How come Voigtlander has neglected everything above 50?

[binky]

As I understood it, aren't teles really where SLRs shine, while wides are for RFs?

 

[Cron]

a 75 lens is nice to use even with the crop-M8, but I also like to shoot with my googled Elmarit 2,8/135 on my M8 and these became cheap to find for a late Leica lens!
I think VC will also offer tele lenses with M-mount in future but they began with wide lenses because these are much more sold

 

[Roger Hicks]

A lot of it is second-hand wisdom. Many say that lenses above 50 are of little or no use, and those who listen to them are afraid of spending money on a lens they might not like. Then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: there are plenty of used 75, 90 and 135 lenses on the market, plus new lenses from Leica, Zeiss and Voigtländer.

Personally I use 75, 90 and 135, though the 90 gets a lot less use now I have the 75. A really great outfit is 18-35-75-135 but plenty of people prefer to carry two separate systems instead.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Keith]

As I understood it, aren't teles really where SLRs shine, while wides are for RFs?

To a point ... in poor light I know my M3 with 90mm f2 Summicron is going to be a lot sharper that my OM-1 with 85mm f2 Zuiko. The only way to get sharp results from the SLR in these conditions is with a tripod!

Fast tellies on a rangefinder definitely have their advantages!

 

[Austerby]

I do think "neglected" is a little harsh as they've provided two splendid lenses, the equal of older Leitz lenses if not superior, for not much more than the cost of a well used one.

That I suspect though is one of the reasons for there being only two longer CV lenses, as the alternatives are plentiful and similarly priced. If the older lenses became scarcer, or rose to the price of the older wider lenses, then we may see more products in this sector.

I used to have the 75/2 which is a tremendous lens and I miss that focal length on my R3A. I'm seriously considering picking up the CV 75mm shortly.

I agree with Roger on the value of longer lenses on rangefinders - my standard set is 15-28-50-90-135 and the two longer lenses get plenty of use. They're both old Leitz lenses, picked up for a song, and they provide splending results as well as being fast and compact.

 

[former member]

He makes lenses to go with his cameras. The Bessa's have short EFL, and the 90/3.5 and 75/2.5 are at its limits. No need to make those in M-Mount. The advantage of M-Mount is the larger diameter of the throat, which is not required for a telephoto lens. You need it for fitting big lens butts of the fast-wideangle lenses into the camera.

 

[Ronald M]

they offer a 90 3.5 that is very good

 

[jsrockit]

Wait, someone makes lenses longer than 50mm?

 

[kshapero]

It just occurred to me that CV hasn't made a single M lens over 50, and nothing faster than the 75mm Heliar. Why haven't we seen competitors for the Elmarit, Tele-Elmarit, and Summicron?

I agree but they do have a LTM 90mm.

 

[Roberto]

Because using long lenses on a RF camera is a PITA for many if not most folks. Frame lines are small, etc. I'd guess that 75% of RF owners do not use over 50mm. How many here have tried a 90mm and sold it?

I bought the CV 90/f3.5 and used only once, bought the CV 75/f2.5 and untill now I used it twice...
For sure the 90 is too much for me on an RF, but I feel that the 75 may have a chance also for street.
Rob.

 

[Sparrow]

I thought the whole point of a 90mm lens is to act as ballast, it’s there in the bottom of the bag “in case I need it” but in practice it simply makes the bag more difficult to carry, then twice a year I pull it out, blinking into the daylight, to take a frame or two that I don’t print because I never get any practice … isn’t that what we’re supposed to do?

 

[migtex]

Interesting, I normally use 2 RF cameras and one of them always is with at least a 85/2 (nikkor) or 105/2.5 (nikkor too).. the 135's don't see much use I concede.

 

[rbsinto]

I've got Nikkor 85, 105 and 135 rangefinder lenses, and while I use the 85 and the 135 only infrequently, I shoot a lot with the 105, especially candid portraits.
I'd say that after my 35, the 105 is the lens I use most, followed by the 21, 85 and 135 respectively.

 

[migtex]

I've got Nikkor 85, 105 and 135 rangefinder lenses, and while I use the 85 and the 135 only infrequently, I shoot a lot with the 105, especially candid portraits.
I'd say that after my 35, the 105 is the lens I use most, followed by the 21, 85 and 135 respectively.

Same here the set pair normally is 21/85 or 35/105 with a 50/1.4 on a pocket... one color, one B&W.

 

[ferider]

The Bessa's EBL is kind of short for fast Teles.

That being said, the R3* and 75mm are a match in heaven. And the 35/2.5 and 75/2.5 match up nicely.

Roland.

 

[Ronald_H]

It is always nice to have a good portrait lens in your bag. I have a really ugly (and cheap) 90mm f4 Elmar, but a modern f2-ish 90mm CV lens for Leica I would buy in a heartbeat.

 

[VinceC]

The biggest advantage of long-ish telephotos with an RF system is that you don't need to carry around two systems to handle the telephotos. Thus, a 135mm lens gives you quite a bit of reach and flexibility, and it weighs a lot less than carrying a separate SLR.

Years ago Leica made the decision to reduce viewfinder magnification to accomodate wide angle lenses. This made telephotos really difficult to use on the Leica system.

Nikon RFs and the Canon P used a 1:1 finder that makes telephotos much easier to use/far more accurate to focus. Shootig a 105 or 135 through a Nikon/Canon P is like shooting a 90 through a Leica.

The modern solution would be a camera with a switchable viewfinder magnification so that you could dial in the telephoto setting with 1.5 magnification or so, then have room to accurately focus/frame a fast telephoto. For example, then you could RF couple the existing 125/2.5 Lanthar and offer something unique on the market. But it's a longshot (bad pun, I just realized). For the most part, RFers are just not used to telephotos.

 

[Sparrow]

The Bessa's EBL is kind of short for fast Teles.

That being said, the R3* and 75mm are a match in heaven. And the 35/2.5 and 75/2.5 match up nicely.

Roland.

Yep, I'll drink to that 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

The biggest advantage of long-ish telephotos with an RF system is that you don't need to carry around two systems to handle the telephotos. Thus, a 135mm lens gives you quite a bit of reach and flexibility, and it weighs a lot less than carrying a separate SLR.

Years ago Leica made the decision to reduce viewfinder magnification to accomodate wide angle lenses. This made telephotos really difficult to use on the Leica system.

Nikon RFs and the Canon P used a 1:1 finder that makes telephotos much easier to use/far more accurate to focus. Shootig a 105 or 135 through a Nikon/Canon P is like shooting a 90 through a Leica.

The modern solution would be a camera with a switchable viewfinder magnification so that you could dial in the telephoto setting with 1.5 magnification or so, then have room to accurately focus/frame a fast telephoto. For example, then you could RF couple the existing 125/2.5 Lanthar and offer something unique on the market. But it's a longshot (bad pun, I just realized). For the most part, RFers are just not used to telephotos.

Or the 135/2.8, which is the only RF 135 I've ever been really happy with, except a Kiev or Zorkii with a turret finder.

Cheers,

R.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Yes, of course I know about the 90/3.5 and 75/2.5, but they're LTM (fine by me, but Mr. K has been updating all other focal lengths) and a bit poky. It would be interesting to see a 90/2 and a 75 faster than 2.

I think brian's got it--the current long lenses are at the limit of the Bessa RF.