flare resistan with the hood on. Very in fact.

As for the wides (21/25), some samples show some decentering so test your 25 f4, make sure it is up to your needs and then shoot film with it. It has the potential to perform absoutely superbly, but as I say there are some duds out there. buy new with a warranty, test and return if not peforming to potential I would suggest. Anecdotal evidence suggests the 25 is better than the 21 in the outer field. I owned a 21P and the Zeiss biogon was the sharper lens, but much larger and I am thinking about a 25P for when I want smalllllll. The 28 3.5 has legendary performance and no more needs saying on this one apart from slightly more vignetting wider open than a Leica lens, but at f5.6 etc it should perform every bit as well as any leica lens. Lets remember that the 28 asph cron has a rep for vignetting and it is 10x the price.

Do not firget the ZM lenses, which pair well in contrast terms with the skopar lenses, which means a 25P/28 3.5/35 2.5/ZM 35/50 planar, 28, 25, 21 etc will all print withing half a grade or so in my experience. 28 1.9 ultrons, 35 1.7s etc are lower contrast, along with the 75 2.5 CV etc. The higher contrast lenses will produce beautiful, smooth, crystal clear B&W prints. Those who say they won't either don't use them, or have not tailored their development and exposure (or get their prints done by a lab with standard settings).

My advice? Stick to a particular contrast level either within one brand or across brands for an easlier life with D&P. If you do not need fast lenses I personally would forget leica. If you do not shoot ultra fine grained films, forget Leica. If you fancy a good compromise think of the ZM lenses. Build is perhaps not quite as good as leica, but it is better than CV and good enough for decades of hard use. some develop a wobble which can be sorted by tightening a flange. a couple of mine have but they are easly models so maybe newer ones are immune. QC in terms of imaging is faultless in my experience. These lenses are superb in every way. Only and I mean only if you are demanding the absolute at very best wide apertues would I consider leica. I still own a 90 Elmarit-M (latest) and had the amazing 50 lux asph, so it is not as if I have not compared them. I have and my opinions are based on usage. Leica glass is simply not worth the money unless you demand the best wide open. Stop down a stop or two and the gap closes almost entirely with the CVs or absolutely entirely with the ZMs. I do not understand thos spending $20K on a set of Leica asphs, then scanning at home (i.e not drum scanned) or shooting at middling apertures and printing at 10x8. These are normally the people who will tell you CV or ZM lenses are not up to leica standards... I have 19" prints on my wall that say otherwise.

 

[Steve_F]

Hi there,
Thanks for the reply. Interesting what you say about the contrast.
I primarily shoot of Ilford Delta 100 or Fuji 100 Acros and develop in Ilford Perceptol.
As my enlarger is a diffuser type as opposed to condenser I find that 'dialling-in' 40/50 magenta (Grade 3 on Meopta) is nearly always what I need.
I too have 20x16 enlargements with my Nikon glass on these films. Lovely.
The one I tend to shoot with wide open is normally the 135 2.8.
The 50f1.8 is normally at 2.8 or 4
The 35f2 is nice when stopped down a few stops, but wide open the corners are noticeably soft, but this adds its own effect when close-up and wide-open.


Steve.

 

[rlouzan]

Very good optically🙂 but mechanically ...😡

 

[Steve_F]

Very good optically🙂 but mechanically ...😡

Nope, lost me on that comment......

Steve 😕

 

[Steve_F]

OK, this is starting to come together now.....

Leica M - one a year perhaps?

 

[former member]

I just picked up an Ultron 35/1.7. The SN starts with a "99", probably year of introduction. It feels very well made. I have not seen results yet, but have high expectations.

Most of my Leica lenses span from a 1933 Summar to 1970s 40/2 Wetzlar Summicron. 30 lenses or so. Mechanically, The older lenses are more solidly made, but no real complaints on the newer one.

 

[rlouzan]

Brass helicoidal rings (Leica) vs mostly Aluminum ones (VC)
- cheaper to manufacture but not as good.

Nope, lost me on that comment......

Steve 😕

 

[former member]

In the 1950s, Brass Ruled with most major manufacturers. Especially amongst the Japanese: heavy equaled high-quality, a perception. By the late 50s and 60s, use of aluminum increased and weight decreased. Postwar Russian lenses were mostly aluminum.

1953 J-3, wide-open at F1.5. A $94 lens.

Brass is more difficult to work with, heavier, and more expensive. Does it mean that an aluminum lens will fall apart in 5 years? No. The example shown is 55+ years old, and I have older Zeiss LTM lenses. Is the Leitz lens made of more expensive material, and cost proportionally more? Yes.

 

[Svitantti]

Some comments on certain lenses for focal lengths of 35 and 50:
- The 35/1.4 Nokton has severe distortions when straight things are composed near the edges, sometimes very distracting. Sharp wide open, a modern design, small, nice to handle.
- Summicron 35/2 is very well corrected for the distortions and is very sharp already wide open. Downside is the price, I'd go for V3 and avoid the expensive V4.
- Ultron 35/1.7 is dirt cheap and a good performer. A bit bigger and no focus tab and not as good wide open as the previous ones. Still my choice, because I want speed and dont want to pay much. Not much distortions either and a very smooth feeling for focussing and apertures.
- Skopar 35/2.5 is a very sharp and much like the Summicron, except it is a bit slower. If
you can live with the f2.5, this is a great bargain.
- Nokton 35/1.2 is great, but very big for a RF-lens. If you have the money and can live with the size, the 1.2 will give nice results for sure.
- Summilux 35/1.4 - if you want the lense to read "Leitz" and have more classical rendering.. But I would certainly rather get the 1.4 Nokton.

- 50/1.5 Nokton is considered generally better than the Summilux. At least it should be sharper wide open. It is a bit big. Has same kind of design and feeling as the Ultron.
- Summilux 50/1.4 is smaller than the previous and probably more classic rendering, but I would rather get the Summicron 50/2 and live with f2 to get a real sharp and fine glass, maybe with a focus tab and smaller size.
- The f2.5 Skopar 50mm is probably good and cheap, but too slow for me in 50 range.

I have used a 50 'lux, 50 Nokton, 35/1.4 Nokton, Summicron 35 and the Ultron. I think the best picks for 35mm would be the Ultron and Summicron, depending how much money you got. 1.2 would also be interesting, but maybe not for only lens (because of the size). For 50mm I'd get the Nokton or a Summicron, which both perform good and are not too expensive.

I wouldn't stress about which manufacturers glass you buy... Rather picking the right alternatives for a focal length, taking the prices into account of course.

Voigtländer is generally much, much cheaper. Often about third the price when both are compared as used.

Some VC lenses are probably not that well made, as I guess I could say for the Snapshot Skopar... But for Example the 35/1.7 Ultron is the best made lense I have used and yes, I have owned two Leitz lenses, a V3 Summicron and an older Summilux 50. The Leitz's were good, but not as smooth to handle. Of course they were maybe 30-40 years older, so who knows, but I've owned many VC lenses and most of them feel as good as Leicas for the build quality.

I dont know why people always keep telling Leica glass is so much better made. Maybe it is just the origin and the magical, famous brand. Maybe Cosina doesn't have that good reputation, even though their stuff is much better these days than they used to be (I guess).

 

[35mmdelux]

With Leica you pay for the name, tradition, full aperture performance, and construction. The VC are probably better glass than anything HCB ever shot with.

With a little patience you get a pre-owned Zeiss 50mm/2.0 for little more than a new 50mm Nokton. Both are outstanding glass, but have diff looks. Just a thought.

M4-P vs. M6: I would suggest the M6. For someone new to Leica, the M6 is the faster shooter. Either camera with a 50mm/2.0 Zeiss would be a fantastic rig.

EDIT: Add the 50mm Hexanon to the list. To be perfectly honest, at the lower cost i'd go with either the Hexanon or the Zeiss. The Hexanon generally costs less, is smaller, has the retractable hood, with exacting tolerances.

 

[johannielscom]

when primarily shooting wide open, you should consider the M-Hexanons instead of the Voigtländer lenses. Less harsh OOF areas in your shots.

When stopped down, they probably aren't that different optically. Cannot account for build quality, which I find superb in the M-Hexanons, since I've never seen a Voigtländer lens 'in the flesh' yet.

 

[Svitantti]

I didnt like the M6 much. I started with M4 and got used to a handheld meter and I learned the advantages: You can meter without having the camera on your eyes and you dont have to fiddle with the aperture ring all the time when finding the exposure 🙂. Also works well if you have a good meter, I have used a Gossen Digiflash and got better exposures than with many TTL-meters. Especially in the streets it is nice to take readings before rising the camera.

The M-Hexanons are a good idea too, but they aren't as cheap as Voigtländers. Actually the ones I've seen, go almost as high as the Leitz's

 

[mrisney]

I didnt like the M6 much. I started with M4 and got used to a handheld meter and I learned the advantages: You can meter without having the camera on your eyes and you dont have to fiddle with the aperture ring all the time when finding the exposure 🙂.

I wouldn't mind an M6, but something about the M4 being all mechanical. not even a button battery. I agree about a good meter, I use the acclaimed Voigtlander II, while we are on the topic of VC vs Leica glass. It is a great little meter, I get a reading where I am standing, and it is very accurate. It's a good combo.


I actually don't get caught up in collectible gear. To me the M4-P is such a solid rangefinder. It's the only 35mm RF I own. I will say that the 28mm Elmarit 4th version is probably the best piece of glass I own. Once you get a nice M body. It seems the lenses are what you consider with excruciating detail. Great thread BTW

 

[Steve_F]

I didnt like the M6 much. I started with M4 and got used to a handheld meter and I learned the advantages: You can meter without having the camera on your eyes and you dont have to fiddle with the aperture ring all the time when finding the exposure 🙂. Also works well if you have a good meter, I have used a Gossen Digiflash and got better exposures than with many TTL-meters. Especially in the streets it is nice to take readings before rising the camera.

The M-Hexanons are a good idea too, but they aren't as cheap as Voigtländers. Actually the ones I've seen, go almost as high as the Leitz's

An MP would be lovely buy, to expensive for me at the moment. But if you spread the payments over a lifetime...hmmm
I have a hand-held Sekonic 508 with 1 degree spot that I use for my RZ so that wouldn't be a problem.

Steve.

 

[Tom A]

I have both the M4P/M6/MP ( and a lot of M2's)! The M4P's are pretty well "bullet" proof. They can go decades with no problems. Mine are going on 27 and 28 years respectively and have both had a lot of film through them- 1000's of rolls each. One had to be serviced in the mid 90's as the drive wore out - but that is all!
The M6's are equally well built - but you have the added complexity (and benefit) of a built in meter. Early M6's could have problem with meter chips - but by now, most of them would be replaced.
As for optics - modern glass is better than the old glass. There has been huge advances in technology and computer aided design. It somewhat depends on what you are taking pictures off too. If you do critical architecture or shoot everything at close-up and wide open you need lenses like the 50f1.4 ASPH/75f2 Apo-Asph etc from Leica. However if you are shooting fast moving kids, street, low light etc - any of the offerings from Leica/VC/Zeiss will serve you well.
Look at whats available and make your decision as to what you want to pay, ergonomics and size. You intend to carry the camera at all time (and why have it if you don't) - weight becomes paramount.
Shooting 100 asa bl/w - a f1.4/1.5 is not a bad idea as you will occasionally "run out of light" - particularly indoors.
In the 50mm - I would look at the Nokton 50f1.5 - a bargain for its speed and image quality. Also the C Sonnar 50f1.5 - different "look" to the negative - very "lush" black/white imagery. The Summicron is a very nice lens - but the design is 50 years old - and the later versions are not as well built as the early ones! The Pre-Asph Summilux are OK, but the Nokton 50f1.5 is a better performer.
In 35mm - VC Color Skopar 35f2.5II is a great lens - slightly slower than a f2 Summicron, but 1/2 to 1/3 of the price.Faster lenses would be either a used 35f1.4 Pre-asph Summilux - interesting lens, but it does have a lot of optical aberrations at f1.4. The Nokton 35f1.4 is a better lens - maybe not the perfect rectilinear lens - but after several 100 rolls with mine - I haven't found a shot that was not usable in because of it!!!
28's. Leica has a nice 28f2.8 Asph which is reasonably prtced and very good. Nokton 28f2.0 is a superb lens and I certainly haven't found any of the problems some so called "testers" claim to get with Digital (M8/RD1) - and I have used it extensively with film only.
The small (and extremely well built) 28f3.5 has aquired a bit of a cult status - and deservedly so. It is a very good lens - but f3.5 and 100 iso can tax your handholding skills occasionally.
The Zeiss ZM lenses are very well designed and good to outstanding in performance. The 50f1.5 C Sonnar for its distinct look, The Planar 50f2 (The Summicron Killer!), the 35f2 Biogon (one of the best medium speed 35's you can buy) and the 25f2.8 (as good as it gets in the 24/25 focal length) and then the 21f4.5 Biogon - best damned 21 ever made!!!!
Also go to Flickr and check the lenses you are interested in - not perfect for resolution, but it will give you a good idea of things like distorsion and edge fall offs etc.

 

[35mmdelux]

The Summicron is a very nice lens - but the design is 50 years old - and the later versions are not as well built as the early ones! The Pre-Asph Summilux are OK, but the Nokton 50f1.5 is a better performer.

Professor; Hasnt the Summicron changed in 50 yrs going from the Dual to the latest version?

 

[sanmich]

for a cheap but killer fast 50, the canon 1.4 is it.
pro: great optics, good mechanics, fast.
only con I can think about: limited to 1m close focusing.

 

[aizan]

An MP would be lovely buy, to expensive for me at the moment. But if you spread the payments over a lifetime...hmmm
I have a hand-held Sekonic 508 with 1 degree spot that I use for my RZ so that wouldn't be a problem.

Steve.

i put an mp on layaway a month ago. i've already made two payments, so it should be mine in about 5 months. never realized it was so easy!