Best 35/50 CV lenses stopped down

[chris00nj]

There are several 35mm and 50mm lenses produced by Cosina in the Voigtlander line. We've certainly debated the performance wide open, but which is the sharpest respective lens stopped down, perhaps at f/8 or f/11?

50/1.5 Nokton
50/2 Heliar
50/2.5 Skopar

35/1.2 Nokton
35/1.4 Nokton
35/1.7 Ultron
35/2.5 Skopar
35/2.5 Pancake


If you are travelling and will likely be taking mostly outdoor shots, a smaller lens is likely be perferred for the size & weight. But are you sacrificing performance... even a little?

 

[Tom A]

Most, if not all of these lenses will perform well stopped down. You most likely not be able to tell them apart once they hit f5.6 and more.
If you can live with the initial slow aperture - the overall sharpest of the VC offerings is the 50f3.5 Heliar! A bit difficult to find as it only came in LTM mount with the T101 kit.
I like the 50f2.5 too. Very sharp and though a bit contrasty for some - I like how it "draws".
The 35f2.5 II is a small gem of a lens. As good as any of the pre-Asph Summicron 35's.
If you, as you say, is traveling and intend to shoot outdoors - and not carry a heavy bag, these two lenses will probably do you very well.

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

No argument... 50/3.5 Heliar. This lens is in a whole different league than any other lens I have ever used except for maybe the Zeiss 45/2 for the Contax G-series.

The CV 50/2.5 is a great little lens and the Nokton 50/1.5 is nice as well. But when the light is good... I always reach for the Heliar.

 

[chris00nj]

No argument... 50/3.5 Heliar. This lens is in a whole different league than any other lens I have ever used except for maybe the Zeiss 45/2 for the Contax G-series.

The CV 50/2.5 is a great little lens and the Nokton 50/1.5 is nice as well. But when the light is good... I always reach for the Heliar.

I really would love the Heliar and I've heard great things about it, but I purposely left that lens off the list because it's so hard to find.

 

[BillBingham2]

Good things come with work. Give it a shot, take your time, it will come.

B2 (;->

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

I actually started a Flicker group around the Heliar 50/3.5 - Voigtländer Heliar 50mm f3.5

One day I will actually get a chance to scan some negatives to post to the group. At moment Tom A. is the biggest contributor.

I can say that the 50/2.5 is one of the most flare resistant lenses I have ever used, but can be a bit contrasty and 'bitey'. But it is also a real sleeper, tiny, sharp, lightweight, and very user-friendly, sort of a 'Cinderella' lens. The 50/2.5 is actually smaller than the 50/3.5 collapsed. I would tend to say it is equal to the Nokton 50/1.5 at smaller apertures, although I have never tested the pair. Just going by my experience with both lenses.

 

[photophorous]

I have the 50/2 Heliar. I couldn't say how it compares to the others in terms of sharpness, but I'd assume as Tom says. They're all so sharp by f/5.6 that it doesn't matter. However, one thing I can say that is very good about the Heliar, is flare resistance. It performs very well in that regard, presumably because it only has 5 elements. Contrast is high, but not too high, IMO. I love my Heliar.

I used to own the 35/3.5 PII lens and it was fantastic. No sacrifice there, except for the speed....which was fast enough for me. I only sold it because I decided I didn't like the focal length...yeah, I'm weird.

Paul

 

[nome_alice]

i have the 50/1.5 nokton, 35/1.7 ultron, and 35/1.2 nokton and i've found what Tom said to be the case. they're all sharp as each other past f5.6.

the slower lenses might have a slight advantage at f4, but probably not by much.

one other thing, the slower lenses may show less barrel distortion than the faster lenses. just guessing though. don't know from experience.

 

[Tom A]

The slower lenses are a bit less complex to design. Less compromises needed. Correcting barrel distorsion and other optical "aberrations" is far less complicated.
A lens like the 35f1.2 was only a pipe dream some years ago. Glass technology, grinding etc was not sophisticated enough to handle the complexity ( at a price that was palatable). It is only in the last decade some of this has been possible. Many of the "early" fast lenses (Nikon 50/ 1.1, Zunow 50f1.1, Canon 50/f1.2 etc - including the Noctilux 50f1.0) all show imperfect corrections, but as there was nothing to compare too - we accepted it as it was the best available and lived with and in some cases "cherished" the imperfections.
I have just spent 4 days shooting with what is most likely the "apex" of optical design today, the Summilux 21f1.4 Asph. Cutting edge technology and performance ( and a price to match $6000+) - but Leica built it!
There are about 20 shots on our flickr site from this lens, 85% of which were shot a f1.4. No, I cant justify it (but be sure that I am trying) but it is great to see something like that (and use it - however fleetingly.

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

Thinking about the CV 50mm lenses that I have and their performance past f5.6, where as Tom A. says they should be indistinguishable from each other...

I don't have the Heliar 50/2, but I have the other 2 lenses on the list... Nokton 50/1.5 and Color-Skopar 50/2.5... I would agree that past f5.6 I cannot tell the which lens shot which negative. But that does not hold true for the Heliar 50/3.5... the negatives actually look different, can't quite explain it, except that the level of micro-detail immediately arrests my attention. As I said, the only other lens that I can compare it to is the Zeiss 45/2 for the Contax G-series.

As for the CV 35mm lenses... I have and use the Nokton 35/1.2 and the Color Skopar 35/2.5 C.... The Nokton is the most recent addition, but I have not used it enough at smaller apertures to really detect a difference between the two lenses. Oddly, I seldom use the Nokton at apertures smaller than f2.8, since when I know there is going to be plenty of light, I use the 35/2.5. But recently I have taken to using the Nokton as my all-purpose 35mm lens, so I guess time will tell if there is a marked difference between the 2 lenses at smaller apertures. I suspect that flare and distortion are better controlled in the 35/2.5 and those will be the distinguishing characteristics.

 

[oscroft]

For traveling, I use the 50/2.5 and 35/2.5, and they're both as sharp as any other lenses I've used (though from that list, the 35/1.4 is the only other one I have).

Also the 35/2.5 Skopar and 35/2.5 pancake are, I think, optically identical.

 

[Tom A]

I don't have the Heliar 50/2, but I have the other 2 lenses on the list... Nokton 50/1.5 and Color-Skopar 50/2.5... I would agree that past f5.6 I cannot tell the which lens shot which negative. But that does not hold true for the Heliar 50/3.5... the negatives actually look different, can't quite explain it, except that the level of micro-detail immediately arrests my attention. As I said, the only other lens that I can compare it to is the Zeiss 45/2 for the Contax G-series.

The Heliar 50f3.5 has a "roundness" to its image. It almost looks 3D in some instances. With a slow film (EFKE 25/Acros 100 etc) it is a killer. I have the 50mm Summilux Asph and it is a toss up which of these two lenses is best. The 50f1.4 Asph is marginally better at close-up with its floating rear element, but it lacks that "depth" that the Heliar has.