The Gaping Hole in the Voigtlander Lens Lineup...

[GeneW]

and then the slooow 90/3.5 that no one seems to talk about

There was quite a bit of talk about the CV 90/3.5 recently and all of it, as I recall, very positive.

Gene

 

[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.

 

[Solinar]

I'd be happy if C/V reissued the 50/3.5 collapsible Heliar. Slow, but sweet nonetheless.

 

[Hektor]

It has just occured to me that if you want a fast and cheap and good 135f2.8 then a reflex lens is really cheap, and the rangefinder in T70 or P30 or R3 is more accurate than an M7 with the 135.

UK price Canon T70 + 135f2.8 say $100us

 

[Sonnar2]

I have a Canon 1.8/85 which I can focus on my Bessa-R:
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_RF_2.html#CANON_RF_1.8-85mm
But I have "fine-tuned" the rangefinder.
Another good fast telephoto for the Bessa is the Nikkor-PC 2/8.5cm which is quite common in LTM for~300 USD. A fast second-hand Leica lens is a step up in terms of price. So why should Cosina bother to compete with? The 2.5/75 is a nice lightweight lens. Half a stop speed isn't much important with today's film.

If I want to use a real fast telephoto I take the Zeiss Planar 1.4/85 with my Contax 139. A small combo and better to foucs as well....

cheers, Frank

 

[Kin Lau]

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.

I have no trouble with using RF's for nearly everything. I have my J9 & J11's, a Serenar 85/2 from dreilly, so I understand where you're coming from. My Zorki 3 + Serenar 85/2 is slightly heavier than the hatchet I use for camping 🙂.

But if CV as a company is to continue to do well, then they have to consider how many people out there will buy that lense, and how much money they can make from it. So I'd have to say that they have their own "RF philosophy". Does any other company out there have as many 35's to 50's in their lineup as CV?

The other problem, is as many have brought out... the used market for fast 85's & 90's is quite good, and prices quite low. CV would have a hard time competing.

If I want to use a 135/2.8, then it's SLR territory. Did anyone ever make a 135/2.8 for an 35mm RF (serious inquiry)?

 

[bmattock]

Did anyone ever make a 135/2.8 for an 35mm RF (serious inquiry)?

Yes, I have a Komura 135 f2.8 LTM. Nice lens, but I prefer one of the other 135's I own. I'd say it is fine for when you need the speed, but we're only talking one stop.

I did a comparo between two 135's recently - an Arco Tele-Colinar f3.5 and the Komura. Some photos for that pupose, should still be online.

Actually, I have a rather largish collection of third-party LTM lenses in 135mm. Seems everybody and their brother made them, and they're all dirt cheap on eBoy...so I tend to be unable to resist. The best one remains my Canon 135mm f3.5 in black.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Thread is here for the Komura 135 f2.8:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3585&highlight=komura

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[CameraQuest]

Until Mr. K markets a longer base Voigtlander Bessa, there will likely be no fast Voigtlander teles because the existing lineup including the Bessa R3A can not focus them consistently wide open and close up -- the most demanding focusing range for any rangefinder lens. Focusing the same lens at infinity is easily done with a shorter length RF, but not wide open and closeup.

Another wide open gap is in the new Zeiss M lineup. The widest and longest (the Geman made 15/2.8 and 85/2) are too far expensive for most photogs. Cosina made less expensive Zeiss alternatives are only logical to eventually expect.

Stephen Gandy

 

[bmattock]

Until Mr. K markets a longer base Voigtlander Bessa, there will likely be no fast Voigtlander teles because the existing lineup including the Bessa R3A can not focus them consistently wide open and close up -- the most demanding focusing range for any rangefinder lens. Focusing the same lens at infinity is easily done with a shorter length RF, but not wide open and closeup.

Another wide open gap is in the new Zeiss M lineup. The widest and longest (the Geman made 15/2.8 and 85/2) are too far expensive for most photogs. Cosina made less expensive Zeiss alternatives are only logical to eventually expect.

Stephen Gandy

Kobayashi-san deserves a medal. I love my Bessa R and Bessaflex TM. He fills a niche that no one else was willing to step up to the plate and take on.

But I still say I focus my Canon 85mm f1.9 just fine at distances of 4 feet wide open. Math be damned, it works, mate.

Now if only Kobayashi-san will consider making the Bessaflex TM in Canon FD mount, like their old Cosina-made Canon T-60. I could die a happy man.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[hoot]

Until Mr. K markets a longer base Voigtlander Bessa, there will likely be no fast Voigtlander teles

Hmm, but Mr. K marketed a 40mm brightline long before a 40mm lens was available by C/V. And Cosina's specialty has always been catering to other manufacturers. So it wouldn't be so out-of-the-ordinary to market fast tele lenses even though they would have to be used on non-C/V bodies.

 

[paxship]

I have a Bessa R and bought a Nikon 2x magnifier. This increases the EBL from 25.9 (37mm X .7) to 51.8 (37mm X .7 X 2). The downside is that framlines cannot be seen and the image is a bit dimmer. I use it if focus (for any lens) is critical. Focus> flip magnifier up > compose > shoot.

 

[Pherdinand]

Can I ask a nasty question? Aside of the baselength issue... Why does a 135mm lens in RF world have to be f/4 and expensive ; what's the reason that f/2.8 versions cannot be made for approx same price as the SLR versions? I mean come on, a 135/2.8 SLR lens is far from novelty and you can buy MF and AF versions for 100$ used. The optical formulas are also not too complicated, no tele or retrofocus design is needed, etcetera. And they are of good quality.

Same question is valid for fast 85-90mm lenses... a 85/2 is not a problem at all, and it does not demand a 1400 euro price tag. Not even the 85/1.4 lenses are THAT expensive, when brand new, AF and everything included.

 

[Bertram2]

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

First:An essential reason is of course the baselenght and the accuracy issue and after the T model is stopped there is no camera left in the portfolio capable to work fine and easy with such long and fast lenses.

Second, and more important: RF cameras technically point more to the wide side in general, having advantages in design which grant superior w-a performance. And RF cameras tend more to the slow side =small, light and not too expensive lenses as part of the "easy to lug and unobtrousive to use" concept. The Finder allows slow lenses in low light, different from a SLR where you NEED the fast lens to be able to do your work.

I am not sure how large the group of tele shooters really is within the RF community, but it could be there are simply not many enuff to make Mr. K Think about anything longer than 90mm.

Honestly spoken I personally keep a 90mm already as a true PIA, shooting with that tiny framelines is more than primitive compared to what a SLR offers, more guessing and hoping than composing. Risking to get burned at the stake and that my friend John.E.R. will quit our friendship I say RF concept sucks with tele lenses longer than 75mm. The invention of the (forgot the name)reflex-add-on for the M leicas proves that.
Maybe Mr.K. has a similar sight on the limits of the RF concept and has made hsi conclusions realted to the portfolio.

Third:
One part of the smart Bessa project has been the pricing, which had been made not only related to Leica but also within a certain absolute limit.
Offering longer and faster lenses would have pushed his customers to price levels too close to Leica. The effect would have been he does not buy at all because the lens is too expensive in general or he would have decided for a (maybe used) Leica lens , for the same price.
In other words the whole Bessa project could only be successful if there was a huge distance to the Leica products. As we all know it worked, obviously better as the Contax or Konica idea.

IF Mr. K. would have decided for more faster lenses (also on the wide side) and more fast tele lenses he'd be in serious troubles now, because this part of the niche market is now covered by the ZI products !! That even ZI has no 135 seems to prove that they too in principle keep this beeing something for completely sick therapy resistant RF fanatics far out . 😀 ( Aaaahhrghh, I hear the grumbling, shit storm coming 😉 ).

Summa summarum it was the intention to keep the RF concept close to it's roots where the advantages are obvious and and it was a clever an clear definiton of the Bessa's market segment and the adequate price level for this segment which lead to a CV lens line as we have it today.

Niches do not allow a manufacturer to cover everything on every GAS spoiled photog's wish list, that's the damn capitalism , folks, realize it !! 😀 😀

Regards,
Bertram

 

[VinceC]

I too try to accomplish as much of my photography as possible with an RF. But there are mighty few people who do this.

My take on this subject: The world is awash with cheap 135mm lenses because they once sold in large numbers until the SLR era swiftly took over the telephoto market. Typical consumers and beginner photographers want long telephotos, not wide angles. Even today's consumer zoom digicams rarely go wider than the equivalent of 35mm, but they have telephoto capabilities out to 150mm or more. It takes a lot of experience to start realizing the photographic value of a wide lens or a short portrait lens. For 135mms, everyone who wants one has a huge choice, and usually under $100. My Nikkor 13.5cm f/3.5 uses the same formula as its SLR bretheren and is simply and excellent lens with no need for updating. Same for the 10.5cm f/2.5.

The lack of a faster 85/90mm in the CV lineup seems more puzzling to me. The ability to focus accurately on a bessa is perhaps the main reason behind this. Plus there's all the competition from the fine used portrait lenses of the 1950s-60s. The best of these continue to create superlative images. Again, the rangefinder market is tiny, and those who want a top-notch fast portrait lens can get one for an absurdly cheap price-to-quality ratio.