Why CV doesn't make a 35/2.0?

[Jaime M]

Why CV doesn't make a 35/2.0?
It will be the really Summicron 35 killer. Most of us will buy one

The Nokton 35/1.4 looks gorgeous, but the shift focus and barrel distorsion downgrades it from superb to regular lens.
Why don't sacrifice an f-stop in favour of quality design and construction?
The Color Skopar 35/2.5 PII ( it will be mine on a few weeks) looks nice to me, it is small, sharp and cheap (this is important, i'm a student!) but 2.5.. I'm sure that if were 2.0 instead of 2.5, users will praise it.
I wouldn't mind pay Color Skopar price +150-200$ for it.

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

I sometimes wish for a 35/2 from CV as well. It might take away sales from the 1.4 and 2.5 already in production. Perhaps too many 35's in the lineup. The price difference between the two are relatively small considering all other used/older 35's already in existence. It might be difficult to introduce a new one without discontinuing one in current production.

 

[ferider]

I'm sure if CV would make a CV 35/2 it would still be considered by many to be worse than a > 20 year old Leica lens, unless it was priced higher.

The CV 35/2.5 and 1.4 are excellent. And then there is also the very good 35/1.7. Many other highly regarded lenses have similar barrel distortion (for example CV 35/1.2, Nikkor 35/1.8, UC 35/2); others similar focus shift (pre-asph Summilux 35, 50 and 75) and nobody ever talks about it. Half a stop difference will make no practical difference in your photography.

The biggest "issue" of CV lenses is the brand. As a 22 year old student with limited funds, why worry ?

Roland.

 

[Jaime M]

I sometimes wish for a 35/2 from CV as well. It might take away sales from the 1.4 and 2.5 already in production. Perhaps too many 35's in the lineup. The price difference between the two are relatively small considering all other used/older 35's already in existence. It might be difficult to introduce a new one without discontinuing one in current production.

I'm sure if CV would make a CV 35/2 it would still be considered by many to be worse than a > 20 year old Leica lens, unless it was priced higher.

The CV 35/2.5 and 1.4 are excellent. And then there is also the very good 35/1.7. Many other lenses have similar barrel distortion (35/1.2) and others similar focus shift (all pre-asph Summilux) and nobody ever talks about it. Half a stop difference will make no practical difference in your photography.

Roland.

I agree&disagree with you both mates; I think in the 35/2 like the 35/2.5 substitute, not a new lens in the line.
And I know, i know that it is only half stop, but i want that half! 😉
And I know too that other top lens has problems like the Nokton, but 35/2.5 doesn't have it! I was talking about a redesign of this lens with that half stop of glory

 

[ferider]

Try the 35/1.7, you won't be disappointed. Zero distortion and shift.

 

[Bruin]

I thought the ZM Biogon was already the Summicron 35 killer... 😉

 

[rpsawin]

Try the 35/1.7, you won't be disappointed. Zero distortion and shift.

I have to agree with ferider on this....it's sweet lens!

Best regards,

Bob

 

[Keith]

They do but it's called a Biogon and marketed by Zeiss!

I sometimes wonder if this is the real reason for no CV 35mm f2 ... an agreement of some type between Cosina and Zeiss?

 

[gavinlg]

They do but it's called a Biogon and marketed by Zeiss!

I sometimes wonder if this is the real reason for no CV 35mm f2 ... an agreement of some type between Cosina and Zeiss?

Yeah I'd think this is the reason that they don't make one. Though I have to say, the biogon is as zeiss as they come - regardless of who it's made by.

 

[-doomed-]

you wont miss that half stop, i love the cv 35/2.5 its on my m4-p most days now.

 

[photogdave]

What focus shift? Mine has no focus shift.

 

[ferider]

I like my "regular" lens ...

Including its distortion:

and bad bokeh:

Downright big and ugly looking, too:

🙂 ...

 

[Rob-F]

Felt like adding my 2 cents: from f/2 to f/2.5 is not 1/2 stop. It's 2/3 stop. Just FWIW; you know.

 

[Keith]

Downright big and ugly looking, too:

🙂 ...

I would't say it was that big ... but I can't disagree with the ugly part! :angel:

 

[f16sunshine]

Three 35mm lenses currently offered seems enough. The 2.5 is my favorite for size and performance. Can't think of one time I needed that 2/3rd stop. I can think of quite a few times that I needed 2 stops though LOL 🙂

 

[Bingley]

you wont miss that half stop, i love the cv 35/2.5 its on my m4-p most days now.

I agree. I didn't really warm to the Ultron 35/1.7 (maybe I had a "bad" sample) although I've seen lots of good photos taken w/ it. But the little skopar 35/2.5 is one sweet lens, and you can make up the half stop w/ slightly faster film. If you're into shallow dof shots, you'll probably be using a 1.4 lens instead.

 

[-doomed-]

The price of the 35/2.5 is nice too.

 

[aizan]

i think voigtlander should make a 35/2, too. they've been cranking out fast lenses based on cult classics lately. the only one that i would not mind coughing up the dough for is the 28/2 ultron, whose physical design is a copy of the original 28mm elmarit. afaik, that lens isn't a cult classic. i would prefer a 28/2.8 pancake modeled after the 28/2.8 canon ltm, only with modern optical performance.

while people who are attracted to the 35mm pre-asph summilux or 50mm noctilux now have affordable alternatives, i'm sure they'd rather get the real thing if it weren't for price and the trouble of finding ones in good condition. maybe the market for this kind of lens is bigger than the one who want more reasonable lens speeds that are cheaper and can be more easily corrected, like 35/2 and 50/1.4.

 

[Bingley]

Of course, in a way, CV already does make an f.2 Summicron-killer. Only it's called the Zeiss Biogon 35. I doubt CV would make a direct competitor under to the Biogon under the Voigtlander brand.

 

[payasam]

I have the CV 35/1.7 of which Roland speaks. It is close enough to f/2 and I'm happy with it.