75/2.5 Colour Heliar impressions

S

steve kessel

steve kessel
Local time
8:30 PM
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
346
I'm thinking of buying one of these lenses? How do existing owners use it (portraits, reportage, etc?) and how do you rate it?

Thanks

Steve
 
I had this lens, I loved this lens. Good performer wide open, sharp, nice colors, small and light. Needs using of shade and nearest focussing distance is only 1 meter. Had to go for a 2/90.

take a look at my flickr photos - there are 2 pictures taken with this lens (man with orange, girls with ice-cream)
 
Last edited:
Here is a sample from my CV 75 PHOTO


I like mine but just bought a 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit and have to pay my cc back so I will probably be putting it up for sale soon.
 
Very nice lens, good ergonomics. On an M8 it is 100mm, which is a nice short telephoto length. An example from a few months ago:

U1632I1193080005.SEQ.0.jpg


Shot wide open, focused on the bottle on the middle table in the foreground.

Cheers,
Kirk
 
My wife gave me a 75 and 35 PII for my birthday a couple of months ago. I was looking for a pair of lenses to keep on my R2 and keep in the car and use on vacation. I also have a 75 summilux that I've used extensively in my documentary work. I recently took the CV 75 on location to a place where I've shot about a hundred rolls of B&W over the past year with much of it being with my Summilux 75. It's an appalachian serpent handling church that has some of the worst lighting I've ever seen. The lighting consists of 8 bare 100w light bulbs in the ceiling in a room 30x40 feet. There's almost no way to make a shot without a bulb in the frame. The light levels are low and the light is harsh and spotty. I shot neopan 400 as I normally do and after processing I couldn't tell any real difference in the Summilux and CV 75's. The lenses are so close in performance I could'nt believe it. All of the CV shots were made at 2.5-2.8 and there was no sign of flare and the rendering was on par with the Summilux. Mechanically it's smooth as silm and very well finished.

The answer to your question is it's a fantastic lens that's very sharp even at 2.5 with excellent contrast and extremely well controlled flare. If I didn't need the 1.4 of the Summilux and could live with 2.5 there's no question I would carry the CV all the time.
 
great lens, works well close up and wide open, I guess I wish it would focus a little closer though. For the money you probably cannot do any better.

all wide open:
morgan_tri-x_800.jpg


stoic_ty.jpg


Todd
 
It's a very sharp lens, I like it because it is not a large as the 90 and is well balanced on the Canon 7s or the smaller M2. Very happy with it and the 35CV f1.7.
 
I believe Sean Reid tested the VC 75 against the Summicron 75 and the VC lens held its own. The Summicron is slightly sharper in the center and slightly more resistant to CA; the VC is sharper in the corners. Pretty close, until you get to price. One lens costs $2,700, the other $300. I think he also said that Voigtlander should charge more for their lenses so they'd be taken more seriously. :D
 
Interesting that the posted pics are mostly of much higher quality than most of the illustrations people put up to defend their choice of glass. Is this because it's a 'magic' lens (my wife's view) or because it's a 'magic' focal length (I prefer my Summicron)?

Cheers,

R.
 
You know its good if it gets compared to the Leica. I had a nice copy but sold it to fund a 90mm Elmarit-M (latest) in chrome.

Nice thing about the VC and TE is that you can throw it in pocket and travel light.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Interesting that the posted pics are mostly of much higher quality than most of the illustrations people put up to defend their choice of glass. Is this because it's a 'magic' lens (my wife's view) or because it's a 'magic' focal length (I prefer my Summicron)?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Good Question. Before RF's I shot mainly with Nikons and mostly 85mm for portraits, I'm sure that familiarity with a focal length comes into play. Is it a magic lens? I'm not sure, but when compared to the price of the 75 'cron it's as magical as my budget will allow ;).

Todd
 
magic? not more magical than other fine RF-lenses;
but small and well worth its money, if you do not need a faster lens or better minimum distance
 
Heartfelt thanks to all who've responded. Amazing to view so many fine examples. I'm looking for something for portraits where the subject fills more frame than my 50/2 CV Heliar. Faster and closer than the 75 Heliar would be better but a lot more money it seems.
 
Steve the summicron is roughly a half stop faster and in real world terms it's a flip of the coin as to which is best. Too many factors come into play as to whether one can extract the full performance of any lens. Under real shooting conditions I would say none of us get the full bang from any of our modern lenses. Not many of us shoot under ideal conditions with a tripod and totally static subjects. Also you have to ask yourself just how good a photographer am I and would I ever see the difference in two closely matched lenses. IMO if there is a real difference then is it an obvious difference and how large would I have to enlarge the neg to see the difference.

IMO when I don't need the speed I feel the CV is interchangable with my summilux in performance.
 
I agree w/ x-ray. I don't worry about a lens like this being "too sharp" bcs I will likely be shooting non-static subjects like people hand held at 1/125 or 1/60th near wide open.... Personally, this is as long a lens as I can work with comfortably on an RF. The 90mm frame is too small for my old eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom