The Gaping Hole in the Voigtlander Lens Lineup...

[StuartR]

Anyone have any idea when Voigtlander is going to address the gaping hole in its lineup -- i.e. fast telephotos. They have pretty much everything else -- ultra wides, superwides (though no fast superwides all f/4), very fast wides (28/1.9, 35/1.2, 40/1.4), a fast normal, but their fastest telephoto is the 75/2.5, which is not so fast, and then the slooow 90/3.5 that no one seems to talk about. No 135 to speak of. When is CV going to put out a 90/2 or 135 f/2.8? I know that one argument is that their bodies don't have the baselength to focus them accurately, but that is changing -- the R3A has the same baselength, but the 1:1 finder increases the accuracy, and the Zeiss Ikon, while not officially part of the lineup, has a baselength accuracy somewhere between the .72 and .85 M's...

I just think it would be interesting to see what CV could do with a fast telephoto...currently the realm of VERY expensive lenses -- the 90/2 apo asph, 75 lux, 85/2 sonnar and so on. Perhaps CV could do a 75/1.4 for 800 to complement the 35/1.2???

If anyone has any intelligence on the matter, I would love to hear it.

 

[former member]

Cosina Voigtlander lenses are aimed at the Bessa line-up. Only the Bessa T has a wide-enough baselength to "casually" shoot with a fast Telephoto; and it is discontinued. The Bessa R, R2, and R3 series are short baselength finders, hence the 75mm F2.5 and 90mm F3.5 are about the "right" focal length/aperture to shoot comfortably.

Enter the new "Zeiss Ikon" RF. Long baselength, with longer/faster lenses. They will be under the Zeiss name, but most are made by Cosina.

 

[pvdhaar]

Given that each stop extra more or less doubles the price of a tele lens, a CV90/2 would go for roughly 1400 Euro. That's serious money, where people will consider a second hand Leica intead. I think the people at Cosina have done the math as well, and have decided to keep with their strong points: affordable optics..

 

[rover]

I agree with Peter. Should they eventually offer a Bessa with more capable focusing ability that may change, but right now I think they are comfortable with the CV lens lineup.

 

[Robin Harrison]

A while back I was thinking that they may release a small 'D' lineup for reduced-size sensor cameras (read: R-D1). Given the Leica is likely to be 1.3x crop rather than 1.5x crop, and that the R-D1 was produced in limited numbers (10,000, I think), this is very unlikely now. I imagine that the R-D1 users would love a 28/f2 lens for their camera that would be closer to the size of the existing f3.5 than the f1.9 optic.

I would like to see a new 50. Either an ultrafast f/1.2 or a collapsible f/2. I hear the collapsible f3.5 heliar they prodcued was legendary in performace. If they could make that design a bit faster that would be great.

 

[StuartR]

Peter -- are you sure your math is correct? From what I understand it is easier and cheaper to make longer focal length lenses than wide angles. If CV is able to economically manufacture a 35mm f/1.2 with good build quality (it is built like a brick), surely they should be able to turn out a 90/2 without too much trouble. From what I understood, the hurdles in manufacturing longer lenses are not so much cost to build as practicality issues -- size and ability to focus it accurately.

But in any case, it seems to me that CV is well aware that many users of their lenses don't use bessa bodies, particularly in the wider focal lengths. They sell a lot of less commonly used lenses to Leica or classic RF users precisely because of the cost benefit. Those who might balk at a 2800 dollar 21mm f/2.8 ASPH lens will gladly buy a 21mm f/4 one for 350. The bessa bodies are there to sell the lenses, not the other way around. I would think that they would have a winner if they sold a sub 1000 dollar fast telephoto for people who don't own a Leica/Zeiss equivalent.

 

[pvdhaar]

Peter -- are you sure your math is correct? From what I understand it is easier and cheaper to make longer focal length lenses than wide angles. If CV is able to economically manufacture a 35mm f/1.2 with good build quality (it is built like a brick), surely they should be able to turn out a 90/2 without too much trouble. From what I understood, the hurdles in manufacturing longer lenses are not so much cost to build as practicality issues -- size and ability to focus it accurately.

But in any case, it seems to me that CV is well aware that many users of their lenses don't use bessa bodies, particularly in the wider focal lengths. They sell a lot of less commonly used lenses to Leica or classic RF users precisely because of the cost benefit. Those who might balk at a 2800 dollar 21mm f/2.8 ASPH lens will gladly buy a 21mm f/4 one for 350. The bessa bodies are there to sell the lenses, not the other way around. I would think that they would have a winner if they sold a sub 1000 dollar fast telephoto for people who don't own a Leica/Zeiss equivalent.

What you said about the 35/1.2 is correct with respect to quality, but did you check the price on it? It's so darned expensive 🙁

I guess that Cosina is able to get away with it because there are no alternatives in this focal length...

 

[former member]

They would be up against the likes of the Great Fast portrait lenses of the '50s. My Nikkor 8.5cm F2 LTM was under $300, and the 10.5cm F2.5 LTM (user condition) was under $200 with the M-Mount adapter. These lenses will give a modern telephoto a run for its money.

 

[StuartR]

Peter -- yes, it is more expensive than the normal lenses, but it is still less than half the cost of the 35mm f/1.4 summilux ASPH. I am not saying they should produce a 90/2 for 400, but under 1000 USD.

Brian -- I agree that these are some great lenses, but I don't think most modern users are in the know about them. Also, they don't have warranties, can be hard to find, and to get very good samples can raise the cost and make them much more difficult to find. I think they would compete with this hypothetical lens in the same way that the voigtlander 21mm competes with the 21mm super angulon...that is, not really directly.

I don't know, I just thought it might be interesting. I guess not many think it is as feasible/likely as I do...

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

There is certainly no reason why they can't at least duplicate the 85/2 in a CV version. That would be of some interest to CV users.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Let me rephrase that ... duplicate the speed, not the Zeiss forumula which is proprietary ;-)

 

[varjag]

There is marketing logic in restricting the lens lineup to those that the produced boides can handle well. Then again, the longer focals (except some 75-90mm desings maybe) were never quite bestsellers for rangefinders.. so if production capacity of Cosina is limited, it is wiser to focus on more popular offernings.

 

[bmattock]

Can I take a swing at this?

I know that the Canon Serenar series of lenses are not as well-regarded as some others for LTM mount, but I have an 85mm f1.9 that I really like on my Bessa R. It was not very expensive, it is extremely well-made, it has lots of aperture blades (nice round holes, what bokeh!), and I really love the results I get from it. I think I paid $85, but they seem to go for more now. I have the chrome shiny one, I think there were two other f1.9 models and two f2.0 models as well.

The lens is very heavy (605 g), and it tends to be tippy on the Bessa R, but I can deal with that. It is also extremely easy to get apart to clean the internal elements should they require it.

Also, I'd like to say something about the constant statements about not being able to focus a long lens with the Bessa series cameras. I don't find that to be the case at all. I regularly use both 85/90/105mm lenses as well as 135mm on my Bessa R - I do not have the world's greatest vision, I wear thick glasses and I have no problems at all. I have posted portrait shots here where I was focusing a 135 at distances of 6 feet, wide-open aperture, and the portrait image is razor-sharp with the background well out-of-focus. I don't even use an external viewfinder, I just mentally crop well inside the 90mm lines.

How is it that I'm not having these problems focusing 90mm and 135mm LTM lenses on a Bessa R and everybody else is? I ask if it is possible that people are just passing on "what they've heard" without actually testing it themselves. I suspect that some are doing themselves a dis-service by not trying it out to see for themselves if they can focus a long lens at short distances on a Bessa R.

I don't know why Cosina does not make a Voigtlander 90mm lens that opens wider than f3.5, but I suspect it may have to do with perceived DOF issues for those who claim they can't focus a 90mm lens on a Bessa R/R2/etc. Get enough DOF and you can guess it pretty well. Frankly, I love the look of a 4-foot-away portrait shot at 85mm f1.9. Taken in front of a tree that is changing colors here in the fall - it looks like Walt Disney threw up!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[StuartR]

Bill -- your experience was sort of what I was expecting. I am young and I have good vision (with contacts anyway), and I don't think I would have much problem getting accurate focus with a fast telephoto on a Bessa as long as I was not sloppy. I never had any problems focusing the 75 lux or 135 tele-elmar wide open on the Hexar RF (a .6 mag). I figure its better to have the speed if you need it in a pinch then to not have it all. Especially if you are not necessarily using it at the close focusing distance....

 

[Toby]

The Bessa R long lens focussing issue has a lot to do with small errors in the RF alignment. My bessa was about 2.5 to 5cm out on close focus not much but enough to make me avoid wide open portraits. Even after adjustment and testing the doubt still lingers... but the foussing is pinpoint accurate, although it will take time for me to really trust the camera

 

[CJP6008]

Hi,

Can I chuck in my tuppence worth on this one?

Firstly, base length - triangulation rangefinding gets more accurate the longer the base length. the ones on old battleships, pre RADAR, were huge as they needed to accurately obtain ranges for distant targets. No good using the one on a camera and telling the gunnery officer that the target is more than 10 meters away!

Erwin Puts writes most informatively on the subject. The following article probably contains all of the informain you will ever need to know on rangefinder accuracy. http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/rfaccuracy.html .

It all comes back into the issue of the absence of fast long CV lenses. According to EP's figures one needs a base length of 40.2mm for a 75mm lens at f1.4 and 40.5 for a 90mm lens at f2. These figs will give good but not perfect accuracy. The Bessa R3a has a base of 37mm and an effective base of the same length. I asked EP about putting a Leitz 90mm f2 onto my R3a (which has just packed up - and only 6 wks old, but that's another story!). He said that it could be done but that I would have to accept that some shots taken wide open would be out of focus. Not all as luck plays its part.

That said, you cannot sell someone a camera or lens that they cannot reliably focus - they will complain and send them back. CV would need to make an entirely new body to take faster long lenses.

The other issue is cost - take a look at the prices charges for the Leica 90mm f2 APO or the new ZM 85mm f2. I suspect that they do not cost a couple of hundred quid to make and then they just add a grand for the hell of it. They are really hard to make, tolerences are very fine etc. Slower ones are just easier to do, can be made at an amazing price and work on the existing body. In these uncertain times it would be a brave or foolhardy CV who set about making a new body and lenses as would be required.

It may come but don't hold your breath!

Chris

 

[Kin Lau]

If we go by the notion that RF's are suppose to be smaller, lighter and just generally more compact, then a fast, heavy and expensive tele doesn't fit in that well. With RF's, you're suppose to just "get closer".

A collapsible 90 like the Leica 90 Elmar would be nice.

As for Zeiss patents... weren't the pre-war patents revoked, which is why everyone copied the 50/2 Sonnar design? The J9 is a Sonnar 85/2 design also.

 

[StuartR]

If we go by the notion that RF's are suppose to be smaller, lighter and just generally more compact, then a fast, heavy and expensive tele doesn't fit in that well. With RF's, you're suppose to just "get closer".

I don't think this is necessarily true. The rangefinder is just a tool, obviously we are not going out of our way to make things big and cumbersome, but not every RF shot has to be in your face with a 35mm lens. If I recall correctly, the 135mm has a longer history in rangefinders than any lens wider than 50mm...

I use a big, heavy 75mm summilux all the time, and nobody seems put out by it. It is still smaller and lighter than the SLR equivalents (Canon 85mm f/1.2L, Nikon 85mm f/1.4 etc.).

Anyway, I use RF's for everything, I also shoot handheld with hasselblads, shoot macro with a mamiya 7 and generally do most things a$$ backwards, so perhaps I am not the best to pay attention to.

 

[ZeissFan]

Getting back to Stuart's original question, it all comes down to the camera's ability to focus. And as others have said, the narrow base of the rangefinder is the primary inhibitor. Perhaps in the future, we will see a 135 lens from Carl Zeiss, although it might require an external viewfinder because there are no framelines for 135 in the current batch of cameras (at least none are quoted in its literature).

The new camera would be fine for a long lens, but I don't believe you could consistently and accurately focus a fast 135mm lens on a Bessa body.

 

[Hektor]

Seems to me a second-hand M3 is broadly the same price as an R3a or similar, cheaper than the Zeiss, and better and more reliable, especially in low light, than either of them.