Fujitsu
Well-known
Well, they are not. I had a dozen of both.
"New" Voigtlander 12mm f5.6 (now in M-Mount)
- Thread starter dcsang
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 49
- Views 7K
Well, they are not. I had a dozen of both.
back alley
IMAGES
i'm so glad that have pronounced it so, now we can all be in peace that you have spoken.
and by the way, i have also owned most of the cv lenses at one time or another, both ltm and m mount AND TO ME it seems the m mount are more solid than MOST of the ltm versions.
also, i prefer a tab focus to the metal joystick that poked out the side of the ltm versions
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
as much as I don't care about the M vs LTM mount thing... I'd really like a filter thread on my 15mm... not enough to sell mine and buy the new one, but if I had the choice originally I would have went with the new 15mm
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
Man, I just learned this. Ouch! I pre-ordered mine and didn't think it would actually appreciate, but I never guessed it would DE-ppreciate so much in six months.
back alley
IMAGES
actually, this is the standard process for most of the cv lenses. early adopters always pay more.
photogdave
Shops local
The relative price increase on the Voigtlander lenses is nothing compared to the Leica lenses.
Prices on almost all photography equipment went up last year, I don't see why Voigtlanders should be any different.
Prices on almost all photography equipment went up last year, I don't see why Voigtlanders should be any different.
back alley
IMAGES
some people only want cheap or cheaper, otherwise they feel ripped off.
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
Prices for all kinds of camera stuff has been going up... the Canon 70-200 F4 was sitting at $649-699 CAD for the longest time, even with our dollar down, but in the last year it's gone up to $800-850CAD in most places even with our dollar pretty much on par with USD.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Well if I get the feeling that the product hasn't really changed, except that I can't put it on three quarters of my cameras anymore and it's more expensive, then I do feel like that. Any LTM lens is an M-mount lens, it's just $50 for an adapter ($20 used) that you can leave on the lens if you feel like it. I just don't see what users get out of Cosina's new policy of putting the same optics in a new, less compatible mount and selling it more expensively sans finder.
back alley
IMAGES
for me, build quality is an improvement worth paying for. i would imagine that there are plenty used cv ltm lenses out there now for those who use the older screw mount bodies.
my guess is that cv is thinking of the digital rangefinder crowd and the m film users now, with the changeover to m mount.
as for included finders, i assume they are hoping to push people to the r4 camera by not including a finder now.
To date five screw mount CV lenses have been remounted in M mount barrels: the 12/5.6, 15/4.5, 21/4, 25/4, 35/2.5. All of the M mount barrels are better built than the screw mount versions. The M mount 12, 15 and 25 added RF coupling that the screw mount versions did not have. The M mount 12 and 15 will take filters directly without a filter adapter. With the popularity of the 1.3x M8/8.2 and 2x Micro 4/3 cameras, it no longer made sense to package a full frame viewfinder with the lens.
That is what you get out of the change to M mount lenses. While screw mount lenses have the advantage of camera versatility, the M mount lenses have proven more popular in sales.
Stephen
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I like both "types" of lenses (LTM/M) but that said, there is a big increase in size of the lens (M vs LTM).
I don't know about image quality or build (I never had any issue with my second hand 15mm CV LTM and I used that puppy for a good number of years). Size wise, that thing could not be beat.
I think the Micro 4/3 market is pushing this a bit more, the GF-1 is a popular camera (same with the G1) so it kind of makes a bit of sense for CV to be producing lenses that can now be mounted (perhaps easier??) on these types of cameras.
Price aside, the lenses do offer good value for the money - sure the LTM ones offered incredible value for the money, but if you look at it "relatively speaking" compared to any Leica offering they're still a bargain. And really, if you WANT a 15mm lens to mount on your Leica M mount camera, what choices are there out there? 😀
Cheers,
Dave
I don't know about image quality or build (I never had any issue with my second hand 15mm CV LTM and I used that puppy for a good number of years). Size wise, that thing could not be beat.
I think the Micro 4/3 market is pushing this a bit more, the GF-1 is a popular camera (same with the G1) so it kind of makes a bit of sense for CV to be producing lenses that can now be mounted (perhaps easier??) on these types of cameras.
Price aside, the lenses do offer good value for the money - sure the LTM ones offered incredible value for the money, but if you look at it "relatively speaking" compared to any Leica offering they're still a bargain. And really, if you WANT a 15mm lens to mount on your Leica M mount camera, what choices are there out there? 😀
Cheers,
Dave
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
You're so right: switching from manufacturing one type of obscure manual-focus lens for an obsolete camera system to manufacturing a slightly different type of obscure manual-focus lens for an obsolete camera system just reeks of corporate greed. I hear Mr. K uses rolled-up old LTM user's guides to snort cocaine off of hookers' pubes.
ampguy
Veteran
It's simple economics. The M market for ltm/M lenses is larger. Selling the ltm with bundled finder, and up-selling an ltm to M adapter yields them about 50% of what an M mount version of the lens + separate finder nets them.
The quality of the M's has never been higher than the LTMs that I have seen. Sean Reid's reviews focus on measuring whether the newer M's have gone down in quality compared to the LTMs.
Anyone who has used both the ltm, and M versions of the 15/4.5 will find RF coupling on a 12 just silly.
The quality of the M's has never been higher than the LTMs that I have seen. Sean Reid's reviews focus on measuring whether the newer M's have gone down in quality compared to the LTMs.
Anyone who has used both the ltm, and M versions of the 15/4.5 will find RF coupling on a 12 just silly.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Some personal thoughts...
The M mount is a lot more important today than it was a few years ago, and CV's decision on going from Screwmount to M is a very well known and accepted one by any photographer buying from them and knowing the evolution of their line and the market. Even if there's not any Kobigital camera today, their M line lenses must be there for other digital bodies.
The prices of their lenses remain low. The 50 1.1 Nokton was a very cheap lens for what it gives. Depreciated? Everything does, just as soon as it gets paid, so no news here. And it's a normal amount... How much do some people expect it to depreciate? 50 bucks? Come on, it's normal. Their cameras depreciate near a 20% too, and no one cried.
A coupled 15 with filter thread was big news, and yes, everybody got the previous one, a wonderful lens, but the M version is better. CV went on the right direction, and I don't mean profit, I mean satisfied customers with stronger options. The previous 15 didn't make me come to RFs, but the M one did, and for several more CV lenses and cameras I've bought in a few months, and guess what? I'm very happy, and there's no better option in the world.
I don't want more expensive gear, as all of us, but all this criticism the day a lens is announced is strange. It's a 12, and a better one... There's nothing like that elsewhere, they ask the price they need to, but it doesn't look like too much, honestly. For sure they'll come with other new lenses below $800...
I'm glad that great company makes some profit, because it's the only way I can keep enjoying their designs...
Cheers,
Juan.
The M mount is a lot more important today than it was a few years ago, and CV's decision on going from Screwmount to M is a very well known and accepted one by any photographer buying from them and knowing the evolution of their line and the market. Even if there's not any Kobigital camera today, their M line lenses must be there for other digital bodies.
The prices of their lenses remain low. The 50 1.1 Nokton was a very cheap lens for what it gives. Depreciated? Everything does, just as soon as it gets paid, so no news here. And it's a normal amount... How much do some people expect it to depreciate? 50 bucks? Come on, it's normal. Their cameras depreciate near a 20% too, and no one cried.
A coupled 15 with filter thread was big news, and yes, everybody got the previous one, a wonderful lens, but the M version is better. CV went on the right direction, and I don't mean profit, I mean satisfied customers with stronger options. The previous 15 didn't make me come to RFs, but the M one did, and for several more CV lenses and cameras I've bought in a few months, and guess what? I'm very happy, and there's no better option in the world.
I don't want more expensive gear, as all of us, but all this criticism the day a lens is announced is strange. It's a 12, and a better one... There's nothing like that elsewhere, they ask the price they need to, but it doesn't look like too much, honestly. For sure they'll come with other new lenses below $800...
I'm glad that great company makes some profit, because it's the only way I can keep enjoying their designs...
Cheers,
Juan.
Last edited:
Bruin
Noktonian
If CV continues reintroducing their LTMs in M-mount...I can't think of a better lens to update than their 50/1.5 Nokton. Shrink it down a bit, 0.7m minimum focus, and it would be perfect 😀
Burlap Jacket
Established
I agree....
Burlap Jacket
Established
I agree...
Fujitsu
Well-known
Totally agree.
The good point of upgrades is, I can complete my LTM collection even cheaper now. 😉
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Totally disagree: my coupled 15 is sharp at any aperture when focusing at 0.5 meters, and the little background blur many many times make a lot better shot when used wide open. Focusing that close is not easy with moving people and without coupling at f/4.5, but I totally agree too: it's simple economics, they give more if you give more. Not for everyone, but it is fair.
Cheers,
Juan.
Cheers,
Juan.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
