CV 35mm (1.7 vs 2.5) pictures please

G

geotrupede

Member
Local time
9:18 PM
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
43
I am helping my friend to decide which lens to get.
After long consideration 35mm is the way to go.

The dream kit is a CV 35 1.4, which is just outside of the budget.
(So LEICA is not even mentioned) The camera is an M8.

We found two alternatives within reach:
the CV35mm f2.5 or the CV35 f1.7.

The f 1.7 is preferred but a little bigger.
The question for the forum is specifically:
how is distorsion?
how is out of focus?
have you got any example?
can we compare the two?

I looked on flicker but there is a lot of stuff on G1, but not much on M8.
Please help
Thanks
G
 
35mm 1.7 Ultron all wide open on a M8.2:

5324568036_2b1bcbe588_b.jpg




5274391060_140f212f0a_b.jpg


Both are great lenses really... you cannot go wrong. Of course the "bokeh" on the Ultron is nicer due the faster maximum aperture.
 
Last edited:
Hi - I got all three of them :) Although it's Sunday night and no time to look for pictures, here just my thoughts: no problem if the 35/1.4 is out of reach, it's the weakest of the three, that's why I sold it. Although I use the Summicron as my main lens, I kept both the 35/1.7 and 35/2.5. The 1.7 is a stellar lens, just a little bit soft wide open. The 2.5 I loved more on the M8 (which you have) than on the M9 now. Looks like full frame is more "demanding" to the lenses. But it's unbeatible for size and weight - which becomes more and more important for me. So if low light is your theme go for the 1.7 - if you have the black M8 the silver lens just looks stunning on it :)
Nik
 
Thank you all for the very constructive information!
It is a pleasure to ask for help on this forum :) :)

To me it seems like that the 1.7 is the way to go.
We found a used copy for a good price and would be moving fast to close the deal.

Before that the last question: you mentioned the 1.4 being the weakest of the three. Why? Is it because is not sharp or too distorted?

And last, is there anybody that can post a comparative shot with the 2.5 and 1.7 fully open? I think my friend likes the idea of a compact lens and the 2.5 indeed is very small... If the performance fully open (out of focus bokeh) is similar than it may be a different scenario, given that the 2.5 is also the cheapest of the three....

Thanks

G



PS and I was just forgetting... the picture with the balloons is stunning!
 
Last edited:
The final update... we got the 1.7 and indeed it is not that big, quality is great, value "ultron" :)
So once more thank you all for the precious infos.
It is a great forum :)
G.
 
geotrupede said:
Before that the last question: you mentioned the 1.4 being the weakest of the three. Why? Is it because is not sharp or too distorted?
Click to expand...

To me, it is because it has a distracting bokeh and some barrel distortion. I consider it the weakest, but I'd still use it... it's still a good lens. The 2.5's bokeh is not similar to the 1.7 because a 2.5 will just never be fully out of focus like the 1.7.

PS and I was just forgetting... the picture with the balloons is stunning!
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
here is an example to color skopar's bokeh. It is not too bad...I should admit I am thinking to switch to ultron after hearing those nice words about it.

U25431I1271880393.SEQ.0.jpg
 
The 1.7 is bigger and is uglier looking on the camera IMO, but it is a great lens for the cash. Honestly, if you cannot afford Zeiss or Leica, then the CV stuff is really great for the price you pay. I can't bring myself to buy anything but CV these days.
 
I did a write up of the lens 2.5 with lots of shots on my blog:
http://soundvisionpassion.com/2010/10/review-voigtlander-35mm-color-skopar-leica/

Also a few more shots here:
http://ancientcityphoto.com/blog/2010/10/ny-city-streets-steve-huff-leica-workshop/

I love the 2.5. I would have loved a little more out of focus ability overall, but it is a 2.5 35mm lens. The lens is tiny. If you take the hood off, you can fit an M8 with the 2.5 in most coat pockets. Actually, I can even fit it just fine in my Scott E Vest front pockets! Amazing! Color and sharpness are fantastic. I debated between this and the 1.7 but the 2.5 won because of its closer minimum focus distance.
 
great review and great photos.

You have more examples of bokeh from skopar, the only thing I noticed is that you have vignetting in some shots. I never had vignetting from skopar on film.
 
The Color Skopar's bokeh is outstanding. And yes, good OOF rendering is important at f2.5. Even at f5.6; in particular at closest focus.

Roland.

1082161415_wtbGR-XL.jpg
 
I think it should be added that the 2.5's bokeh is outstanding when focusing at its closest setting i.e. 0.7 meters. Where the 1.7 has a great bokeh even when not using it at its closest focusing distance.
 
If you need good bokeh in your terms, cancel you X100 pre-order :)

Come on, even at f5.6 and medium distances, good OOF rendering is very noticable, also on the color skopar ... Remember the "bokeh king" term of the Summicron and how it was coined ?

Roland.
 
ferider said:
If you need good bokeh in your terms, cancel you X100 pre-order :)

Come on, even at f5.6 and medium distances, good OOF rendering is very noticable, also on the color skopar ... Remember the "bokeh king" term of the Summicron and how it was coined ?

Roland.
Click to expand...

Ok, these things are subjective, so I'll concede. I just meant that 1.7 is easier to blur the background than at 2.5 on a 35mm. Of course, bokeh isn't everything... but sometimes people like that type of info when buying a lens.
 
Bokeh being the quality of the blur, rather than the amount, I think the Color-Skopar can give any lens a run for it's money:

94610019.jpg


Especially considering the amounts of money in question. I sometimes ponder a faster 35mm, but then realize how getting a fast 50mm, or any of the other focal lengths I don't have, is more pressing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom