Poll: sharpest CV lens?

Poll: sharpest CV lens?

  • 12/5.6

    Votes: 5 1.0%

  • 15/4.5

    Votes: 23 4.8%

  • 21/4

    Votes: 29 6.0%

  • 25/4

    Votes: 13 2.7%

  • 28/3.5

    Votes: 38 7.9%

  • 35/1.2 Nokton

    Votes: 41 8.5%

  • 35/2.5 CS

    Votes: 88 18.2%

  • 40/1.4 MC

    Votes: 89 18.4%

  • 50/1.5 Nokton

    Votes: 89 18.4%

  • 50/2.5 CS

    Votes: 19 3.9%

  • 75/2.5

    Votes: 23 4.8%

  • 90/3.5

    Votes: 27 5.6%
  • Total voters
    484
I own the following VC lenses -

Collapsible Heliar 50mm f3.5
APO-Lanthar 90mm f3.5
Ultron 28mm f2.0
Nokton 50mm f1.5
Color-Skopar 50mm f2.5
Color-Skopar 35mm f2.5 Classic

Ranked in the order of sharpness with the 90/3.5 and 28/2 tied for second place.

Now mind you, I have never shot any charts, rulers, newspapers or brick walls, so my testing is purely subjective according my standard usage of each lens.

Example, the SC 50/2.5 may actually be sharper at f5.6 than the Nokton 50/1.5, but then I would not know, because the Nokton seldom gets used above f4.0. If I am shooting in that much light, I will be using the Collapsible Heliar 50/3.5 which will eat most any lens for lunch, it the most incredibly detailed lens I have ever owned.

It goes without saying that Collapsible Heliar 50mm f3.5 is simply the 'sharpest' lens that Cosina has made for 35mm rangefinders. In fact, according to the 'experts', it has the most resolving power of any lens ever made for a 35mm camera. And I tend to agree...

But the real question is... how did I end up owning some many Voigtländer lenses?
 
P. Lynn Miller said:
It goes without saying that Collapsible Heliar 50mm f3.5 is simply the 'sharpest' lens that Cosina has made for 35mm rangefinders. In fact, according to the 'experts', it has the most resolving power of any lens ever made for a 35mm camera. And I tend to agree...
Click to expand...

I really wish Cosina/Voigtlander would produce this lens again. Even though I have a Color Skopar 50/2.5 and three other 50's for my SLR, I'd still snap one up the first day they are available again.
 
Such a poll will not give you any meaningful information since there is a possibility that people vote for what they have.
 
Examination of the voting results shows a curve that peaks at the focal length range most consider "normal." The three lenses voted sharpest have 35, 40, and 50mm focal lengths. The curve appears to peak at 40mm, flanked by 35 and 50, whcih are approximately equal to each other, while rated a bit lower than the 40. Above and below this range, the vote magnitudes tail off fairly smoothly, and without apparent skew or bimodality. In other words, the graph closely resembles a normal distribution: a bell-curve. And this bellcurve is centered on the focal lengths that are "normal." It may be that these are also the most popular lenses, so that a survey of CV lens popularity might yield a distribution that is essentially the same, or at least similar, to the one that is intended to express sharpness.

So now we have a situation that those of us trained in statistics would describe as possibly "confounded." That is, popularity, or perhaps ownership, may have become confounded with the sharpness judgements. If so, that would rended the survey invalid. There is a way to control for confounding variables, but it is complicated. One might use a technique such as analysis of covariance, or stepwise multiple regression. (There may be newer ones--I said I was trained, and I was--but that was in the early '70's.)

Under the circumstances, I will weight in with Raid and the others who suspect the measurement to be flawed. As an old research-trained psychologist, I will simply say, as we do under these conditions, "These results must be approached with caution."
 
In my opinion all poll results should be approached with caution, not just the results of this one. People who answer polls differ from those who don't, therefore the results will always be skewed. I never answer polls unless the subject is of personal interest. However I doubt that this poll is designed to be in any way scientifically accurate -- just a bit of fun, no?

From regular shooting I have found the 28mm Color-Skopar to be extremely sharp at all apertures and probably the sharpest of my CV lenses. Like some of the other Color-Skopars it's also quite contrasty cf. CV Ultron.
 
I had the 40/1.4 until one year ago, and really loved it. 1.4 was very handy in low light conditions, and 40mm is my favorite focal length. As for sharpness, it was far better than the 25mm.

The last three pictures on my photoblog (www.anafricanphotoblog.com) were taken with the 40mm f/1.4.
 
The more I use the 28mm f2.0 Ultron, the more I think it belongs there up in the top of the chart. Overall, I feel that the 50f3.5 is the champ when it comes to resolution, but the 28f2.0 is right up there.
 
50/3.5 is the winner for me hands down

50/3.5 is the winner for me hands down

I do not know, what "sharpest" exactly means, but the 50/3.5 has the highest resolving power out of all lenses I own. As for ergonomics this lens is sometimes pain to use, getting a decent UV filter was quite a task, but results are just amazing.
 
I own or have owned the following CV : 15, 21, 25, 28 (old and new Ultron), 35, 40, 50, 75.
The sharpest IMO is the 25mm M mount. I did a test shot yesterday at a store versus the Leica 24mm Asph and really, I could not see a difference in sharpness on the files.
 
ferider said:
I've used them all except for the 12, 35/1.2, 50/2.5 and 90. For the well collimated ones, I honestly couldn't say which one was the sharpest, say
at f3.5. Maybe the 28/3.5 but only by a very small margin.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I think you nailed it, Roland.
I had an Ultron 28 that got excellent revs in RFFland.
Well, I was not very impressed to say the least.
I did what I almost never do and bought a Hexanon 28 to compare and keep the best lens.
The hex was not marginally better, It was another world.
Some users report bad experience with the 50 2.5 while other (Mr A for one) rave about it.

I have reached the conclusion that QC at CV is errr.... not absolutely perfect.
so this poll, if it ever had any meaning has even less so because of the sample to sample variation.

And frankly, that doesn't make shopping for a cv lens easier (what should I do, order three, compare and keep the best one. I mean, these are lens, not fruits...😉)
 
sanmich said:
I have reached the conclusion that QC at CV is errr.... not absolutely perfect. so this poll, if it ever had any meaning has even less so because of the sample to sample variation.
Click to expand...

I agree. Including ZM lenses. Although I never had a bad 28/3.5, or 35/40 S.C. lens.

sanmich said:
And frankly, that doesn't make shopping for a cv lens easier (what should I do, order three, compare and keep the best one. I mean, these are lens, not fruits...😉)
Click to expand...

I'm talking to my DSLR Nikon/Canon semi-pro friends, and for them it's totally natural to buy two copies of the same lens at B+H, keep the better one and send one back ...

I think we are just spoiled with classic Nikkor/Canon/Leica lenses ....

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Ok I have only two of them so I am not going to be able to vote, but from my prints I can see that the 35mm skopar is a bit sharper than my nokton 50 f1.5.
 
For the last 5 days I have been shooting with the 120 folder Bessa III. It is a skewed comparison, but that Heliar 80mm f3.5 is stunning! OK, the negative is bigger, much bigger - but even taking a scan up to maximum size it holds up.
 
Ferider,

While the ZM wobble is hardly uncommon, genuinely poor performing ZM lenses seem to be no more common than Leica optics, anecdotally at least. I think I have only seen a couple of posts ever, complaining about soft 35 biogons and not a single on on the 21/25 wides. For CV, it is a very different matter, though I would love to understand why there are so many issues with the 21/25s and so few with the 28 3.5!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom