etrigan63
Rangefinder Padawan
Here is a portrait shot wide open with the CV 40mm Nokton. Judge for yourself:
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I really wanted to use the 40 nokton. It is so much smaller than the 35 nokton and almost as fast.
But for whatever reason, the lens sample I bought just wouldn't focus right when used at f/1.4. It front focused by around 4-5 inches. Since my M8 is spot-on with every other lens I've tried (including the 75 lux at 1.4) I figured it just wasn't meant to be for me and the 40 nokton.
But for whatever reason, the lens sample I bought just wouldn't focus right when used at f/1.4. It front focused by around 4-5 inches. Since my M8 is spot-on with every other lens I've tried (including the 75 lux at 1.4) I figured it just wasn't meant to be for me and the 40 nokton.
etrigan63
Rangefinder Padawan
tbarker13 said:
Getting a good copy is always key...
Hacker
黑客
rxmd said:
I have seen Leica prices appreciating like crazy, but not CV. Noctilux version 1? Current version? WATE? 75 Lux? The prices are really crazy, not to forget the increase in price of the M8, which is digital!
DaveSee
shallow depth of field
Of course you should consider CV glass! Yet, as others have posted, it's also what you shoot, how you shoot and what of what you shoot that's key.... but you're seeking personal/emotional opinion, so...
...of the CV glass I have used(film and digital), the 15, 21 Skopar, 25 Skopar, 28 Skopar and 40 SC are keepers. The 15 because it's a real kick to use--and kicks back! The 21/4 is just fine, unless toward evening(yet my Contax 21 has more, um, image to ply from, optically). The 25/4 is great for P&S snaps I want to savor, and the 28 when the snap deserves definition, FOV-wise. The 40 SC has a near "jack-of-all-trades" quality, with that same result: "I could make the snap, but if...", that is its strength, to not seem either wide nor tele, but available light is, ah, available.
I just love the Skopars(and all LTM)... but, and with good reason, the "hand"(haptics) of these lenses can be an issue for some: they're small. Yet, once you become accustomed, they are jewels(some cut better than others, btw:read QC). As the tide turns M-mount, this may be less an issue, the size.
rgds,
Dave
EDIT: Hacker, just read your post about prices of Leica, etc. I will say it plainly: the "keepers" I mention are just that. Zeiss and Leica cannot touch these, nor would they. If you'd look for "holding price", then the discussion is not about making images, is it? And, to wit, although not in the thousands, CV glass "holds its value" very well. Because CV glass is relatively as good!
...of the CV glass I have used(film and digital), the 15, 21 Skopar, 25 Skopar, 28 Skopar and 40 SC are keepers. The 15 because it's a real kick to use--and kicks back! The 21/4 is just fine, unless toward evening(yet my Contax 21 has more, um, image to ply from, optically). The 25/4 is great for P&S snaps I want to savor, and the 28 when the snap deserves definition, FOV-wise. The 40 SC has a near "jack-of-all-trades" quality, with that same result: "I could make the snap, but if...", that is its strength, to not seem either wide nor tele, but available light is, ah, available.
I just love the Skopars(and all LTM)... but, and with good reason, the "hand"(haptics) of these lenses can be an issue for some: they're small. Yet, once you become accustomed, they are jewels(some cut better than others, btw:read QC). As the tide turns M-mount, this may be less an issue, the size.
rgds,
Dave
EDIT: Hacker, just read your post about prices of Leica, etc. I will say it plainly: the "keepers" I mention are just that. Zeiss and Leica cannot touch these, nor would they. If you'd look for "holding price", then the discussion is not about making images, is it? And, to wit, although not in the thousands, CV glass "holds its value" very well. Because CV glass is relatively as good!
Last edited:
pkreyenhop
Established
Sorry, but I don't understand at all why people would buy an M8 and try to save money on the lens! Cosina lenses are a great compromise of costs versus optical qualities or features like weight, size, etc. - Not more, not less.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Are you suggesting that it's normal that equipment goes up in price and that one should rely on such developments in order to protect the investments of early buyers? I don't exactly hold Leica's recent price increases to their credit, even though they certainly had the nice side-effect that people can reduce their loss on selling used equipment. This is the exception rather than the rule; you happened to hand-pick the most hyped lenses in the Leica inventory, try to do the same comparison for a plain Summicron 50/f2.Hacker said:
Discontinued products have their own demand-driven pricing rules. You can play the same game in the CV world, too. If I remember correctly, Cameraquest used to sell a Bessa R kit with the 35/2.5 CV lens for $300. Then as the camera was selling out, they dropped the lens and sold the kit for $300. Nice increase in value, isn't it? The 40/1.4 Nokton in the single-coated version also used to sell for more than the multi-coated version on the used market, in spite of having the same retail price originally (IIRC); again, hype at work.
Ultimately camera products aren't a monetary investment, but a tool. From a methodical point of view, in general CV products are so much cheaper that it is simply impossible to compare their price developments with Leica products meaningfully. Either you are comparing absolute value drop, then the monetary losses incurred in normally using a lens are catastrophic for the Leica in comparison on non-hyped lenses. Or you are comparing percentages, then you are ignoring the economically quite relevant fact that the same percentage may mean an absolute loss of ten times less on the CV lens. And as far as your examples of Leica lenses are concerned that are now more expensive than some time ago: relying on inflation and hype to take care of protecting one's investment is always a bad idea.
Philipp
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Easy. Money is usually a limited resource. Assume you have $6500 to buy an M8 plus a couple of lenses, maybe an ultrawideangle and a fast normal. What do you do?pkreyenhop said:
And this not like this is just a price compromise; the lenses you'd get from CV are quite excellent. People are apparently ready to buy used 1970s Leica lenses to go with their M8; at this stage discussing vague quality differences becomes something of a moot point.
Philipp
Last edited:
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
You didn't skimp on the body, you shouldn't skimp on the glass.
That's my honest opinion and I've learned it through trying a lot of stuff.
You might not agree with me, That's ok, it's not ment to be confrontational.
You could have the entire CV arsenal or a 35mm ASPH Lux,
One lens means you learn to use that lens inside and out.
Blah, tangent, I'm tired young and stupid
That's my honest opinion and I've learned it through trying a lot of stuff.
You might not agree with me, That's ok, it's not ment to be confrontational.
You could have the entire CV arsenal or a 35mm ASPH Lux,
One lens means you learn to use that lens inside and out.
Blah, tangent, I'm tired young and stupid
Hacker
黑客
rxmd said:
No, I'm merely showing that Leica lenses do, and has appreciated to the poster. This has to be taken in the context of my first post.
Hacker
黑客
pkreyenhop said:
So back to my original question: For precisely this reason, CV lenses are a compromise and this compromise (especially towards price) will not see it optically an equal (but different) to say the Zeiss ZM35 or the Cron 35 ASPH?
DaveSee
shallow depth of field
Hacker said:
Please read my earlier post: CV glass is not a compromise, per se... not in price, nor quality of rendering... these lenses are very different to other /similar/ FL offered by other vendors.
All lenses render differently, despite similar FL. Leica and Zeiss are not without their QC issues, so too Cosina. The Zeiss 15 has horrendous focus issues, for both film and digital, if one is not accustomed to this "special" lens... the CV 15 Helliar exhibits absolutely NONE is these issues, yet "lacks that certain something", and has a higher degree of "distortion"... 15mm, distortion? Do tell!
And what do you "optically" question, when there is no true "equal" between them? Which lens vendor is /the/ lens standard, today? Difficult now that every RF lens vendor has spread the field... M8 users are currently seeking '70s Mandler designs over ASPHs, and "ReidReviews"(when taking a side at all), tends toward low contrast lenses(because he's using an M8? That's right, NOT film... everything's M8-centric).
The Leica 35/1,4 has digital issues, the 75 'cron is "overdone"(and reportedly "soft" in the corners), the Zeiss kits have occasional "wobble" of the front sections, and CV lenses are "muddy" wide open....(NB: not my views!)
When the OP asks "Should I consider CV glass?", the only true answer is "yes"!
As to /which/ variant of CV glass(and which copy!), /then/ we have sufficient points to discuss. But to reject /all/ CV glass--or any other vendor--is simply small minded and lacking perspective on the great bounty of choice we have, including the great glass of the past.
The ZM 35 is (reportedly) great. But for a third the cost, the Skopar 35 is very, very good... but both are bested by the... wait for it... keep waiting... there will be (yet)another thread about "This is THE BEST 35mm!". Er, or was that "This 40mm on an M5 kills!"
Ooops, rgds,
Dave
pkreyenhop
Established
rxmd said:
Although 6500$ and "limited resource" sounds quite strange to me, you could break the rules and get an M6 with three legendary lenses and a pile of film or you could get an Epson RD1s and two lens legends or you could buy an M8 and concentrate on one great lens (skipping the fun lens).
Cheers
Peter
pkreyenhop
Established
Hacker said:
Well, something has to give (unless there is a ground breaking paradigm shift in optical design). Size, speed, weight and price are parameters that can be optimised differently - but one should not expect a tiny and cheap wonder lens (maybe the Summicron-C 40mm... ;-)
Hacker
黑客
So my question is, which I'm seeking more input, are there CV lenses that have a general consensus in terms of a certain signature, vis-a-vis, Cron IV is the "Bokeh King", 90AA is tack sharp (as long as you focus further than 10 feet), ZM25 is the great all rounder, distortion free), etc.
So far, I'm hearing that the CV15 seems to be good (only because it is cheaper than the ZM15). Again, I'm not interested in (price-performance ratios). I'm interested to know whether there are any CV lenses that strike a consensus in the RF community that is truly a gem without price considerations.
My question is genuine, as I really want to know.
So far, I'm hearing that the CV15 seems to be good (only because it is cheaper than the ZM15). Again, I'm not interested in (price-performance ratios). I'm interested to know whether there are any CV lenses that strike a consensus in the RF community that is truly a gem without price considerations.
My question is genuine, as I really want to know.
pkreyenhop
Established
cmogi10 said:
Yes, that's the essence. Well put!
Cheers
Peter
alba63
Newbie
You don't understand? That's easy to answer.pkreyenhop said:
There are people who buy the M8 because they like rangefinders and because a M8 set body with lenses is light to carry, and because the M8 sensor gives great quality results. If there were another RF with 95% of the performance for 20% the price of the M8 (that would just below 1000 bucks) I bet most would buy the cheaper one because everyone knows that any digital camera looses its value quickly, and because the M8 is technically imperfect and has in-built flaws and has not the best reliability (maybe the M9 will be much closer to "perfect"). But, the M8 is "the only game in town" right now, a used RD1 is not close to 95% of the performance of the M8.
For the lenses it is partly different. They hold their value (in the case of Leica) quite well, but a setup body + 3-4 lenses is easily beyond 10k. Ten thousand Euro, that is. If you prefer to choose the faster versions it is more like 15k probably.
Now there are people who simply have a lot of money and simply don't have to loose a second thought, they just buy it because they can.
Then there is a second class to whom that hurts a lot, who are making debts to pay back those thousands and thousands for years to come because they think, as you said, they dont want to make compromises.
However if you read the reidreviews well, and see that a lens for 20%, in some cases even 10% of the Leica price perform almost as well as their Leica counterparts in some cases just "different" (bokeh), in some cases even better (edge sharpness), you litterally have to switch off your brain in order to NOT ask that question. And don't start the built quality debate, the CVs are full metal and look very well made, in comparision to a typical dSLR lens.
And in respect to reidreviews this is not just another "personal 2cents" it is backed up by sample pics and focus bracketing to get the best shot - something that you rarely can do in real life situation - Sean R. constantly points out that even at a much higher price he would recommend those CV lenses for their sheer quality. I am convinced that they are not just a cheap compromise. If you are so sure, you should be able to back it up by experience and - better even - by pics.
And now comes an important bit: If I see what type of photos typical Leica shooters do (here and elsewhere), I see a lot of that "typical Leica street- shooting style" which includes (necessarily) a lot of unsharpness, very slow shutter speeds, slight misfocus (when people move, you have a hard time tracking them with a manual rangefinder camera) and unprecise framing, partly shot from the hip with completely oblique framing etc etc etc. I estimate that 90% (probably more) of all M8 shots are not lens limited, but shooting style limited. Yes I know, you certainly belong to the last 10%, just like everbody else here
And BTW just as you can see on dpreview the type of guys who buy a 1ds II to shoot their kids and their cats, you have M8 + cron/lux/asph/pre-asph-everything guys who's photos are just amateur snaps.
This is of course their right to do so, people also buy car that are 3x more than a Leica setup, but hey - think twice, think 5 times before you spend big money because you want that Leica name on them so badly! Specially if money is limited in your wallet, which may be the case for the most of us (and certainly for me).
Ok that was a bit long, I am still on the edge of buying the M8, CV is the reason why I consider the M8, with only Leica and Zeiss I would not even think of it.
Bernie
retow
Well-known
Hacker said:
I tried several CV's and my keepers are the Nokton 35 and Heliar 75. Both are gems as far as performance is concerned, irrespective of price.
cme4brain
Established
Hacker said:
I appreciate the opinion. MTF graphs do not complete a lens picture. I go by what I can see on digital cropping of lenses, say on the Sean Reid website, and when a CV lens that costs one tenth of a Leica is hard to tell the difference between (and that ona test bench), I think the CV lens is doing well. There is no doubt incremental improvement in a Leica lens, but can you tell it when the camera is not on a tripod and the camera is handheld? THe key statement from Sean Reid said that he had to take many many photographs with his test Leica/CV/Zeiss lenses, even moving the lens barrel so slightly as to not move the rangefinder patch, to ensure sharpest focus, then pick the one of 17 shots made of the highest resolution. Are you in the field going to take 17 different focus attempts to get a pix? I agree with Sean, that handheld photographs, combined with non-perfect eye focusing and rangefinder backlash error (however small on the Leica) will NEGATE most of the time any small improvement in Leica glass over CV or Zeiss. I again say that if I were to present 8" X 10" prints of the same subject taken with different lenses to professional photogs, they could only pick those pictures taken with the Leica glass 50% of the time. Depending completely on MTF graphs for selecting lenses is like depending completely on horsepower rating to buy a car- a Corvette may have more horsepower than a Benz 600, but which car would your family rather have? And would the difference in 0-60mph dragstrip times make a real world difference on the highway?
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
In this context it only means that if you have $6500, you obviously can't spend $7500. If we only want to talk about down-to-earth amounts of money, we will have trouble discussing the M8 or some new Leica lenses at allpkreyenhop said:
Or you could stay on the carpet and buy the tool that does the job. There are excellent tools available without, to put it in an extreme way, succumbing to some reality distortion field and insisting on having to use legendary products to photograph one's dogs. Wanting something isn't the same as needing it. If you need that M8, you will be hard pressed to find an alternative. If you don't need it, you shouldn't buy it in the first place. Then you can do a whole lot of other very useful things with $6500, and most of them won't have anything to do with lenses.pkreyenhop said:
That's incidentally the main problem I have with the original poster's question. A lens, like any equipment, is a means to an end, a device with a job it has to do. Meeting some consensus of a peer group is usually not part of the job description. Whether it does the job itself or not is much more important to me than whether some random group of people on a gear-related internet forum somewhere consider it the king of something. For example, I want small lenses, so the 21/4 CV fits my profile better than any other ultrawideangle, and in that respect it's the best lens in the world for me; the fact that it's also reasonably cheap is a nice add-on; and any debate on Biogons vs. Elmarits is completely irrelevant because those lenses are not meeting my job description. And if I save a premium by buying the tool that does excellently what it's supposed to do, instead of the one where there is a consensus that it is cool in some metaphysical way, I don't see myself "skimping" either. But then again, everybody makes their buying decisions by their own set of rules, and this is just my own two cents.
It would be much easier to advise the OP on whether to consider Voigtländer or not if one had more information on what he wants to do with his lens. If the purpose was having lenses that are considered legends by peer groups, then Voigtländer might indeed not be the best consideration, but I assume that this is not the case
Philipp