Why WOULDN'T You Buy Voigtlander Lenses?

Why WOULDN'T You Buy Voigtlander Lenses?

  • I only want the best regardless of cost

    Votes: 47 7.2%

  • Never tried any

    Votes: 96 14.7%

  • They are so inexpensive they can't be any good

    Votes: 14 2.2%

  • I already have some, they're great!

    Votes: 494 75.9%
  • Total voters
    651
What I do now is always measure them from the camera mount out (and specify as such).

Cheers,

Sean
 
I got a 35mm p2, after a few weeks of use the black paint started to wear on the tab but not much, and now after a few months of use the barrel is coming loose, needs the notorious tightening, and for that reason alone I would not buy another, that and they dont make any other lenses that interest me except that 15mm
 
Avotius said:
I got a 35mm p2, after a few weeks of use the black paint started to wear on the tab but not much, and now after a few months of use the barrel is coming loose, needs the notorious tightening, and for that reason alone I would not buy another, that and they dont make any other lenses that interest me except that 15mm
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that Colin. Haven't had any issues with mine so far (fingers crossed).
 
The CV lenses have a lot going for them, and I happily use a number of them. The 12 is of course unique, and the 15 almost (unique???). I wouldn't be without them.

When you get into the range where there are options, it gets more difficult. The 21/4 for example does extremely well on film for me, but not as well on the M8. I much prefer the 21 ASPH so the 21/4 mostly stays on the film bodies. I liked the 28/1.9 reasonably well, but not enough to get it. When the M8 came out I got a good deal on a used 28 Summicron, and it has become my most used lens on the M8. An ideal combination for me.

The 35/1.2 is fantastic for that last bit of light, but not as good stopped down on film bodies as the 35/1.4 ASPH, so I kept the Summilux. If I hadn't had it, I might have gotten the 35/1.2 along with an older Summicron. But the 35/1.2 is HUGE. The 40/1.4 is nice, but it has some bokeh issues so I don't use it that much. The 35 Summilux is also more even in performance, although bigger. The 50/1.5 just makes unappealing photos in my case, so I should sell it. All in all, that is the most disappointing CV lens I have bought.

All of this doesn't mean that the CV lenses aren't any good, just that in most cases the Leica lenses are better, or are more appealing to me. Surprise surprise. Are the differences big enough to justify the price? 5% better for 5x the price? That is just the thing everyone has to work out for themselves.

Henning
 
Joe Mondello said:
Given the often wonderful reviews that the new Cosina Voigtlander RF lenses get from Sean and others, plus the relatively low prices (especially compared to Leitz and Zeiss glass) why WOULDN'T you purchase some?

I have 5 CV lenses for my M8 and think they are terrific. BTW, they are not cheap, they may seem inexpensive by comparison, but Nikon and Canon MF primes (at least for SLRs) are usually in a similar ballpark price-wise.
Click to expand...

I have all CV lenses- the 15mm, 21mm, new 25p, 28mm Ultron, 35mm f/2.5, 50mm Nokton, 90mm Lanthar. I am debating on whether to buy the 75mm. I do not own Leica glass and my wife would kill me if I did. I find CV lenses to be 98% of Leica glass and 1/10th the cost. My level of photography (as would most photogs I think) cannot tell the difference between leica glass and CV for most of what they do- not enough to justify the cost difference, anyway.
 
cme4brain said:
I have all CV lenses- the 15mm, 21mm, new 25p, 28mm Ultron, 35mm f/2.5, 50mm Nokton, 90mm Lanthar. I am debating on whether to buy the 75mm.
Click to expand...

The 75/2.5 Heliar was recently reviewed by Sean Reid on his website. I think it's a terrific lens and quite a steal at $299 (really hard to go wrong!)

Here's a picture I took with mine last week . . .

515264413_38a1ac8ff0.jpg


More here . . .

http://www.flickr.com/photos/musicandlight/sets/72157600225465265/
 
dseelig said:
Teh one negative that never gets talked about is close focus
Click to expand...
That's probably because it isn't a problem? I've got two CV lenses, one of them focuses to 0.5m, the other to 0.7. Of course a dual range Summicron comes closer, but then it obviously is a different focal length. There are some CV lenses which don't come that close, but then (1) there are Leica lenses with don't either, so this is really a lens vs. lens and not a brand vs. brand argument, and (2) if you absolutely and critically want close focus, a rangefinder isn't the best tool anyway.

Philipp
 
Bertram2 said:
Higher contrast in general can mean less resolution = detail, but this does not concern only the midtones. and if any lens tends to a "milky look" then it is rather the one which is designed for more resolution. That is why I found "milky and undefined midtones" contradictionary to all my experiences with CV and for example Leica, which is designed for more resolution.

Bertram
Click to expand...

Hmm....Contrast and resolution are closely intertwined in optical design and cannot be separated like this. Otherwise MTF curves would be totally meaningless.
 
Joe Mondello said:
The 75/2.5 Heliar was recently reviewed by Sean Reid on his website. I think it's a terrific lens and quite a steal at $299 (really hard to go wrong!)

Here's a picture I took with mine last week . . .

515264413_38a1ac8ff0.jpg


More here . . .

http://www.flickr.com/photos/musicandlight/sets/72157600225465265/
Click to expand...

Nice shot, Joe. And just when I was thinking that mine was becoming redundant and therefore, perhaps, should be sold... ;)

-Randy
 
jaapv said:
Hmm.... and cannot be separated like this. Otherwise MTF curves would be totally meaningless.
Click to expand...

Contrast and resolution ARE related ro each other in optical design indeed, and that is what I said ?

And MTF curves may say something but nonetheless they are completely meaningless indeed. That's mainly a crutch for those who are not able to judge results themselves :D Erwin knows that. And doesn't he give wonderful crutches for free to everybody who needs them ?
A true Christ, who makes the lame run !:D :D :D
As for me, I look on a careful made print and I know if the lens is good or not.
That is what counts for me, and that's it. All the rest, a waste of time...
Regards,

bertram
 
Last edited:
scho said:
I use ONLY CV and Zeiss lenses on my M8. I see no reason to spend 10x more for Leica lenses that don't produce 10x better image quality. The only Leica lens I might consider at this time is the new 28mm 2.8 asph, which altough reasonably priced is essentially un-available and I'm not convinced that it would give me "better" images compared to my 28mm Ultron.
Click to expand...


Hey there SCHO! You and I seem to be of the same mindframe about CV lenses. To pay up to 10x the price for a marginal increase in contrast or resolution (save the 21mm- soft in corners in reviews but not on my sample) is foolhardy, at least for me. I could only afford the M8 and one Leica lens! I have very focal length that Voigtlander makes save the 12mm and am enjoying every lens, something I could not do if I had my ONE Leica lens. And every CV lens, even my 21mm skopar, is sharper in the corners than my professional photog brother's Canon "L" series lenses. Nope, for me CV is the way to go, leaving me more money for more lenses or accessories.
 
vrgard said:
Nice shot, Joe. And just when I was thinking that mine was becoming redundant and therefore, perhaps, should be sold... ;)

-Randy
Click to expand...

Thanks Randy, and Scho and cme4brain.

Hmmmm . . . the 90 eh? hehe I still don't have a 50 or a 35 or a 25 or a 12!
 
my first brand new 35 lux asph leica lens: the red dot fell off within a day. got replaced
my 90asph apo summicron (also bought new): focussing has remained too stiff even after two years of use.
both bought from excellent dealer.
in contrast, my 15 heliar and 50nokt cv lenses have been mechanically a dream, albeit v slightly less heavy/expensive-feeling than leica.
so, my experience has been that leica, ironically, despite the cost, has delivered mechanically less satisfying examples (at least on the criteria i mentioned).
i since sold the lux: kept flaring in night shots. nokton is superb. 90apo summicron great...but not so superlative close up (which is how i want to use it) compared to other lenses i use at that focal length(ish).
my 15 heliar is very good optically, especialy for such an extreme lens. wonderful lens. and a bargain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom