Voightlander 40mm F/1.4

[NoTx]

I just received mine from Photo Village. Very cool lens… but I must say a few things puzzeled me. Just a few mind, but the are there.

1. Size: I swear every picture I have seen of this lens made me think it was a LOT bigger than it really is. It is tiny, which makes me have to step back and rethink all the lenses I have seen compared to it. Interesting oddity really, but a real bonus.
2. Everywhere I read how the Voightlander lenses just don’t have the build quality of the Leicas and what not. Er, if this doesn’t have it then you are comparing the differences between a Rolex and a Movado. Sure, everyone will tell you the Rolex is made better… but sometimes you need a microscope to tell.
3. When am I going to be able to go use this tiny gem!!!!!

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

It is a great lens. And, yes, it is small.

 

[rover]

2. Everywhere I read how the Voightlander lenses just don’t have the build quality of the Leicas and what not. Er, if this doesn’t have it then you are comparing the differences between a Rolex and a Movado. Sure, everyone will tell you the Rolex is made better… but sometimes you need a microscope to tell.

I think often we get confused with, in general, lenses from the 1950 and 1960 which were works of art really. Honestly, my rigid Summicron, Nikkor 50/2, Canon 50/1.5, all older lenses are really well built, much better than modern lenses. By modern lenses I include my 4th gen 35 Summicron and Tabbed 50 Summicron. Great lenses, but not built like the lenses from days past, and no better than the CV lenses I have. Maybe there are plastic rings or something in the CV lenses that we don't see, I don't know. I find them built well enough and great picture takers, so I am happy.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Did you get the MC or the SC one?

 

[NoTx]

Ipicked up the MC since I split between B&W and color.

 

[Burkey]

NoTX - congratulations, its a great lens and you're right, it is small than you'd think. I've had really good luck wth mine.