Why WOULDN'T You Buy Voigtlander Lenses?

[Joe Mondello]

They're good enough, but that's all! A Chevy is a Chevy!

I prefer to think of CV lenses as Toyotas

And as the OP who asked this question, I would also ask folks to not denigrate each other's choices in gear, please.

 

[rxmd]

Does anyone know if CV or Zeiss have a credible substitute for the 135 Telyt-M?

They don't. Zeiss has stated IIRC that they consider 85mm the longest focal length that makes sense for their rangefinder system, and CV won't produce a lens that can't be focused reliably on their own cameras with the possible exception of the Bessa T.

On the other hand Zeiss does have what I'd consider "credible substitute", the 135/1.8 T* Sonnar in Alpha/Minolta AF mount. Two stops faster than the Leica lens, nice bokeh, and a minimum focusing distance of 72 cm

Philipp

 

[rxmd]

I believe the title of this thread is 'Why WOULDN'T you buy a Voightlander lens'. Absoulutely NONE of you have been on point, ...

That sounds a bit like when somebody asked the question of "Why WOULD you hit your wife", and most people say they wouldn't, telling them that they aren't on point.

...and you all take your misguided ballyhoo personally.

Welcome to the club.

A famous quote by those who just love VC lenses: they 9/10 there for 1/4 the price, when comparing them to a premium lens. And believe me they will never be better than that. It should be rembered that '9/10 there' means that most are as good as a 1970's premium lens.

OK. Two things to be said about that.

Firstly, it's a bit strange that on the one hand 1970's premium lenses are apparently considered somewhat outdated, and at the same time you recommend buying them instead a couple of sentences earlier. On Leica forums people rave about their 1950s Dual Range Summicrons, and talk about whether to get the used 3rd generation Summicron or 4th, as if their performance would magically upscale with time. Maybe 1970s premium lenses are really good enough even for most Leicaites? (And mostly you still pay less on a new CV lens than on a 1970s premium lens from the L brand.) So I don't really see your argument here.

Secondly, if you think in terms of marginal cost and marginal utility, going by your numbers, if you choose a "premium lens" you pay a premium of an extra 750% to get a performance increase of 11%. I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like a bad deal.

Philipp

 

[DaveSee]

If you must ask, you may not understand the answer, yet...

If you must ask, you may not understand the answer, yet...

I've owned only a couple of CVs, an Ultron and a Skopar. I've handled a number of them and very carefully I have waded through the examples found in Flickr, Photosig and elswhere. Vanity, experience, and my wife all think I am a professional photographer. I think they are good entry level lenses, but my suggestion to the serious photographer is to buy the older marks first as used.

If you need to experiment with another focal length they are a good idea but remember, the may not hold their value. But as all real artists know, often one has to 'pay to work'.

Many CVs are very optimistic in their performance. My Ultron, often presented as the new Summicron IV, is wortheless at 1.7 and 2. It's okay at f4. My old 2.8 Summaron runs circles around it. Ergonomicaly it's not so hot, and it's way too big for a 35mm. CV performance may vary from lens to lens. What do you expect from cast plastic lenses?

The built in lens hoods found on many are half joke and half after thought. They actually get in the way by way of their cost compromise.

I like my 25mm Skopar, but I bought it to try out something wider than the 28mm I normally use. It's stick shift focus makes it something of a toy, but admittedly, I now want a REAL 24-5mm lens. It's served its purpose.

The good CV lenses, viewfinders and other products, those almost matching their Zeiss brothers, are not really that cheap. That being the case, buy Zeiss.

The CV lesson is that there is no free lunch and you get what you pay for.

Hey there,

First, i'd suggest you look at your work, not flickr posts when evaluating gear.

Second, VC lenses are an entry to RF gear, and important contributions too: competition is healthy. Your slight using "entry level" is brash and immature. No disrespect intended, but there are truely two levels of RF lens price structures, as new... Zeiss is lumped into the Leica group... and Leica has no 15 or 40mm "entry".

Third, you get what you purchase, others get what you produce. One could buy every CV Skopar+M adapter for the cost of one Leica lens(excepting the 28/2,8 Elmerit, the least expensive Leica lens, new), and thus have 21,25,28 and 35 FL lenses to use, and evaluate... oh, and you'd get VFs for the 21 and 25 included... "cast plastic"? To what do you refer?

I have no Nikon, FSU, nor Canon RF lenses, but I've all the rest(not ALL of them, but 4+ as represntative sample!). The Contax 21/4,5 (1956) has much more "image" than the CV 21, yet only with my film kit... would I buy the Leica or ZM 21, no: with these two lenses(CV and Contax), I've got it(21) covered.

As to your comment about "buy Zeiss", the CV 28/3,5 is very good, and more versitile between those using film and digital gear than the ZM 28. I will say the ZM 25 and 50/2 are characters you want in the play. Include in this cast the Skopars 21,25, 28 and 35: all have a similar feel to the hand, yet each with a slight difference to the touch(distinguishing them in use). OOF for the Skopars is not as creamy as the 10x expensive Leicas, nor the older glass(with less contrast), but at an average f4 max, these are not "available darkness" lenses.

But I digress: to the original post/poll, to dismiss CV lenses is to dismiss the opportunity to explore a FL well and at little cost. The ZM 21, 25 and 50 are sweet. So too the Leica 24, 35, 50(Noctilux), 75 and 90... yet CV lenses 15, 21, 25, 28, 35, and 75 are very real players on the stage. Please excuse my lack of experience with Nikon and Canon RF lenses: there are sweets there too, I suspect.

Have fun with your toys... and you thought they were something other?

rgds,
Dave

 

[m-achiavelli]

Maybe Dan should ask Elliott Erwitt about the lenses?

Maybe Dan should ask Elliott Erwitt about the lenses?

W. Somerset Maugham was a great admirer of Elliott Erwitt's work, and vice versa. When they first met, Maugham asked the photographer about a picture he particularly liked. "What camera did you use to take it?" the author wanted to know. Erwitt replied: "I will tell you that, if you first answer me this: I really like 'The Painted Veil', what typewriter did you use when you wrote it?"

 

[m-achiavelli]

...and according to my clients, DaveSee is right on the money

...and according to my clients, DaveSee is right on the money

Guess the author/photographer story explains itself, but just to make the concrete link to the subject: On my rangefinders, I've mosty used Leica glass since they've been M6:s and M7:s. But when I wanted to try a 75 for a portrait job, and the Leica one was sold out, the shop recommened the CV 75/2.5. For one of my trips, I was loaned a G2 by the manufacturer and used its range of Zeiss lenses accordingly. And I've tried the Konica/Hexar 28/2.8 on my M7. Which actually had the most "Leica like" look of them all.

Obviously, I like the Leica "look" and can see the difference in almost any print. But that is something subjective. Someone else might like another look better. And, importantly, when I showed my clients work done with the CV 75/2.5, they don't comment on the difference between that and shots made with the Leica glass, they comment on the content.

So IMHO there is only two reasons to not buy CV: a) Subjectively, you like another "look" better. b) Money isn't an issue.

But lets say money is an issue. In that case it's better to have a good lens that catches your subject matter, than to not be able to catch it. And in my experience, CV has done a very good job of providing us with that opportunity.

And to me, there's not much point of going middle of the road. After extensive use, my recommendation would be buy CV or Leica. Why pay almost Leica prices, without getting "the best"? Of course, except if you like the Zeiss look. Then you should go with them.

Having said that, I must also admit that now when I have the M8, the Konica/Hexar 28 is proving to be great 35!

 

[rsl]

Better than the comics

Better than the comics

I've been watching this thread since it started and I must say, it's funnier than the comics. A couple people, but only a couple, have come close to the truth: that the only thing that matters is the print. Photographic equipment is a tool. The only thing important about a tool is whether or not it does what needs to be done. If you're shooting on the street you won't be able to tell the difference between a print from a Leica lens and a print from a CV lens. If you're a formal portraitist or landscape photographer and you're not shooting with at least a medium format camera you don't really understand the medium. Comparisons between lenses only make sense with reference to the kind of work you're doing with your tools.

I even see people on this thread making value judgements on the basis of flickr uploads. Forget it. Photographic quality judgements on the basis of anything less than a well-made 11 x 14 print are useless -- whistling in the wind. The difference between Leica and CV lenses only matters if you're producing gallery-quality prints. Even then whether or not it matters depends on the subject and the treatment.

In most cases the only advantage in using Leica lenses is so you can say, "I use Leica lenses, and, wow! are they ever expensive."

 

[Bertram2]

If you're shooting on the street you won't be able to tell the difference between a print from a Leica lens and a print from a CV lens. If you're a formal portraitist or landscape photographer and you're not shooting with at least a medium format camera you don't really understand the medium. Comparisons between lenses only make sense with reference to the kind of work you're doing with your tools.

I even see people on this thread making value judgements on the basis of flickr uploads. Forget it. Photographic quality judgements on the basis of anything less than a well-made 11 x 14 print are useless -- whistling in the wind. The difference between Leica and CV lenses only matters if you're producing gallery-quality prints. Even then whether or not it matters depends on the subject and the treatment.

In most cases the only advantage in using Leica lenses is so you can say, "I use Leica lenses, and, wow! are they ever expensive."

A nice summary, short and precise. This is what some should tattoo on their forehead, to read it as a reminder in the mirror each morning, while shaving.

I mean especially those who (forced by a total lack of any knowledge) usually must flee to the battlefields of esotericism to defend their invests, those who can see optical phenomenons like "sparkling" and "glow" .:bang:

The tattoo would not help either as I suppose. Because the roots of all this equipment obsessions , tho discussed as a photographical issue, are outside of photography anyway.


bertram

 

[jamning]

I would not buy another Voigtlander lens. I bought a 35mm Color Skopar P2 and it badly scratched both the bayonet of my M8 and M6.

 

[Pherdinand]

the comparisons with typewriters of writers etc are completely wrong. I hope there's no need to explainwhat are the major differences.

Fact is, sometimes i fish out my negatives exposed with the 70 y old rolleiflex and I realize how much better they look than ANYTHING exposed with ANY normal lens on ANY 35mm camera I have ever used.
If it wouldn't be that limiting, i'd use MF all the time.

 

[Pherdinand]

On the other hand Zeiss does have what I'd consider "credible substitute", the 135/1.8 T* Sonnar in Alpha/Minolta AF mount. Two stops faster than the Leica lens, nice bokeh, and a minimum focusing distance of 72 cm

Philipp

AAAA!!! now that's a lens!!!
I guess it does not work on full frame minolta slr's (film ones, i mean)...
Do you know what's the price for this? i can't find it anywhere at the moment...

 

[Pherdinand]

nevermind, i see they do list a price following a further link...1449 euro...)

 

[washy21]

Not so long ago I attended a seminar given by a very good and long standing Magnum photographer who still shoots a film rangefinder. (I'm going to refrain from naming him)

Invariably, it wasn't long before the subject of lens choice came about. He said that he only ever uses CV because as far as he was concerned it gives him the images he wants and the reliability has proved to be second to none.

 

[rxmd]

I guess it does not work on full frame minolta slr's (film ones, i mean)...

It should, on autofocus Minoltas (Maxxum/Dynax/...). Not on the old manual-focus Minoltas, because they use a different bayonet.

Philipp

 

[baycrest]

3 CVs

3 CVs

From my experience, I can't fit into any of your "poll" suggested answers.

I bought my M8 with 3CVs:

• the M mount 21mm f/4;
• LTM with CV adaptor 35mm f?1.7; and
• LTM with CV adaptor 50mm f/1.5.

The last two lens at 100% crop (acutally you can see it on any 8x10) exhibited a significant Back focus. I had all sorts of "epxeriences" with Sigma Front focusing lens on my Canon gear previously , so I decided to exchange the last two lenses for ZMs and picked up the Biogon 28mm and 35mm.
Quite happy with the single CV I have and the 2 ZMs.
In future, I'll probably try out the 75mm CV being careful to test it thoroughly before I leave the store or failing that the 85mm Zeiss. I'll give the new Leica 50mm f/2.5 a look when they start appearing, but its going to have to significantly perform better than the Zeiss if its going to convince me its that much better.

Rob

 

[FrankS]

I've been watching this thread since it started and I must say, it's funnier than the comics. A couple people, but only a couple, have come close to the truth: that the only thing that matters is the print. Photographic equipment is a tool. The only thing important about a tool is whether or not it does what needs to be done. If you're shooting on the street you won't be able to tell the difference between a print from a Leica lens and a print from a CV lens. If you're a formal portraitist or landscape photographer and you're not shooting with at least a medium format camera you don't really understand the medium. Comparisons between lenses only make sense with reference to the kind of work you're doing with your tools.

I even see people on this thread making value judgements on the basis of flickr uploads. Forget it. Photographic quality judgements on the basis of anything less than a well-made 11 x 14 print are useless -- whistling in the wind. The difference between Leica and CV lenses only matters if you're producing gallery-quality prints. Even then whether or not it matters depends on the subject and the treatment.

In most cases the only advantage in using Leica lenses is so you can say, "I use Leica lenses, and, wow! are they ever expensive."

Thank you for this whole post, including the highlighted part.

 

[Joe Mondello]

From my experience, I can't fit into any of your "poll" suggested answers.

I bought my M8 with 3CVs:

• the M mount 21mm f/4;
• LTM with CV adaptor 35mm f?1.7; and
• LTM with CV adaptor 50mm f/1.5.

The last two lens at 100% crop (acutally you can see it on any 8x10) exhibited a significant Back focus. I had all sorts of "epxeriences" with Sigma Front focusing lens on my Canon gear previously , so I decided to exchange the last two lenses for ZMs and picked up the Biogon 28mm and 35mm.
Quite happy with the single CV I have and the 2 ZMs.
In future, I'll probably try out the 75mm CV being careful to test it thoroughly before I leave the store or failing that the 85mm Zeiss. I'll give the new Leica 50mm f/2.5 a look when they start appearing, but its going to have to significantly perform better than the Zeiss if its going to convince me its that much better.

Rob

Well, first off I can't believe this thread is still active!

When I came to RFF it was because of the Epson R-D1 and that led to my subscribing to Reid Reviews.

From Sean's reviews I came to understand that I didn't HAVE TO buy Leica glass if I wanted to get an M8, because quite frankly I couldn't afford both.

My starting this thread was to help me better judge people's opinions -- or preconceptions -- about CV lenses.

Sounds to me like your LTM>M adapters were wonky, but if it didn't work it didn't work.

Personally I'd say that my own experience with CV glass is a bit mixed. I LOVE the 75 Color Heliar and the 15 Super Wide Heliar. I like the 40 Nokton stopped down, but also like the fast aperture. The 21/4 is terrific and the 28 Ultron is a terrific buy.

So I suppose my intent was to encourage those who had never give CV glass a shot to take another look.

It's not for everybody, granted, but they are IMO about the only bargain around in this new world of digital RF cameras and lenses.

 

[FrankS]

For those so inclined, I'm sure a high end digital would do a fine job. It just wouldn't be my choice (yet - who knows, things change).

 

[tedwhite]

I agree with Phillip> I owned Maxxums for years and learned that their AF lenses would not fit on pre Maxxum Minolta SLR's.

Ted

 

[Hacker]

From my experience, I can't fit into any of your "poll" suggested answers.

I bought my M8 with 3CVs:

• the M mount 21mm f/4;
• LTM with CV adaptor 35mm f?1.7; and
• LTM with CV adaptor 50mm f/1.5.

Rob

In the old days, I splurged on the lenses instead of the body if my budget was tight and faced with a Hobson's choice. I guess in the digital age, things are different.

Has anyone taken a few shots and posted on side by side comparisons of CV and Leica glass and put a poll to see what people will vote in a blind test? I mean, based on the same person who would process the pictures, but differently for the 2 lenses since in the real world, one can tweak to what suits a particular lens.