Voigtlander or Zeiss lenses?

Voigtlander or Zeiss lenses?

  • Total voters
    78
  • Poll closed .
I would pick a Zeiss lens over a VC lens most of the time. I think they are excellent lenses and usually have a bit less distortion than Voigtlander lenses. After shooting a lot of Velvia and Provia chromes over a number of years, I still have the 1/3 stop habit which Zeiss provides. They feel a bit better made. I do have a number of VC lenses and I certainly enjoy using them as well. For the price they are pretty amazing lenses and they do have a few lenses that are outstanding in their own right. I have the M version of the 15mm lens and it is spectacular. Also where else can I get screw mount lenses for my IIIf. I also took up Stephen Gandy's offer and bought several Voigtlander SC lenses for my Nikon S3 at great prices. - Jim
 
I'm a bit of an IQ freak and am very happy with the Zeiss lenses. The only drawback is their size. Way smaller than all of my SLR gear, but not as compact as the Voigtlander or Leica lenses of same focal length and same or close max f-stop.
 
Just decide based on specs. There is not much overlap, and except for two ZM lenses, they are made in the same factory anyways. For the few lenses that are similar, I would prefer CV lenses (21/4, 35/2.5) since they are smaller, cheaper, and better than I am a photographer.
 
I have owned several CV lenses, and one Zeiss. CV's construction quality were somewhat varied, but all were good enough for actual use. Sure they aren't as beautiful or buttery smooth as some of Leica glasses I've owned, but CV has very nice and unique glasses at super bargain price tag. I currently have Color-Skopar 28/3.5 and build quality is superb. My only Zeiss C-Biogon 35/2.8 is beautifully made and the handling is super smooth.

I'm very happy with what they offer as a whole, and I don't like or dislike one more or less than the other. They are both great and offer different stuff. And as Mike put, I'm with "and" idea. :)
 
Last edited:
Both are great. I voted for Voigtlander because of the size issue mostly. I use the 21/4, and 25/4 on an M3 and CL as well as a micro 4/3rds system. Both are tiny and most people think the camera's are little point and shoots with these lenses. I also like the price of the CV lenses. They pack tremendous value for the price.
 
Voted Zeiss, only because I prefer the look of OOF areas a little more, the build is great, although the CV/m39 lenses are well made too.

I have one of each, and would buy either, depending on the f/stop mainly, not build. VC/m39 has some faster options in some FLs.

Wish you had the "Both" option....
 
Depends. I have tried many CV lenses and still have many now. Also, I tried several ZM lenses and only have 1 now.
Having tried :
ZM Planar 50/2 vs CV Heliar 50/2 vs CV Nokton 50/1.5 vs M-Hexanon 50/2 vs (few) Summicron 50/2 - I kept CV Nokton 50/1.5 (Awsome lens) and M-Hexanon.

ZM 21/2.8 vs CV 21/4 (M and LTM) - kept both.
ZM 25/2.8 vs CV 25/4 M - sold both - 25 just doesnt work for me.

Other CV lenses, like 35/1.2, 15/4.5 m, 75/2.5, 40/1.4 are awsome and dont have counterparts in ZM line - all keepers.
So, all-in all - I like CV over ZM it seems. (plus M-Hexanons)
 
It depends on for what end. If we are talking 28mm lenses, I'd go CV over ZM. In general, though, I prefer the rendering of the ZM compacts (21/35/50f1,5) over the CVs in a similar configuration.
 
I like character lenses; I find myself attracted to the "imperfect" aspects of different lenses. The "perfect" lenses are often too clinical for my tastes. I am not printing super large, so I do not need the sharpest, highest resolving lens. I like the CV lenses and their unique character attributes quite a bit! I currently have the 21, 28 1.9 (which rocks), 35 1.2 and 2.5, 50 and 75 heliars and soon, the new 75 1.8 heliar. Just loves me my Voigtlanders!

(I also prefer my $89 dollar Canon 85 2.0 serenar to my (much) more expensive Leica 90 summicron. Sold the summicron. Go figure.)
 
I've been burnt by the CV sample variation once, and am a bit reluctant to try it if I have a ZM choice.
My primary choice is Hexanons though...
 
Of the two, I've never used a Zeiss but have owned and used several CV lenses. I liked them all, especially the 35/2.5 P I, but the only one I have now is the CV 15 which is a great lens.
 
I've used a number of CV lenses since buying my RD1 and been impressed by them all. In the past my faves have been the CV15 heliar, 25/4, 28/2. I've now settled on the heliar and my UC-Hexanon 35 as my kit. The only other lens I have at the moment is the tiny black 28mm 3.5 color-skoopar which simply hasn't seen much use since I bought it and will be in the classifieds shortly.
Zeiss lenses seem to be sharper out of the box if you get my meaning, but the CVs are no slouches, after all look how many here use them.
 
Voigtlander or Zeiss lenses?

To the question, I'd answer "yes". There's no real overlap between the two lens lines; each time there's the same focal length, there's something different and attractive about both brand offerings.

Both lines have a 50mm f/2, for instance, one of the closer matches, but the Voigtlander is a collapsible "character" lens. In the same focal length and f/1.5, it's the Zeiss that offers "character"...

I feel pretty fortunate to have so many choices available.
 
There are reports of mechanical reliability issues with both (there's a big thread on it elsewhere). I'd go CV for the price, but in practice there aren't many direct overlaps in focal length and maximum aperture.
 
Mostly Voigtlander. The C-Sonnar is great and the ZM 35, 28, 21 all look great too.

I'd rather have the 1.4 speed in a 35mm than precision optics so I have the CV in that size. I really like the lens too. Not just a speed thing.

Then the ZM 28 is neither terribly fast nor terribly small, so I'm happy with CV there too.

Ditto 21mm.

I guess I could see someday using their 28 or 21 but I'd have to have a heck of a lot of idle money to do that. Also I worry that their ultra sharpness wouldn't match too well with the 35 1.4 that I like so much :)

edit: Putting the C Sonnar and the CV 28 1.9 side by side makes me wonder if Cosina downgraded the mechanics and handsomeness of some of the lenses when they re-created them in M Mount to further differentiate their product lines. The CV 35 1.4 next to the ZM is a noticeable difference in mechanical quality. The 28 1.9, and 21 and 28 Skopars don't seem that far...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom