fbf
Well-known
CV 15mm is a great lens and I am hooked instantly after getting my first roll back.
Gid
Well-known
According to Sean Reid the 50 1.5 Nokton - very close.
dfoo
Well-known
The 28/1.9 is a great lens! What I don't like is that it cuts off so much of the viewfinder. I'm currently saving for the 35/1.4 (sold my Hexar AF to buy it!)
Svitantti
Well-known
I dont get why Leica lenses are said to have so much better build quality. I have owned a 50mm Summilux and now own a 35mm Summicron. The voigtländer lenses like 35mm & 28mm Ultron, 35mm Nokton (1.4), 50mm Nokton that I have owned were just as good.
Of course they were new or quite new (and not like 30 years old), but even friends agreed they couldn't imagine the build quality to be worse than Leica or Zeiss. Personally I think so far the best build quality I've touched is the chrome 35mm Ultron. Very smooth focussing and aperture stops. My 35 cron is a bit stiff and both Leitz lenses have/had aperture ring that doesnt fiil anything like the Voigtländers.
I guess it is possible they could "lose" after 30 years or so but I dont know why should it be so if they are so fine now. What would make them age worse?
Anyway, I like the Voigtländer lenses much. The price is nice for a student or someone who cant spend thousands for lenses. Quality is great. I happened to get a cheap 'cron that I think is however better than the 1.4 Nokton because of distortions. Ultron "loses" because of its size. I guess the 'cron is a bit sharper. But for the normal price of the cron, I would have just used the Ultron or get a f2.5 Skopar.
Of course they were new or quite new (and not like 30 years old), but even friends agreed they couldn't imagine the build quality to be worse than Leica or Zeiss. Personally I think so far the best build quality I've touched is the chrome 35mm Ultron. Very smooth focussing and aperture stops. My 35 cron is a bit stiff and both Leitz lenses have/had aperture ring that doesnt fiil anything like the Voigtländers.
I guess it is possible they could "lose" after 30 years or so but I dont know why should it be so if they are so fine now. What would make them age worse?
Anyway, I like the Voigtländer lenses much. The price is nice for a student or someone who cant spend thousands for lenses. Quality is great. I happened to get a cheap 'cron that I think is however better than the 1.4 Nokton because of distortions. Ultron "loses" because of its size. I guess the 'cron is a bit sharper. But for the normal price of the cron, I would have just used the Ultron or get a f2.5 Skopar.
Krosya
Konicaze
All lenses can have problems or be great. I have tried Leica, Zeiss, CV and best and most consistant for me are Konica Hexanons. Great price, superb glass, - at least as good as Leica or any other. Mechanics are superb too. Unfortunatelly some are hard to find and there are only so many FLs in them. So, rest are coverd by CV, Zeiss, Avenon, NIkkor, etc. Even some FSU lenses can be great!
RLG
Established
I have a subscription to Reid Reviews. It is interesting to read the tests of Leica, Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses compared.
If you want absolute top quality then the choise, I would say, is Leica, but vey expensive.
I'm not a professional photographer and the CV's do a perfect job at a fraction of the Leica price. All my RF lenses at this moment are CV's.
Perhaps in the future I might buy a Leica lens. I am thinking of the 24 Elmar. It is only f 3.8 but during daytime it should be sufficient. I would not need to attach an external viewfinder on the M8. My 21 Skopar requires an external viewfinder on the M8.
Best
If you want absolute top quality then the choise, I would say, is Leica, but vey expensive.
I'm not a professional photographer and the CV's do a perfect job at a fraction of the Leica price. All my RF lenses at this moment are CV's.
Perhaps in the future I might buy a Leica lens. I am thinking of the 24 Elmar. It is only f 3.8 but during daytime it should be sufficient. I would not need to attach an external viewfinder on the M8. My 21 Skopar requires an external viewfinder on the M8.
Best
Svitantti
Well-known
Why couldn't a professional use VC? I just cant understand this. The lenses are much better build than many modern "pro gear" and I dont think there is much difference (if any) even compared to Leica. In some cases the difference might even be for VC.
There are some types of lenses where the VC could really be a clever choice and some, where it would be not so great (50mm Nokton is great, 35mm Nokton probably bad because of the distortions compared to Summicron, which VC does not have straight alternative for).
There are some types of lenses where the VC could really be a clever choice and some, where it would be not so great (50mm Nokton is great, 35mm Nokton probably bad because of the distortions compared to Summicron, which VC does not have straight alternative for).
Prosaic
Well-known
elude
Some photographer
Are you kidding... well. One should try and don't listen to them I guess. 
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I have a chrome 35/1.2 Nokton, and it's built better than any other lens i've ever used, including Leica DR50, 50-ASPH, 35Lux-ASPH, 35Cron-ASPH; Hasselblad, Nikon, Canon, Contax.... The aperture clicks on the Nokton are sublime!
When i bought my 35/1.2 Nokton, i was told Bruce Davidson was coming in to get one.... Pros DO use them. Pros use all sorts of cameras that are deemed to be 'below' Leica. Peter Lindbergh and Michel Comte use a Hexar AF, for example. Juergen Teller and Terry Richardson shoot with Contax G2s.... If Cosina/Voigtlander were smart and/or had the resources, they should upgrade their marketing and PR efforts. It would not hurt to promote their usage by respected, published professionals. As it stands, they're just 'a company.' Leica manufactures and cultivates 'heritage' and pedigree.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think the best kept secret is the Hexanons ... it's just a pity there is not a wider range and also a pity they are no longer about except for second hand. I have a 35mm f2 and a 50mm f2 and they are both sharp and almost totally flare resistant ... the build quality is really imressive and a notch above the CV's IMO.
I think CV have the destinction of building two of the world's most underrated lenses ... the 35mm Nokton and the incredible 15mm Heliar!
I think CV have the destinction of building two of the world's most underrated lenses ... the 35mm Nokton and the incredible 15mm Heliar!
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Keith,
Do you speak of the CV 35/1.2 or 35/1.4? I'm thinking of buying the 35/1.4 SC.
Do you speak of the CV 35/1.2 or 35/1.4? I'm thinking of buying the 35/1.4 SC.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Hi Jamie,
Yes sorry I meant the 1.2 ... I've never been affected by the size of the lens so would always choose it over the 1.4
As a matter of curiosity I put the 1.2 on my R3a the other day and was amazed to note that it blocks nearly half of the 40mm frameline area. Great on an Ikon though and also good on an M2 but if I only had Bessa bodies I would go for the 1.4 without a doubt.
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
The pre-Asph 'lux.
With the recent CV lenses, Cosina has really lifted their game with regards to build quality. The Nokton 35/1.4 and Ultron 28/2 (just two examples that spring to mind) are not lacking in any way IMO. They are extremely well built, and easily the equal of any Zeiss or Nikon lenses I own.
waileong
Well-known
hMMM...
hMMM...
I could point you to Mr Puts' analysis where, as an example, he explains the differences between the Leica 75/2 lens and the Voigtlander 75/2.5 lens.
A partial quotation is below:
"The case of the 75mm lenses
"A recent review of the Leica and Cosina 75mm lenses may illustrate these points. Both lenses have been extensively tested and reviewed all over the internet and in many printed publications, and MTF graphs are available too. One may ask what is the added value of the constant repetition of known facts. In this context I am always reminded of one of the classical stories of Donald Duck: Duck is asking money from a rich foundation to discover America. The obvious reply is that America has already been discovered, and the answer by Duck is: yes, but not yet by me.
"The general conclusion from the review: both lenses perform quite well and are of comparable quality is nothing new and the more impressionistic comments depend heavily on the particular choices in the imaging and viewing chain.
"I have on my desk the measured results of the two lenses, Leica and Cosina. Here we have facts that have been collected for the lenses without any additional components from the imaging chain and are representative for the intrinsic quality of the lenses. The field of view corresponds to the normal 24x36mm frame and is not restricted to the smaller angle of view when one uses results that relate to the smaller M8 or Epson sensor. These results neglect the important outer parts of the capture area on the negative area as used in film-loading cameras like the M6 or M7 or MP. Comparing the MTF graphs we note that in the centre of the image and wide open both lenses perform equally well, but when looking at the outer zones there is a significant difference in correction philosophy. Leica has opted for a higher contrast, but allows more curvature of field and more astigmatism, where Cosina goes for lower contrast and less astigmatism. This correction philosophy has impact on the out of focus (bokeh) character of the lens. It is also intriguing to see that the Cosina designer has opted for a higher contrast in the sagittal direction, where the Leica designer has selected the tangential direction to be of higher contrast. The main differences between both lenses in this area of definition can be found in the 40 lp/mm of resolution. Most photographers have difficulties to find scenes where this level of definition can be captured. In itself this is interesting, but one needs to know that the higher resolutions are not only needed for the definition of fine detail, but also for better edge contrast at the lower frequencies.
"The bigger differences between the two lenses are in the area of chromatic correction, where the Leica can show a much better apo-like correction. The performance of the Leica in the wavelength range of 400 to 500 micron is much better (by a factor of three). The upshot is that pictures taken with the Leica lens in scenes with a dominant blue light have a significantly higher contrast.
"The illumination of the full image circle (radius 22mm) is quite even in the case of the Leica lens and worse in the case of the Cosina lens. You do not only note that in the amount of vignetting at the corners: the Leica at 2.8 is much better than the Cosina at 2.8 (difference is more than one stop). The illumination differences between Leica and Cosina at full aperture do present themselves in a hot spot in the centre of the image for the Cosina where the Leica has not such a spot. Transmission measurements also indicate that the Cosina is in effect closer to a true full aperture of 2.8 and not 2.5.
"On a more practical level we may say that the actual comparison between both lenses is between a 2/75 and a 2.8/75. Then the performance advantages of the Leica lens are more impressive as a 2.8 lens is much simpler to correct to a high level of performance.
"The Cosina lens exhibits a higher level of focus shift than the Leica lens. The focus shift for the Cosina lens is within the 0.03mm CoC tolerance area, but when one wants to have high magnification prints, the focus shift could become visible.
"Upshot
At an aperture of f/4 both lenses perform visually equally well and that is what most reviewers will conclude. But such a conclusion can be made for most high quality lenses, especially in the realm of the M-bayonet lenses: lens design here has a long history and with modern design tools one can create good designs without much trouble. The step from a good to a superb design is not so easy, but then the naked eye might not be the best tool to detect the fine differences. The eye as an instrument for measurement is notoriously weak and one needs additional equipment to supplement and correct the conclusions of the eye. There is a dividing line between the seen and unseen and the eye is not good at detecting things one is not aware of. That is the basic but important conclusion of lens comparisons by the eye only: you see what you want to see and what you want to see is also influenced by the way one has configured the imaging and viewing chain.
"You cannot rely on MTF measurements alone, and certainly not on one figure merit values (this lens has a score of 78.3 and that lens has a score of 80.1), but also not on personal impressions.
"Lens testing such that reliable and representative conclusions can be drawn, is a complicated and time-consuming process. Without sophisticated equipment to back up the visual assessment of printed pictures (not screen analysis) lens reviews are of limited value when one wants to get a valid assessment of the intrinsic lens qualities."
See http://www.imx.nl/photo/Opinion/page114/page114.html
and http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page63.html
hMMM...
I could point you to Mr Puts' analysis where, as an example, he explains the differences between the Leica 75/2 lens and the Voigtlander 75/2.5 lens.
A partial quotation is below:
"The case of the 75mm lenses
"A recent review of the Leica and Cosina 75mm lenses may illustrate these points. Both lenses have been extensively tested and reviewed all over the internet and in many printed publications, and MTF graphs are available too. One may ask what is the added value of the constant repetition of known facts. In this context I am always reminded of one of the classical stories of Donald Duck: Duck is asking money from a rich foundation to discover America. The obvious reply is that America has already been discovered, and the answer by Duck is: yes, but not yet by me.
"The general conclusion from the review: both lenses perform quite well and are of comparable quality is nothing new and the more impressionistic comments depend heavily on the particular choices in the imaging and viewing chain.
"I have on my desk the measured results of the two lenses, Leica and Cosina. Here we have facts that have been collected for the lenses without any additional components from the imaging chain and are representative for the intrinsic quality of the lenses. The field of view corresponds to the normal 24x36mm frame and is not restricted to the smaller angle of view when one uses results that relate to the smaller M8 or Epson sensor. These results neglect the important outer parts of the capture area on the negative area as used in film-loading cameras like the M6 or M7 or MP. Comparing the MTF graphs we note that in the centre of the image and wide open both lenses perform equally well, but when looking at the outer zones there is a significant difference in correction philosophy. Leica has opted for a higher contrast, but allows more curvature of field and more astigmatism, where Cosina goes for lower contrast and less astigmatism. This correction philosophy has impact on the out of focus (bokeh) character of the lens. It is also intriguing to see that the Cosina designer has opted for a higher contrast in the sagittal direction, where the Leica designer has selected the tangential direction to be of higher contrast. The main differences between both lenses in this area of definition can be found in the 40 lp/mm of resolution. Most photographers have difficulties to find scenes where this level of definition can be captured. In itself this is interesting, but one needs to know that the higher resolutions are not only needed for the definition of fine detail, but also for better edge contrast at the lower frequencies.
"The bigger differences between the two lenses are in the area of chromatic correction, where the Leica can show a much better apo-like correction. The performance of the Leica in the wavelength range of 400 to 500 micron is much better (by a factor of three). The upshot is that pictures taken with the Leica lens in scenes with a dominant blue light have a significantly higher contrast.
"The illumination of the full image circle (radius 22mm) is quite even in the case of the Leica lens and worse in the case of the Cosina lens. You do not only note that in the amount of vignetting at the corners: the Leica at 2.8 is much better than the Cosina at 2.8 (difference is more than one stop). The illumination differences between Leica and Cosina at full aperture do present themselves in a hot spot in the centre of the image for the Cosina where the Leica has not such a spot. Transmission measurements also indicate that the Cosina is in effect closer to a true full aperture of 2.8 and not 2.5.
"On a more practical level we may say that the actual comparison between both lenses is between a 2/75 and a 2.8/75. Then the performance advantages of the Leica lens are more impressive as a 2.8 lens is much simpler to correct to a high level of performance.
"The Cosina lens exhibits a higher level of focus shift than the Leica lens. The focus shift for the Cosina lens is within the 0.03mm CoC tolerance area, but when one wants to have high magnification prints, the focus shift could become visible.
"Upshot
At an aperture of f/4 both lenses perform visually equally well and that is what most reviewers will conclude. But such a conclusion can be made for most high quality lenses, especially in the realm of the M-bayonet lenses: lens design here has a long history and with modern design tools one can create good designs without much trouble. The step from a good to a superb design is not so easy, but then the naked eye might not be the best tool to detect the fine differences. The eye as an instrument for measurement is notoriously weak and one needs additional equipment to supplement and correct the conclusions of the eye. There is a dividing line between the seen and unseen and the eye is not good at detecting things one is not aware of. That is the basic but important conclusion of lens comparisons by the eye only: you see what you want to see and what you want to see is also influenced by the way one has configured the imaging and viewing chain.
"You cannot rely on MTF measurements alone, and certainly not on one figure merit values (this lens has a score of 78.3 and that lens has a score of 80.1), but also not on personal impressions.
"Lens testing such that reliable and representative conclusions can be drawn, is a complicated and time-consuming process. Without sophisticated equipment to back up the visual assessment of printed pictures (not screen analysis) lens reviews are of limited value when one wants to get a valid assessment of the intrinsic lens qualities."
See http://www.imx.nl/photo/Opinion/page114/page114.html
and http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page63.html