How come Voigtlander has neglected everything above 50?

S

squirrel$$$bandit

Veteran
Local time
9:31 AM
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
6,249
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?
 
This is often attributed to Mr Kobayashi's preference for wide-angle photography. The short finder base length of the Bessa cameras can also make focusing longer-faster lenses difficult. I wonder how much of a market there would be for longer lenses. Whenever I see somebody with a rangefinder (which isn't that often), they're always using 50mm or shorter. I've shot some music events with 85mm and 135mm lenses, but I have to admit I prefer a SLR for that sort of thing. Eek!
 
It'd be great to see them come out with a fast 85mm or similar though. I think if they dropped an 85mm f1.8 on the market it would be received with some enthusiasm.
 
Interesting. Was just reading a film photo book on nature photography (Boyd, Norton), and this is the second or third reference I've found to someone thinking that ~100mm on 35mm is about what our "normal" vision is.

I'm starting to think it's now between 46mm and 99mm. Change over time is due to increased use of artificial lighting and increased myopia.
 
probably also because with the crop factor on the RD-1 and the M8 as well as on all the new micro 4/3rds bodies there's a much bigger market for wide angles as apposed to 50mm and higher lenses.

And really... what is there left to do past 50mm, there's already two great lenses in the line up. And there's also a lot of affordable competition at those focal lengths... Leica, Konica and Minolta all have really nice, really sharp affordable 90's where as all the wider lenses Cosina has produced are competing with lenses that cost three to ten times as much from Leica or Zeiss (look at the price of the the Zeiss 15mm)... much easier to get people to buy a lens when it costs them that much to go elsewhere. And Cosina's bodies don't have the base length (baring the Bessa T) to focus a 135mm... so they'll never make one of those.
 
brachal said:
This is often attributed to Mr Kobayashi's preference for wide-angle photography. The short finder base length of the Bessa cameras can also make focusing longer-faster lenses difficult. I wonder how much of a market there would be for longer lenses. Whenever I see somebody with a rangefinder (which isn't that often), they're always using 50mm or shorter. I've shot some music events with 85mm and 135mm lenses, but I have to admit I prefer a SLR for that sort of thing. Eek!
Click to expand...

I don't know if its a case of President K.'s preference being for wide angle photography. I've heard that he enjoys photography with a variety of equipment included SLR, MF, and TLR.

I think its more of a marketing decision, as Kobayashi-san is well aware that rangefinder lenses excel on the wide side rather than the long side. I've read several articles in Japanese photography magazines quoting him as saying such.
 
maggieo said:
There is the CV 90/3.5 APO Lanthar LTM.
Click to expand...


I had one of those which never got used so switched to the 75mm f2.5 which I didn't seem to use either ... so I sold it!

I like my early Summicron with the tripod mount but it is a big lens and not some thing I enjoy carrying around. An M mount version of my 85mm f2 Zuiko would be perfect if such a thing existed!
 
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 think (and as was stated earlier) that many RF shooters dont like to use longer lenses on RF cameras, plus for those that do - market is already full of superb long lenses from Nikon, Canon, Konica/Hexanon and of course Leica - why bother? Latest Cosina/Zeiss 85/4 didnt receive much votes it seems. Maybe if it was f2 or f2.8 it would do better?
 
Well, I have just one lens over 50mm (Konica M-Hex 90), and while I'm glad to have that piece o' glass in my bag, and it does get some use, it's the 28 and 50 (and, since it's here, the early 35 f/2 Summicron) that get the lion's share of camera-time.

And, for me, it's not just an "RF thing": I took a better-than-rough estimate at the tail-end of my SLR-shooting days, and noted that the longest focal length I used with any regularity was 135mm, even though, at various times, I had access to relatively fast and good glass out to 300mm. I never cottoned to the Voyeur Vibe of fairly-long glass, not to mention the relatively unwieldy combination of such glass with the typical motor-driven SLR du jour. To heavily paraphrase a much better (and better-known) photographer than I, if it ain't happening at 90mm, it just ain't happening.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
Surely the whole point of RFF photography is small, light, portable, pocketable etc. Sticking a great lump of glass on the front of a rangefinder seems to defeat the purpose, notwithstanding the fact that teles are much harder to focus. I have the CV75 and the Hex90 but rarely use them preferring my Nikons at these focal lengths. And like Barrett at times I owned Nikon mount teles up to 600mm but virtually never used anything past my 135. bring on the wides.
 
he just hasn't gotten to remounting the 75mm and 90mm.

telephotos aren't that popular on rangefinders to begin with. make those telephotos slow and they become even less popular, being more suitable for landscapes rather than portraits. not many people do landscapes with 35mm rangefinders.

instead of increasing the bessa's rangefinder baselength, they could increase the viewfinder magnification. anybody keen on a 1.5x rangefinder?
 
With 50's I think there are already so many of them out there it's difficult to come out with something that will sell well (talking about numbers). The Nokton 50 gave good speed and had something to offer from the many f/2's out there. The 50/2.5 was really interesting but it sold out before I had the chance to try it, it's small size really impresses me.

With 90's there are a lot out there already that have either price or speed on their side. Again I'd like to try the 90/3.5 but I've got my sights on other 90's at the moment and there are plenty to choose from.

CV seems to do well the wider they go because we just see less and less variety the lower the focal length number goes. 50-lots, 35-some good price wise choices, 28-fast lenses starting to look good, 25-not a whole lot of lenses there, 21-super angulon? kobalux?, 15-sounds really expensive until CV works their magic, 12-that's just crazy but we have it
 
alan davus said:
Surely the whole point of RFF photography is small, light, portable, pocketable etc. Sticking a great lump of glass on the front of a rangefinder seems to defeat the purpose, ............
Click to expand...
I agree in your definition of the principles for RF Photography, but I must admit that some of the shorter lenses aren't necessarily small and light. Both the 28/f1.9 and the 35/f1.2 are bigger than my 90/f2.8

Using the shorter lenses is however a pleasent affair, easy to frame and focus. However the 90 is a bit of a pain to use, focus wide open is nigh on impossible and framing is nearly just as difficult. But it does get used, as it does things that wides cannot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom