CV 35/2.5 Classic or Pancake II

[Open Range]

Hello, I am thinking about adding a CV 35/2.5 Classic or the newer CV 35/2.5 Pancake II to the ever growing pile of RF equipment. I'll use it on my self-restored M 2 and maybe a new Bessa R2a when they become available. I'll use it for travel photography, a little photojournalist work and general use. I shoot mostly Tri-X. I would appreciate advice from any member having experience with either of these lenses. Thanks in advance, this is my first post. Andy 😉

 

[Kris]

Another new member. Where are they coming from?

Welcome to RFF Andy.

Peter is probably the most appropriate person to ask regarding the difference between those two lenses since he owns every single CV 35mm lens except Nokton 35/1.2.

I have Pancake II and it's a good lens overall. Compact, enough sharpness for my need although Nokton 50/1.5 probably wins by a whisker, okay bokeh but I've seen better (subject to personal preference), vignetting is quite heavy wide open, still visible at f/2.8 and almost undetectable at f/4 even if you shoot a blank wall.

Built quality is pretty good although my sample had one of its retaining ring came loose but it could be fixed easily) and focusing ring is a bit stiff.

I wish it was a bit faster though after having to shoot ISO3200 at 1/8 - 1/15 two weeks ago.

This folder has photos taken by Pancake II. Also this one and this one were taken with Pancake II.

 

[Huck Finn]

Welcome to the conversation, Andy. 🙂

I do not have either of these lenses nor have I used them. So, I will leave it to others to comment about performance. However, I will note that it is interesting to compare the two lens designs on the Voigtlander website at www.cosina.co.jp. Stephen Gandy at Cameraquest says that the P II has a new optical formula in order to make it more compact, but the differences between the two designs are hardly discernible when looking at the drawings.

I think that the key point in the redesign was to make it more compact because criticism of the original Pancake was that it wasn't amy more compact than the Classic. Even with the redesign, however, is it really more compact? It's not as long as the Classic, but it is wider & heavier. It also uses a bigger hood & once the hood is mounted, the advantage of shorter length is lost as well - unless you opt for the supplemental lens shade for the Classic. In the latter case, it would be worth knowing how important this is vs the smaller hood that accompanies the lens & under what conditions. Confusing, huh?

The Classic would appear to be the cheaper option @ $229. However, if you add the $55 cost of the Voigtlander M-mount adapter, there's not much difference now that the price of the P II has been reduced to $299. You can save a few dollars by substituting the generic M-mount adapter from Stepehn Gandy for $33 - and then there's the question of whether you need to add a $45 lens shade for either or both.

The Classic has received excellent reviews & user reports, so the key difference may be in build quality. Like most of the later Voigtlander lenses, the P II seems to be the better of the two in this regard. Good luck with your choice.

Cheers . . .

 

[Peter]

Hello Andy and welcome to the RFF. IMHO, you should get the PII for its construction over the Color Skopar C. Attach the optional LH-4 lens hood made it look like a Leica lens! Optically both lenses are very similar with the PII being more contrasty. If you could you should get an Ultron 35mm/1.7 for its large aperture and not to mention almost Leica optical quality.

 

[peter_n]

Andy welcome to the forum! Would you use the lens a lot at large apertures? The vignetting that Kris mentions on the PII is widely reported so it is a "feature" of the lens. I have the (discontinued) original pancake version of the CV 35/2.5. The build quality of that lens is excellent (brass barrel & rings) but the closest focus distance is 0.9M (the Classic & PII focus at 0.7M). This version of the lens has a knurled focusing ring (no tabs).

Huck makes a good point about the closeness in price of these two lenses. If you are sticking with an M only mount box I would recommend the PII, but the LTM Classic gives you a very versatile alternative, and you can get highest quality 35/135 adapters from Merkle Camera for $30. Both are excellent lenses. The LTM Classic/Pancake I are optically identical and the attached pic below is an example from my lens.

 

[Cloudy]

Hi!
Mine is a silver CV 35/2.5 Classic due to its smaller size and classic looking. 🙂

 

[wblanchard]

Andy welcome to the forum! Would you use the lens a lot at large apertures? The vignetting that Kris mentions on the PII is widely reported so it is a "feature" of the lens. I have the (discontinued) original pancake version of the CV 35/2.5. The build quality of that lens is excellent (brass barrel & rings) but the closest focus distance is 0.9M (the Classic & PII focus at 0.7M). This version of the lens has a knurled focusing ring (no tabs).

Huck makes a good point about the closeness in price of these two lenses. If you are sticking with an M only mount box I would recommend the PII, but the LTM Classic gives you a very versatile alternative, and you can get highest quality 35/135 adapters from Merkle Camera for $30. Both are excellent lenses. The LTM Classic/Pancake I are optically identical and the attached pic below is an example from my lens.

What film did you use? I love the lens...its so sharp!

 

[chug]

I recently got a Bassa R and it came with the 35mm/f2.5 C type lense. Not got any pictures dev'ed yet, but it seems alright to me so far 🙂 As its a new lense, the movement is still a little stiff, but I am sure it will work its self out soon enough.

 

[peter_n]

What film did you use? I love the lens...its so sharp!

From the description text in my gallery:

Camera: Leica M6TTL
Lens: CV 35mm/f2.5 Pancake 1
Film: Neopan 400 (rated at 400, XTOL)
Exposure: f5.6 @ 1/250s

The neg was scanned using a Minolta Scan Dual IV at 3200dpi, multi-sample set at 8x, no post-processing.