Leica vs CV glass

[rayfoxlee]

I know that there have been plenty of views expressed on RFF in the past on the pro's and con's of these two makers lenses, but I really would like to refine the opinions down a bit to see what members who own both makers' lenses of the same focal length have found as far as performance relative to cost is concerned.

I have a 50mm DR Summicron, CV 35mm Ultron 1.7, CV 25 Skopar and CV 15mm Heliar. All of these perform extremely well to my 64 year old eyes, but with Ken Rockwell saying don't buy an expensive camera and then use 'cheaper' lenses, I have to ask just how much difference I would see in everyday use. I know that Ken's piece was using the Leica digitals as the basis for his comments, but my M7 is still a pricey camera (to me, at least!). I also note his point that some CV lenses, such as the 15mm Heliar are so good, never mind the low price.

Two useful focal lengths are missing from my kit at the long end -75 & 90mm. There is no way that I can afford ASPH Leica glass, but older Leica lenses vs CV is certainly provoking much thought, but even then the Leica lenses will nearly always be more expensive secondhand than new CV. What really would I gain from the Leica lenses - perhaps members could make some specific recommendations?

I shoot colour and B&W and do not enlarge massively as a matter of course and like images to be very sharp!

Thanks to all who take the trouble to reply.

Ray

 

[40oz]

I find that looking at images made by the lenses being considered helps me decide on a preference.

As far as "cheap lenses on expensive cameras," some people buy expensive lenses and then keep a filter on them all the time. That seems far more silly and defeating than worrying about the cost of the lens relative to the camera.

 

[ferider]

You have 4 great lenses there, no matter which brand.

CV falls a bit short on the long side, in terms of speed. If 2.5 is fast enough for you, the CV 75/2.5 is a stellar lens. If you need f2, the pre-asph Summicron 90/2 v3 is outstanding and can be had for around US 700 these days. 90 and 75 are pretty redundant focal lengths to me. Don't need both if you are short on budget.

Roland.

 

[ashrafazlan]

As far as "cheap lenses on expensive cameras," some people buy expensive lenses and then keep a filter on them all the time. That seems far more silly and defeating than worrying about the cost of the lens relative to the camera.

Some might not have a choice though, especially with the M8's IR problem 🙁

 

[mfogiel]

I think that sharpness on a small enlargement will be great from any modern 75 or 90 RF lens. This is not the point. You might want a Leica lens, because it draws differently - in fact I like the Leica Elmarit 90 v I better than v IV, even if it is less sharp - BTW it will cost you the equivalent of a decent dinner for two... The longer lenses are useful for portraits, and portraits which are sharper are not necesserily the best either.

 

[tbarker13]

You have 4 great lenses there, no matter which brand.

CV falls a bit short on the long side, in terms of speed. If 2.5 is fast enough for you, the CV 75/2.5 is a stellar lens. If you need f2, the pre-asph Summicron 90/2 v3 is outstanding and can be had for around US 700 these days. 90 and 75 are pretty redundant focal lengths to me. Don't need both if you are short on budget.

Roland.

Definitely agree with this.
And I think people (myself included, at times) worry far too much about the brand names on their lenses. I use a mix that includes Leica, Nikkor, Zeiss and even an old Jupiter 3.
Pick a lens that creates nice images and use it. I think it's harder to find a bad lens than it is to find a good one.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I often can't tell which lens I used for a given shot, digital or film, Leica, CV or Zeiss. The 90 Apo-Lanthar is very nice indeed; I also have a 90/2 pre-aspheric second generation and a Thambar, but the Thambar really IS different.

At 75, I've used the Summicron (which I own, and is stunning) and the Summarit and Voigtländer f/2.5s, and there's really not all that much to choose. Sure, the Summicron is better, but the other two are pretty damn' good too.

I choose Leica lenses as much for ergonomics, feel and durability as for pure optical quality. But then, I use my lenses hard and keep them a LONG time: I've a couple of lenses I bought new more than 25 years ago (35 Summilux and 90 Summicron) and I expect the 75 Summicron to be the last 75mm I ever buy, barring (God forbid!) theft or damage.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Fujitsu]

I have to ask just how much difference I would see in everyday use.

I owned a lot of stuff from Leica and CV. Honestly, I didnt see a difference on film and noone could tell from the images either. Except for the Noctilux maybe.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Some of the cheaper lenses will wobble a little sooner than the more expensive lenses but it's a moot point because I can't afford a new $3000 Leica lens. When I compared my 35mm/2.5 Skopar to a "user" 35mm Summicron (ie one that I can afford), the Skopar was tighter and smoother than the old Summicron (which probably needed CLA).

It's also a moot point because for a fraction of the cost of any Leica or CV body/lens you can get better image quality from a $150 Rolleicord or some other larger format camera.

So face up to the fact that we don't buy these things for the ultimate image quality -- we buy them because they are pleasurable to use (and fondle). So get what appeals to you within your budget.

I'd love a 35 Lux ASPH but only because I would appreciate it as being the best 35mm lens ever made -- but there is no practical reason to have it.

My druthers would be vintage Leica glass -- the construction is superior to anything else and the contrast and lens characteristics produce interesting photos. If I want super sharp I can just use a modern digital camera and sharpen in Photoshop.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Some of the cheaper lenses will wobble a little sooner than the more expensive lenses but it's a moot point because I can't afford a new $3000 Leica lens. When I compared my 35mm/2.5 Skopar to a "user" 35mm Summicron (ie one that I can afford), the Skopar was tighter and smoother than the old Summicron (which probably needed CLA).

It's also a moot point because for a fraction of the cost of any Leica or CV body/lens you can get better image quality from a $150 Rolleicord or some other larger format camera.

So face up to the fact that we don't buy these things for the ultimate image quality -- we buy them because they are pleasurable to use (and fondle). So get what appeals to you within your budget.

I'd love a 35 Lux ASPH but only because I would appreciate it as being the best 35mm lens ever made -- but there is no practical reason to have it.

My druthers would be vintage Leica glass -- the construction is superior to anything else and the contrast and lens characteristics produce interesting photos. If I want super sharp I can just use a modern digital camera and sharpen in Photoshop.

Dear Frank,

Well, yes, provided you don't mind a fixed lens, laterally reversed viewfinder, and reloading with 120 film every 12 shots. I wouldn't want to try to earn a living with one, given what I do. I actually did buy the 75 Summicron for ultimate image quality on a practical camera, and the same argument applies to the M9.

Also, you can't add sharpness on detail that isn't there -- and it probably won't be there with a digicam.

Cheers,

R.

 

[hitx1]

Tim Barker wrote (many) "people...worry far too much about the brand names on their lenses.." I'd like to add too many worry about the brand of their camera and whether or not it has a red dot or a script, if their film was developed using their left hand or their right, or what lunar calendar their pre asph summulix blah blah was made under. And this is what separates the amateurs from the pros. Who cares as long as your tool gets the job done. Never in my professional career have I seen a camera make the picture. Sure, autofocus and digital sensors have made it much easier to make a great shot but those aspects don't add anything if you don't have technique, style, or creativity. I've know guys who buy very expensive gear and run around to events and whatnot but can't shoot themselves out of a paper bag. Its these guys who will stand next to me pretending they are not "copying" what I'm shooting. The picture is made by the eye, not the lens or camera. Its adds, but doesn't create it.

As far as lens reviewers and websites, Rockwell goes way off base sometimes but he does make good reviews of lenses based on his own photography. Puts uses charts. I've never had to photograph a chart for a client. I doubt I ever will. But I can tell you...just use your lenses to the best of your ability. Never will you see much of a major difference with a designer lens vs a consumer if you are shooting your kids, a cat, or some odd thing in your backyard. Sure there are many obvious reasons for having better equipment but for the average guy who is printing his images at the lab or scanning his stuff for flickr, almost anything will do.

Besides, the gear you list is top notch. It can stand up to the best of them and frankly speaking, you probably won't see much of a difference if you were to sink $30K into a new set of designer. Maybe if you shoot a chart...just maybe, even then, you'd probably need a pro drum scan and use a $10k monitor to see any major nuances.

Steve Huff has some good reviews
http://www.stevehuffphotos.com

as does this guy who has a cosina site
http://www.cosina-voigtlander.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

enjoy your great lenses. Don't fall to the peer pressure or forums which people claim their bokeh is the best...because the funny thing is, their examples are usually of their cat sitting on the window sill.

HA!

 

[le vrai rdu]

I agree with that, hitx1

 

[ampguy]

well actually ...

well actually ...

Images of everyday things taken with a 75/1.4 close up, will be difficult to be taken with a slower lens.

To the OP: Puts mentions some similarity between the 90 Summicron and CV 2.5, so you might want to try the 75/2.5 if the 2.5 will work for you. Otherwise the Summilux 75/1.4 has no rivals.

Tim Barker wrote (many) "people...worry far too much about the brand names on their lenses.." I'd like to add ...

... if you are shooting your kids, a cat, or some odd thing in your backyard. ...

 

[40oz]

I think my first post failed to translate my thoughts accurately. I meant to imply that worrying about brands or lens cost is silly. What is important is how you feel about the images the lens takes. And that is not something you can determine by looking at price tags or specifications or MTF charts. So many technical fields ultimately come down to "soft science," i.e. aesthetics rather than quantitative merits. Photography is definitely one of them - the science is important, but not the deciding factor between "like" and "not like."

Catering to the price tag is how people like Ken Rockwell make money. You can't very well convince people to put money in your pocket if you advertise the opinion that money is a non-relevant aspect of your art/product. That's not an indictment, it's a commiseration.

 

[Nando]

I've have several modern Leica and CV lenses and I that the CV lenses are very good. The only CV lens that I didn't get along with was the 21mm Skopar. Nothing wrong with the lens - I just found the negatives too contrasty for my taste and the focal length a bit too wide for me. The person I sold it to enjoys it. I do prefer the feel of the Leica lenses - and I buy chrome versions for their extra heftiness. I very much like my 35f1.2 Nokton Aspherical and 75f2.5 Color-Heliar. No beefs with the 35f1.2. I wish that the 75f2.5 would focus down to .7m instead of stopping at 1m but a that's a minor issue. The 75f2.5 is a tremendous value.

 

[rayfoxlee]

Thanks for all your comments. When I posted my question, I did mean to mention that I am not at all concerned about the 'label', in other words I really don't give a hoot who makes the lenses as long as they stand up to pretty critical appraisal - but not MTF charts! One of the replies from mfogiel referred to the Leica lens drawing differently. Of course, all lenses have their own character as I found when I used Rollei TLRs exclusively and surprisingly got nicer, more 'plastic' skin tones from a f3.5 Xenar than a f2.8 Planar. I suspect that trying to pigeonhole one attribute for Leica or CV glass is a call too far, but that was what I was interested in finding out.

After posting yesterday, I printed an XP2 neg from the Summicron DR and enlarged a section to a degree that would have given a full frame print 18"x24" - far bigger than I print. The detail from this lens is phenomenal and would stand a bigger print still, so resolution ticks all the right boxes.

With so much written about the quality of Leica lenses being the best there is, I wondered just how close CV comes. It seems 'pretty close' from the comments made here.

Thank you all.

Ray

 

[yanidel]

Use to own only CV and now have Leica (+ Hexanon). To me the main differences are :
- more contrast and clarity on Leica glass. Most CV lenses are a bit duller .
- corner performance is better on Leica, not much of a worry on M8, but on M9 it will show.
- better integration with M9 (coding, corrections).
- build quality and ergonomics (I much prefer the aperture ring of Leica glasses).

Now in reality, there are so many variables in a shot that it will rarely be the lens that is at fault. And many times, these imperfections end up in a great shot.
Nevertheless the two lenses I use almost exclusively, the 35mm Lux Asph and 60mm Hexanon have a look that cannot be replicated and is distinctive (wide open obviously). So more than the brand, it is that look that is my main criteria, Leica or not.