sockeyed
Well-known
Looking over Cosina Voigtlander's lens offerings, the don't make one f/2 lens. They make 1.7's, 1.9's, 2.5's, and more, but not one f/2.
Do they have some aversion to this aperture?
I would love them to make a small and brilliant 35/2 or 50/2, sharp with smooth bokeh. I'm sure they could do it with little expenditure of mental calories.
Why not?
Do they have some aversion to this aperture?
I would love them to make a small and brilliant 35/2 or 50/2, sharp with smooth bokeh. I'm sure they could do it with little expenditure of mental calories.
Why not?
dkapp
Established
I would love a 50/2. I've been thinking about the Zeiss Ikon 50/2, but I just can't get myself to pay that much for a 50mm at this point in my life. $400-$500 range would be nice 
Dave
Dave
Fred
Feline Great
Odd really, a very good freind of mine recconed that he could get away with just 35 and 90 crons. After the first trip out shooting he got a 50. My 35 tends to be the 'resident' lens but the 50 pops in much more than initially thought. The ratio is about two thirds to the 35 if I'm not using a different lens (CV 15, 28 or 90)
I'd not leave home without a 50. I'd be interested in seeing some constructive criticism of the ZI 50 Sonnar, there was somthing on the forum somewhere....
I'd not leave home without a 50. I'd be interested in seeing some constructive criticism of the ZI 50 Sonnar, there was somthing on the forum somewhere....
aizan
Veteran
well, they just throw in a little extra. 2.8? nah, make it 2.5. if they ever make a 50/2, it'll be 1.8! they've already got the 35/1.7, so i don't think they'd make a clean 35/2.
Silva Lining
CanoHasseLeica
The old voigtlander made plenty of 50mm f/2 ultrons !! Maybe Cosina Voigtlander don't believe in history repeating itself!
Canon did not make a 50mm F2, they just HAD to beat out Nikon and Leica and do an F1.9 and then an F1.8 for their entry price lenses. With a Fast F1.5, making an F2 that is less than one F-Stop away may have detracted from Nokton sales.
It is all relative too. I believe that the actual max aperture of all CV lenses have tested out to be slightly smaller than stated.
It would be nice to see a 50 Ultron, but perhaps if it can't be a small as the Skopar or as good or better than the Nokton, why bother? Logic would say it would have to be priced less than the excellent Nokton, but there is not much room in the pricing tiers for another 50.
It would be nice to see a 50 Ultron, but perhaps if it can't be a small as the Skopar or as good or better than the Nokton, why bother? Logic would say it would have to be priced less than the excellent Nokton, but there is not much room in the pricing tiers for another 50.
blakley
blakley
My understanding is that Mr. Kobayashi does not want to duplicate exactly the specs. of existing Leica lenses - hence the lack of f/2 lenses since those already exist in the Leica line.
taffer
void
Indeed they DO market an f/2
The 40/2 Ultron they offer on various SLR mounts, if you push me, you can always use it scale focused on your RF via adapter
The 40/2 Ultron they offer on various SLR mounts, if you push me, you can always use it scale focused on your RF via adapter
ronnie_retro
Established
dkapp said:I would love a 50/2. I've been thinking about the Zeiss Ikon 50/2, but I just can't get myself to pay that much for a 50mm at this point in my life. $400-$500 range would be nice
Dave
FYI, if you can stretch that budget just a bit Camerquest has the Zeuss 50/2 for $600
dkapp
Established
ronnie_retro said:FYI, if you can stretch that budget just a bit Camerquest has the Zeuss 50/2 for $600
If I set my own budget, that lens would already be in my bag
Dave
hoot
green behind the ears
I got a screwmount Summicron 50/2 collapsible for 180 Euros off the bay. Why pay over $400 for a good V/C lens when you can get Leica glass for less?
And, yes, then there's the lovely Jupiter-8, as Manolo reminds us. Just whip on a coated filter and a lens shade, and you're ready to go.
And, yes, then there's the lovely Jupiter-8, as Manolo reminds us. Just whip on a coated filter and a lens shade, and you're ready to go.
peter_n
Veteran
I think blakley has it - product differentiation. CV works around the Leica specs to provide alternatives...
pvdhaar
Peter
No, after carefull mathematical analysis, I've deduced that the numbers are there for numerologic reasons, and have been carefully selected by Cosina. Consider these:
28/1.9 a rational number whose digits repeat at the 19th decimal (19 being prime!)
35/1.7 a rational number whose digits repeat at the 17th decimal (17's prime again!)
90/3.5 a rational number whose digits repeat at the 7th decimal (yep, 7 is prime..)
all the way downto
50/1.5 another rational, with digits repeating at the 2nd decimal (2 is the smallest prime..)
Even I myself am sometimes puzzled by how I come up with this stuff..
28/1.9 a rational number whose digits repeat at the 19th decimal (19 being prime!)
35/1.7 a rational number whose digits repeat at the 17th decimal (17's prime again!)
90/3.5 a rational number whose digits repeat at the 7th decimal (yep, 7 is prime..)
all the way downto
50/1.5 another rational, with digits repeating at the 2nd decimal (2 is the smallest prime..)
Even I myself am sometimes puzzled by how I come up with this stuff..
R
Richard Black
Guest
Peter, I, too, ponder how you come up with that stuff. Not enough time with a camera in your hand, it sounds like to me. Just kidding! I don't think I could figure that out if I had too, then again why would I want to. Is there a "holy f2" I missed out on. I can't see the advantage of that specific apeture when 1.5 is faster and 2.5 is smaller. Between those two neither would work? I love the oof area of the 28mm Color Skopar and I image the same for the 50. I have an excellent Jupiter 8 so I am not lusting after the 50...just joking again.
sockeyed
Well-known
You are all brilliant.
BrianPhotog
Well-known
Sharpness?hoot said:
kshapero
South Florida Man
Profhetic. What will CV do next?
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Don't they have the collapsible 50/2 Heliar?
edit..
Cripes - I just looked at the dates from this original post. Nevermind.
edit..
Cripes - I just looked at the dates from this original post. Nevermind.
antiquark
Derek Ross
I've read somewhere on the internet that CVs design philosophy is to create a lens using the best possible components, then replace the parts with cheaper versions to bring down the cost. That seems to be a logical engineering process, but the problem would be that the final lens wouldn't meet the original specifications.
What follows is total speculation...
Maybe CV designs lenses with standard apertures (1.0, 1.4, etc) but after the "cheapening phase" the aperture is a little "off". So for the 50/1.5 maybe they initially designed a 50/1.4 which ended up with a 1.5 aperture after development. Maybe the 35/1.2 was initially a 35/1.0, and so on.
That might even explain why their only 1.4 lens is a 40mm... maybe it was initially designed as a 35.
What follows is total speculation...
Maybe CV designs lenses with standard apertures (1.0, 1.4, etc) but after the "cheapening phase" the aperture is a little "off". So for the 50/1.5 maybe they initially designed a 50/1.4 which ended up with a 1.5 aperture after development. Maybe the 35/1.2 was initially a 35/1.0, and so on.
That might even explain why their only 1.4 lens is a 40mm... maybe it was initially designed as a 35.