Do I sell a Rokkor 40mm or Voighlander 40 1.4?

If you have a CL or a CLE, the Rokkor "goes with it". I haven't researched these particular resale values, but "goes with it" can affect value.
 
Since it became widely known how good the 40/2 lens is, sellers have been mostly selling CL/CLE separately from the 40/2 for extra profit.

New owners of CL/CLE cameras will maybe pay extra money to matcg their cameras with the right 40mm lens. In such a case, a "goes with it" adds value.
 
I couldn't resist trying the M-Rokkor after reading Mike Johnston's comments on it ("water lens" and all that). Got my first one several years ago, foolishly sold it, bought another one recently (much more expensive this time). Also had the 40/1.4 for a while. I'd keep the Rokkor.
 
I am a fan of the 40/2.0 M-Rokkor (CLE version), small and excellent performance, "poor man`s 35mm Summicron". :)

EDIT: Thank you, Helen ! (Just saw it)
 
I have never used the Rokkor but do own the VC 40/1.4 Nokton and find the lens to have excellent build quality and the love the photographs that I have produced when using this lens.

Reading through the comments it sounds like you may have a win/win situation where either lens you keep will be a good decsion.
 
sparrow6224 said:
While the Summicron and Rokkor 90mm f/4 lenses were identical and made by Leitz, this is not true of the 40mm. So as far as I know it's not quite right to call it a Summicron. At this stage the CV 40 Nokton is a better lens: it's faster, it has equal or (in many opinions including mine) better IQ to the Rokkor, and as it's much younger, it's far less likely to develop haze or fungus in the next 15 years.
Click to expand...

I wanted to find out more about the 90mm F4 rokkors. Are you positive all of them are made by Leica?
 
I had Summicron-C 40/2 for years and foolishly sold it. After 2 years search I happily bought Rokkor 40/2 multicoated in mint condition. I will never part with this lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom