Why WOULDN'T You Buy Voigtlander Lenses?

[iml]

I have a 21/4, a 35/1.7, and a 50/1.5. I think they all allow me to make the pictures I want to make under a variety of different lighting conditions, so that's good enough for me. The fact that they are reasonably priced is a plus. I also use a Canon 50/1.2, which is a great indoor low-light lens, but not really an all-rounder for my style of shooting. One day maybe I'll try some Leica glass, 50mm is my main focal length and a slightly more compact 50 than the Nokton would be good.

Ian

 

[Joe Vitessa]

I usually reach for my Canon 35mm 2.8 over the Ultron 1.7 because I prefer the look of BW images I get from the Canon. As it's been stated, the Voigtlander lenses are VERY contrasty for BW work.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I had the 35mm Ultron. Wonderful lens. But it just didn't shine on the M8. Wonderful on film and R-D1. I just don't know what the deal was.

I've seen shots taken with the 50 Nokton; nice. I still wouldn't buy it. Why? I have the pre-asph Summilux. Ever since, only "classic" 50s attract me.

The 35 Nokton, though, looks like a winner. But then again, it makes a rangefinder look like a dwarf SLR. I would very much like to try it, and see if I can shake my misgivings about it off, but I've never been able to get my hands on one.

The 40 Nokton...that is indeed an acquired taste. The bo...err...the "out of focus area" simply makes me shudder. It is otherwise wonderful. But for somebody like me that likes to shoot wide open. Nein.

The 35 Color Skopar PII, I can't say anything bad about that lens (if I overlook its inherent high contrast). I can't believe it isn't even more popular. I have hardly ever seen it for sale on the classifieds here; that tells you how much it's treasured by their owners. I may give that one a try, but at f/2.5, it's borderline slow for me. It may be a designated "outdoors"/street shooter.

I think "Voigtlander" lenses is too broad a label. Each lens has unique strengths and weaknesses. I don't see the brand giving it an inherent image quality (or even "philosophy" in design), except affordability, and that one isn't optical.

 

[iml]

My 21 is quite contrasty. Neither the 35/1.7 Ultron nor the 50/1.5 Nokton seem to be so, they just seem quite matter of fact (I shoot mainly b&w, and mostly do not have a high-contrast style). They are both more contrasty than the Canon 50/1.2, but that's because the Canon is extremely low-contrast, in daylight at least.

I think "Voigtlander" lenses is too broad a label. Each lens has unique strengths and weaknesses.

Good point.

Ian

 

[peter_n]

The 35 Color Skopar PII, I can't say anything bad about that lens (if I overlook its inherent high contrast). I can't believe it isn't even more popular. I have hardly ever seen it for sale on the classifieds here; that tells you how much it's treasured by their owners. I may give that one a try, but at f/2.5, it's borderline slow for me. It may be a designated "outdoors"/street shooter.

I am the lucky owner of the first version of that lens and it is a cracker. No focusing tab and a really short throw. As I was reading your post it suddenly occurred to me that it's a perfect mate for my R4.

 

[David Murphy]

This poll sort of confirms what most of us realize: that CV has been a pivotal force in the rangefinder revival.

I don't own a CV 50 either. It's because the 50 is such a common focal length there are so many good ones left over from the original rangefinder era at competitive prices. If CV would sell a basic 50 for say $150, I'm sure it would be a major success.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

When I end up with a Leica at some point down the road, my first lens is going to be the CV 35/1.2 Nokton, no question. I like fast glass because my friends and I like to hang out in dim bars after dark (or I did when I wasn't pregnant) and we do a lot of things outside at night around fire. In fact, I'll probably buy a 50mm Nokton and the 35mm, just to make sure I'm covered.

 

[ywenz]

judging by the poll results, this would seem like a pretty useless question eh? Kind of like asking "Why don't you want to be run over by a car?"

 

[Ben Z]

I own several Voitlander lenses, but all cases except one it was not due to cost so much as that they give me something I can't get from Leica. The 12mm and 15mm aren't Leica focal lengths (well, there was the rare 16mm Hologon, the converted 16 Contax and now there's the WATE @ 16mm), and the 21mm gives me modern performance in a much smaller package than Leica's. The exception is the 28/1.9 which I bought because it was 10% of the cost of the Summicron and reputed to be 90% as good. In general I like the heft and feel of the Leica lenses, but if I had to repurchase today, given even what the Leica lenses sell for used, I would probably head straight for the Voitlanders without batting an eye.

 

[OurManInTangier]

Marc A:

I think you will be favorably impressed by the 35/2.5. A small, excellent lens. The only time I take it off my Bessa R is when I want to use a 50mm lens which, in my case, is the Canon 50/1.8.

These are the two lenses that I currently own and I'm not looking to get anymore...for now at least.

The 35 is a cracking little, and I do mean little, lens though you will notice vignetting when using it wide open. Having said that I haven't had to use it wide open that much and stopping down to f/4 helps alot. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is an absolute star, everyone should get one. For the money I don't think it can be beaten....various specific effects aside.

I wouldn't have a problem buying Voightlander lenses again. I think you should research all sorts of makes/prices in the focal length you're looking to buy and decide what you want from what you can afford.

 

[photogdave]

After shooting with the 50 Nokton, I'm ready to sell my 50 Summicron to purchase the Nokton. I do love my 35 Ultron but sometimes I'm stymied by the lack of close focusing. I'd like to trade that for the old 35 Summilux but good luck finding one of those at a good price!

 

[rich815]

Brian: You and I are from the "vintage group" of people who see something more pleasing in the vintage lenses. It is great that different people can enjoy different lenses.

Raid

I fall into this group too. I have a Contax G2 kit and frankly for sharpness, contrast and color rendition I think the 28/45/90 of that kit really have no equal, especially in terms of bang for buck. However, I bought into the Leica-M lens system a couple years ago as I wanted a more vintage look option especially for some of my B&W work---where contrast and sharpness are still important but not the end-all. In that school a lens' character/personality is paramount often at a priority to the absolute sharpness/strong contrast department.

I bought and used the 40/1.4 S.C. Nokton. Nice lens. Build-quality did feel a bit questionable but I did not own it long enough to know. I shot it for about a year. It was sharp, images came out nice. But truly lacked a kind of unique personality or character IMO. Sharp, yes, byut what else? I could not find it and the images did not thrill me. I tried out a friend's 50/1.5 Nokton. Have to say I felt about the same about that lens too.

If you want good, sharp lenses at a good price VC lenses certainly cannot be beat. I personally howver felt they were too much "middle of the road" for me.

My favorite lenses for RF are the 28 Biogon and 45 Planar for the G2 and the 50/2 Summicron DR, 50/1.5 Summarit and 90/4 Elmar for Leica M-mount. I guess you could almost say opposite sides of the specturm in some ways. But that DR is no slouch compared to modern lenses and the DR itself and it's wonderful character would define to me what the VC lenses lack.

Personal taste of course, just sharing....

 

[back alley]

i like the cv lenses, i like that they are so tiny and fit perfectly on the new r4 camera.
i have no real need for speed and much prefer the small size.

99% of what i shoot is outdoors in daylight. today it's raining and very grey out and i was shooting with the cv 35/2.5 and it was plenty fast.

i love having the r4m plus 5 lenses plus the grd in the f6 and barely feel the weight, especialy with the body and lens in my hand. i don't normally carry everything i own all at once but with the cv gear it's so doable.

i will admit the 35/2.5 is too contrasty for me but i have the rokkor 40 for bright sunny days and the cv 35/2.5 for dull days like today.

joe

 

[JCdeR]

shoot the VC opened up and you will se the difference. Wether this justifies the cost is up to your own opinion.
But using VC lenses on Leica cameras ... sort of waste

 

[JCdeR]

When I end up with a Leica at some point down the road, my first lens is going to be the CV 35/1.2 Nokton, no question. I like fast glass because my friends and I like to hang out in dim bars after dark (or I did when I wasn't pregnant) and we do a lot of things outside at night around fire. In fact, I'll probably buy a 50mm Nokton and the 35mm, just to make sure I'm covered.

Why not go for a cheaper Bessa ... same result it is after all the glass that justifies Leicas existence

 

[Joe Mondello]

But using VC lenses on Leica cameras ... sort of waste

Actually for me, quite the opposite is true. Sure if price were no object, I'd love a nice bag full o' Leica glass thank you very much.

But the M8 made such a dent in my wallet that CV lenses were all I could muster. I likely would have snatched the new Elmarit 28 at $1495 IF I COULD FIND ONE, but am just as happy actually to have picked up my first 4 CV lenses for about that same amount of cash.

The plain fact is I just can't justify the WATE (or the *wait* or the *weight* hehe) for the cost when my 15 and 21 CVs are really terrific completely pocketable and razor sharp "little" lenses. I DID spring for the oft-maligned Leica 21-24-28 zoom finder for these 2 lenses and find it works a charm for me.

I started this thread since the discussions at the LCUG seem to revolve around Leica glass and CV sometimes seems dismissed as a poor stepchild, but I think they are terrific lenses which, even if I grow out of them, will return most of their original cost should I ever decide to sell them.

Oddly enough a real favorite lens of mine is a 1963 DR Summicron (which my Dad bought new) which simply won't mount on the M8 but is so good on the R-D1 that I've kept those 2 as a kit for backup!

As the OP, I'll admit I am a little surprised that so many folks here are afficionados of the CV lenses, but also pleased.

I love shooting rangefinders again -- and this Forum has helped me tremendously -- first with the link to a re-furbed R-D1 plus a 10% off code(!) and the links to Sean Reid's reviews and website, plus a whole new bunch of like-minded (at least so far as RF shooting goes) friends.

After decades away, I am a very happy RF shooter again in no small part thanks to Mr. K and CV lenses!

 

[michaelging]

I have been thinking of buying a CV ,WA lens for my Nikon S2. I shoot mostly B&W and all the comments about high contrast concern me. Do you mean that the highlights block up before you get good shadow detail? I have always controlled contrast with the film I use, the ASA I rate it at and what developer I use to process it in. If I have too much contrast I over expose and under develop in something like D76 ,1 to 1. Are these lenses so contasty that the contrast is out of control? I appreciate any answers.

 

[foto_fool]

I have the 40/1.4 MC and love it for what it is - a new, fast lens. Sharp, with great contrast, color rendition and flare resistance. I can live with its boke, though I have lenses that render smoother OOF. The Nokton lives on an R3A and the three of us are quite happy together.

In have not been temped by the 50mm Nokton. I have a 50/2 Hexanon for sharp, and for fast I sought out the Canon f0.95 and ZM Sonnar for their subjective flaws. I managed to get some pretty good deals on faster Leica glass at 75mm and 90mm, and you'll have to pry my dead fingers off my 35mm Summilux, which I prefer for size to the 35 Nokton anyway.

My brain won't "see" at 12mm or 15mm, and between 21mm to 28mm I am inclined toward 21 - I have that f.l. covered on my Contax G. But someday soon I think I will probably end up with the 21/4 P for daytime - the specs look good and several members have posted some really lovely images made with the LTM version.

I admit I chuckle every time I read a criticism of the build quality on the CV lenses. Jeez, get over it. I admit I have not handled every lens in the line, and allow that there could be some examples out there that should not have passed QC, but IMHO these are fine lenses - as Rolls Royce used to understate the horsepower of their cars - "adequate". Frankly if I was not so addicted to speed I would have mostly CV glass, with a hazy old Summaron and a J3 for "look".

- John

 

[Photog9001]

no reason, unless one is looking for specific characteristics they don't have. which applies to most, if not all manufactured products.
who's "sean" btw?

 

[MikeL]

I'm always humbled by the power of perception, both good and bad. From my limited experience all these rangefinder lenses are plenty good, but many are different. Once you know what look you're going for, then maybe it's worth it to you to pay big dough for something like a noctilux. But until you know what you want (e.g. less contrast, no tab, the best sharpness wide open), it seems odd to just buy something since it is the most expensive and has greater perceived value.