Voigtlander vs Leica: A dilemma.

[cmogi10]

Have you seen the price of the 24/1.4?

Have you seen the price of the other 21/1.4's out there?! 😱













O. Wait

 

[cmogi10]

I owned a handful of CV lenses before. I miss the hell out of the 35/1.2 I owned but I'm going to enjoy putting my new 35/1.4 asph through a serious workout.
The rest of the CV lenses were sharp and cheap but I really enjoy using the Zeiss and Leica offerings more.
It's the magic Ju-ju dust.

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

I do not own any Leica glass at the moment...

But own a very nice selection of CV glass, with the stand-outs being the Nokton 35/1.2 and the 90/3.5. The much reviled Nokton 50/1.5 is a favorite of mine as well.

But the 90/3.5 with Efke 25 is simply a scary lens. While I still plan to buy a Noctilux one day, the Nokton 35/1.2 is unlike any other 35mm lens I have ever owned.

For the price that you pay for CV glass new, I would not expect it to be in the same class as the Zeiss or Leica offerings. One thing that cannot be disputed is that CV glass delivers more value for money than any other rf lens maker at the moment.

 

[elude]

The difference is when used Wide Open. Leica is far superior when it comes to wide aperture, in terms of sharpness and contrast.
I however...
I Love Leitz, especially for its old lenses. I'm fond of low contrast black and white pictures and they've mastered it.

Shut a little, CV are as great as Leica, and are still great at wide aperture, unless you need huge prints, the difference is very very little. WORTH EVERY PENNY.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

For the price that you pay for CV glass new, I would not expect it to be in the same class as the Zeiss or Leica offerings.

Well,
Some of the leicaphobiacs here keep telling us that certain CV lenses equal or outperform Zeiss and Leica lenses. 😕😕😕

Cheers,
Uwe

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

Well,
Some of the leicaphobiacs here keep telling us that certain CV lenses equal or outperform Zeiss and Leica lenses. 😕😕😕

Cheers,
Uwe

Uwe,

For the price I would not expect... but you are right according to people who would know, including Tom A., sometimes CV glass does meet or exceed the performance of Leica and Zeiss offerings.

So I am not buying CV lenses with the expectation that they will equal or better the equivalent Leica or Zeiss lens. But I am extremely happy with CV lenses so far and they represent amazing value for money.

 

[newfinder]

35f1.2, you will never regret if the weight is not a problem to you.

 

[kasey]

The difference is when used Wide Open. Leica is far superior when it comes to wide aperture, in terms of sharpness and contrast.
............................

As the old chinese saying : only eat the fish body, let other take the fish head and tail....
M8 will cut away the head and tail of CV lenses .......😛

 

[Debusti Paolo]

but Leica is leica so i think that sooner or later everyone want to buy one of these famous lenses...it's the leica glow,bokeh,3 d renditon,color accurancy ...call it as you want but it has something "magic" for rangefinders photographers.Is like cars... some cars maybe are faster than a ferrari but a ferrari is THE CAR!!😀

 

[deepwhite]

The Nokton 35/1.2 is very good. I used to call it my "poorman's Noctilux", but then found myself totally wrong.

They are just different. And I wouldn't be too surprised if someone choose the Nokton 35/1.2 over the Noctilux in a blind test. (And vice versa.)

So why buy a Noc?

Well, if you just need it.

------

That said, I enjoy my Nokton 35/1.2 much more than the Heliar Classic 50/2 & Ultra Wide Heliar 12/5.6. I think the N35/1.2 got something that makes most other CV lenses look "cheaper". (Not including the 40/1.4 though.)

 

[FifthLeaf]

One thing that can be said in Leica and Zeiss' favor is the consistency in design between different lenses. By this I mean you can expect a similar aperture ring and focus tab/nub down the entire line of lenses. Look at the Voigtlander lens lineup and it's a mix where some lenses have wings jutting off the aperture ring, some focus rings have tabs and other have screw in levers, etc.

Now is this worth paying 4-8x more? Probably not, but I did anyway.

 

[Svitantti]

In some cases I think the VC build quality beats Leica's. Dont know about the absolute durability, but the smoothness with focusing and aperture ring etc. are great with many VC lenses like the 35 Ultron.
I did get a cheap 'cron so now I'm selling the Ultron mostly because of its size and maybe small difference in sharpness wide open.

I think VC comes very close to Leica in most properties and I think you need to really know why you need Leica, if you are buying 10x more expensive stuff when the differences are this small.

 

[HuubL]

For build quality there have never been better lenses than the classic DR and rigid 50mm Summicron, the V1 35mm Summicron and the Summaron, not from VC, not from Zeiss and not from Leica themselves.

 

[Ben Z]

At one time I fell prey to G.A.S. and bought a bunch of latest (at the time) Leica lenses including 21 Elmarit-ASPH, 35 Cron-ASPH, 35 Lux-ASPH, and 135 APO-Telyt. I found that any improvement over the older versions was not anywhere in proportion to the increase in cost, and as a result I no longer own those lenses. The only thing I regret was selling them before the prices went through the roof :bang:

I also have a number of Voitlander lenses. 12mm and 15mm are indispensible, in that Leica doesn't make anything comparable (I don't count the huge, expensive WATE an alternative to the 15). The 21mm f/4 (mine is the screw version) is about 1/3 the bulk of the Leica lenses (maybe 1/2 the latest f/3.8 model) which is great considering how infrequently I use it. My Elmarit rarely makes it into the bag unless I'm sure I'll be using it. The 28 Ultron is spectacular, and before the M8 was also an infrequently-used focal length not worthy of me spending for a Summicron. Likewise the 75mm. Both those lenses are now being used heavily on my M8. I just can't say enough good things about these lenses. The "build quality isn't up to Leica standards" may be true mechanically, but in practical terms they're far beyond the typical plastic SLR lens of recent years, and those don't fly into pieces very often either. All my Voitlander lenses in fact were KEH "Bargain" grade, and except for some exterior paint loss, are working perfectly. For all I know I could be the tenth owner.

 

[raid]

I am comfortable with the Leica lenses that I own, plus Nikon and Canon RF lenses, and then finally ... the CV 25mm/4. The 25mm lens is my only CV lens. It is of very high optical quality. Old lenses intrigue me, and that's why I am favoring the old design lenses. My latest lens experience is a Canon 19mm 3.5 FL lens. It may be less sharp and less contrasty than modern [CV] lenses, but it is what it is.

 

[ferider]

Quoting the "mean old man", I don't think it's a dilemma (a problem offering at least two solutions or possibilities, of which none are practically acceptable), but a conundrum (a problem having only a conjectural answer). 🙂

I think it's wrong to look at the Leica/CV/Zeiss/... offerings as competitive, because most of us (a) buy used Leica lenses, (b) mix lenses, and (c) the offerings largely complement each other. I consider myself lucky that we have the choice. The LTM/M mount is the only mount next to M42 that offers that variety. As consumers, encouraging that variety should be our common goal, not reducing it by promoting a brand religiously. For example, it can be argued that the CV camera and lens offering has significantly added to Leicas business in the last few years, not the other way around. There are more RF users than there used to be.

As example for (c), Leica does not offer very wide, or slow-but-compact wide angles. On the other hand, there is no real competitor to some Leica lenses, like 75/2 and longer/faster. Only Zeiss offers modern Sonnars, and highest resolution wide angles. Etc.

Reg. build quality (1) no modern lenses are as good as Canon/Leica/Nikkor lenses of the 60s or earlier, (2) any modern lens can have a problem, as the numerous reports on all three brands CV, Zeiss and Leica show. You get a good one you are lucky. Keep it. You get a bad one, send it back or have it serviced. You might consider buying two and pick the better one. That's just an artifact of modern manufacturing (I am guessing the QA processes across the different providers are similar), shorter time to market, less manual testing, etc.

Regarding CV lenses, there are some that show build problems easier than others. The 50 Nokton and the LTM Ultrons are notorious for wobble issues; however, they are probably the most popular CV lenses. Note that ZM 35 Biogon and Planar also sometimes suffer from the wobble problem. I generally find the newer CV M mount lenses (35/2.5 PII, 21/4 P, 35/1.4) very well built, similar to my Summicrons of the 70s (I'm a Mandler fan; I find the lens signatures unique, and used lenses affordable). The 28/3.5 is another CV lens built with very high quality.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[Graham Line]

My 35mm Color Skopar II 2.5 is a nice lens when on budget.

Nice lens even if you aren't on a budget. So are the 28/3.5 and the 50/2.5.
My Leica favorites are the Mandler lenses from the '60s and '70s, not the latest and greatest ASPH versions.

 

[Doug]

Sometimes the screw mount of some CV lenses is useful... I have the 15/4.5 Heliar and 50/2.5 Skopar and 75/2.5 Heliar... this past year I obtained a used John Milich 50/75 M adapter with the 6-bit coding pits but uncoded, expecting to use it with the 15mm. Then I learned the M8 frameline selection is important in conjunction with the coding for the lens to be recognized by the camera.

Actually, there is serendipity in this: this adapter is just right for the 50 and 75mm lenses, of course, plus... The recent Leica Summarit 50/2.5 and 75/2.5 have sequential 6-bit codings; 101100 for the 50 and 101101 for the 75, so I may be able to code the adapter as a 75 Summarit for use with the 75 Heliar and cover the last black pit with white temporarily if I wish to use it on the 50 Skopar.

 

[David Murphy]

The CV lenses exhibit an updated version of the same sort of technology that the Japanese optical firms put into classic SLR amateur camera lines like Minolta, Olympus, and Pentax, i.e. a compromise between mass production needs and quality - a well-executed compromise in fact. Of course Cosina was one of the players in that realm so given the will, they were well equipped to do what they did from a manufacturing and design point of view. This meant good quality rangefinder lenses at reasonable prices and good cameras, and a badly needed injection of this quality product on a significant scale into the rangefinder niche.

Leica is a professional system, and they attempt an uncompromising approach to quality and performance (at least in theory) at drastically greater cost. Is it worth it? That depends on how much disposable income one has. Most of us cannot afford recent production Leica (or justify the expense). There would have been no "Rangefinder Revival" really without Voigtlander and my hat is forever off to them and their commercial genius.

 

[oldoc]

All I currently shoot with on my M8 is the Nokton 35/1.4 Razor sharp and fast,fast,fast....and much cheaper (300USD) than the 1.2.