Why WOULDN'T You Buy Voigtlander Lenses?

[oscroft]

It was the CV 15mm that got me into rangefinder photography. I've been a wideangle nut for several decades using SLR cameras, but the widest (with good enough quality) that I'd ever been able to afford had been a 24mm.

Then I saw the CV 15 for what seemed like a bargain basement price, and Robert White was offering a cheap Bessa-L body to go with it.

And then the CV21 called and I answered... and so on.

Now I have six CV lenses (15, 21, 25, 35/2.5, 50/2.5, 75), a Bessa-L and a Bessa-R, and I have an M6 on the way.

The CV lenses are superb, amazing value for the money, and they led me all the way to buying a Leica (and the only reason I'm not trying them with an M8 is that I can't afford one) - what higher praise can I give them?

 

[Ossifan]

Do you really believe that some CV 4/25 can have " milky and undefined midtones" because of a sloppy QC ???? Leaving aside it isn't trues at all, but how should this work technically ?

Bertram

I think Uwe's point was that it is possible for people to have different experiences with the same lens because of variances in manufacturing tolerances and also that less expensive lenses, with different (less controlled) tolerances, will produce different outcomes than more expensive lenses with, presumably, higher quality control. A not unreasonable statement.

To me this isn't really about "sloppy" quality control but rather about how precise you wish (or are able, given your machinery) to make your manufacturing tolerances - and the capability of your machines.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

As for lenses , there are no "different experiences ". A lens is not a restaurant. A lens is what it is and it does what it's design lets it do. And all the rest is blablah.

Bertram

We do not talk about the Russian stuff and it's well known tolerances. We talk about a quality product.
It was said the CV 4/25 has milky and undefine midtones,. What ever it shall mean, it can't be a personal experience, this is plain nonsense.

Bertram,
If you want to continue discussing with me, please get to a serious level and please change both attitude and language!
You are accusing members here of blah-blah-ing and talking nonsense only because they don't share your opinion...

Do you really believe that some CV 4/25 can have " milky and undefined midtones" because of a sloppy QC ???? Leaving aside it isn't trues at all, but how should this work technically ?

Bertram

Again, you are presenting your personal opinion as plain fact.

Ever heard of the Pareto principle?

Let's design a lens for the consumer market. It must be priced to be substantially below the L- and Z-word companies. Therefore, at a given price of xxx it can only be designed to correct y % of the optical problems.
Next, manufacture and QC: Do we allow for minimum tolerances and maximum QC? No, because that will break our budget. Therefore, we increase the tolerances and reduce the sampling quote for QC. That, however, may result in some percentage of our lens reaching the customer despite not meeting the specifications.

In short: a good CV lens may be close or equal to a lens of the L- and Z-word companies; however, the chances of getting a lemon from CV are higher.
And these may be the examples with "milky and undefined midtones" or other flaws.

Best regards,
Uwe

 

[rover]

Again, you are presenting your personal opinion as plain fact.

Bertram, nobody is arguing your success with your lens, but Uwe is correct. Your experience and satisfaction is your own. Your opinion is valid, just as valid as everyone else's. Please accept their opinions as they have accepted your's.

 

[PetarDima]

my only M mount lens is Minolta Rokkor 40mm, but if I had money,
CV 28mm f:1.9 will be on list ... I saw test shots, it's quite enuff for my needs.
50mm f2 is O.K. too ... compared to Zeiss & Leica 50mm f2 lenses(PopPhoto review) it gives almost same results

 

[ferider]

Let's design a lens for the consumer market. It must be priced to be substantially below the L- and Z-word companies. Therefore, at a given price of xxx it can only be designed to correct y % of the optical problems.
Next, manufacture and QC: Do we allow for minimum tolerances and maximum QC? No, because that will break our budget. Therefore, we increase the tolerances and reduce the sampling quote for QC. That, however, may result in some percentage of our lens reaching the customer despite not meeting the specifications.

In short: a good CV lens may be close or equal to a lens of the L- and Z-word companies; however, the chances of getting a lemon from CV are higher.
And these may be the examples with "milky and undefined midtones" or other flaws.

Best regards,
Uwe

I basically agree with you, Uwe. But there is one additional factor:
Every so often manufacturing processes get improved, and quality increases
even though costs are lowered. Compare the quality of a Toyota to
a Mercedes Benz for instance. Costs and quality are not always
directly related to people involved in and price of QC.

Cosina-Voigtlander/KobayashiSan has figured out how to
make small batches of quality lenses at very reasonable price.
Japanese salaries are not lower than German ones. The QC process
between CV and Zeiss/Leitz must be different, which is
why Zeiss employees are working in Japan in the CV factory doing QC.
There are other factors, too: Leitz spent a lot of budget on
developing high-diffraction glass, which makes their lenses smaller
than CV lenses.

But still, a big part of the price difference originates in other
factors, I believe. Margins are different for sure, which is why
Leitz can increase prices of their lenses so fast.

Best,

Roland.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I'm impressed that Cosina makes opical glass. In Japan only Cosina makes glass for Voigtlander and Zeiss (?) brands, and Nikon makes glass also. I understand that Leica buys in their glass and refines the elements and assembles the lenses.

 

[tedwhite]

Just added an Ultron photo to my previous post.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

I basically agree with you, Uwe. But there is one additional factor:
Every so often manufacturing processes get improved, and quality increases
even though costs are lowered. Compare the quality of a Toyota to
a Mercedes Benz for instance. Costs and quality are not always
directly related to people involved in and price of QC.

Hi Roland,
Ha - now you got me, being a great fan of Mercs, in particular the classic ones - and I am not talking about the Gullwings:
The old Merc W115 ( "/8") was the student's car some 20 years ago: cheap, reliable, a boot that took many, many crates of beer and very comfortable reclining seats to crash out after the party.
I agree that Toyotas have a very low failure rate, when they are new or up to five years old. But things look different when the cars get older. Then suddenly cars such as Merc, BMW, Porsche and the likes lead the reliability charts.
So, it's the Mean Time Between Failure which seems to be different. And a longer MTBF means more cost for the parts, probably due to more stringent quality control and/or lower tolerances in manufacture.

In my opinion, a - used - Merc is the cheapest car you can drive. While we were living in Poland, we bought a Merc 190E 1.8 - the basic entry model with the small 1.8 litre petrol engine - for my wife. At that time, the car had some 200,000 km on the clock. When we moved back to Germany three years ago, we sold it to Ania's uncle with some 360,000 km on the clock - still first engine, gearbox, etc. As far as I know, the car is still going strong. So much for long term quality.

Cosina-Voigtlander/KobayashiSan has figured out how to
make small batches of quality lenses at very reasonable price.
Japanese salaries are not lower than German ones. The QC process
between CV and Zeiss/Leitz must be different, which is
why Zeiss employees are working in Japan in the CV factory doing QC.
There are other factors, too: Leitz spent a lot of budget on
developing high-diffraction glass, which makes their lenses smaller
than CV lenses.

Yes, I agree - I do believe that CV is making quality lenses and their prices are reasonable. I do think that they are good enough for the majority of us.
CV rightly assumes that its customers can live with the remaining "flaws". Zeiss, however, assumes that its customers require something better and therefore introduce a more stringent quality control to the CV manufacturing process by even sending their own staff to Japan. Leica aims for the ultimate lens and therefore has much higher development-, manufacturing- and QC-cost.

But still, a big part of the price difference originates in other
factors, I believe. Margins are different for sure, which is why
Leitz can increase prices of their lenses so fast.

Best,

Roland.

I also agree here: There is definitely the brand factor included in Leica's prices. Still, they are great lenses and my ca.15 year old Vario-Elmars and the 50 Summicron still look and feel mint. Also, compared to the overall production, there is a large number of cameras and lenses still going strong.
We shall see how many CV cameras and lenses are still alive after about 20 - 50 years time.

Best regards,
Uwe

 

[ferider]

Best regards,
Uwe

Agree with you on all points, Uwe. I drive an American-made Mercedes, BTW (ML 320) ... if only Diesel would be easier to buy here ! I have/use Leitz, Nikon, Canon and CV RF lenses; and I love my SLR Zuikos and Hasselblad Distagon and Planar . My first ZM (the C-Sonnar) will be coming next week ...

Gruss aus Kalifornien.

Roland.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

As for lenses , there are no "different experiences ". A lens is not a restaurant. A lens is what it is and it does what it's design lets it do. And all the rest is blablah.

But not all lenses are built exactly the same, if Quality Control isn't religiously anal. Sometimes there are sample differences blablah blablah

 

[Ossifan]

Agree with you on all points, Uwe. I drive an American-made Mercedes, BTW (ML 320) ... if only Diesel would be easier to buy here ! I have/use Leitz, Nikon, Canon and CV RF lenses; and I love my SLR Zuikos and Hasselblad Distagon and Planar . My first ZM (the C-Sonnar) will be coming next week ...

Gruss aus Kalifornien.

Roland.

Hi Roland -

I'm interested in your experience with this lens as it appeals to me, too. Would you please send me a quick note on how you like it?

Thanks!
Alex

 

[iml]

Leica aims for the ultimate lens and therefore has much higher development-, manufacturing- and QC-cost.

While there's no doubt that different lenses produce different results, I don't think there's any such thing as an "ultimate" lens. It all comes down to taste. I also doubt that there's much connection between a lens that gives a desired look for a particular photograph and price.

Ian

 

[Bertram2]

Bertram, nobody is arguing your success with your lens, but Uwe is correct. Your experience and satisfaction is your own. Your opinion is valid, just as valid as everyone else's. Please accept their opinions as they have accepted your's.

This discussion was about opinions and personal impressions as long as nobody tried to explain the different impressions by QC and tolerances. Then it got (pseudo-) technical.

I would not never deny that lens samples can differ, all makes are concerned more or less, the Russian stuff same as the Leica stuff. That is trivial, we all know it.

But it was claimed that those differences ( from sample to sample ) could be the reason for somebodies complaint about undefined and milky midtones.
And sorry, this IS technical nonsense, because there is no coherence between any assembly/QC prob and such a difference from sample to sample. If somebody can explain to me, what must go wrong during the assembly of a CV 4/25 to let it look contrasty but let it have "milky and undefined midtones" later, different from other samples, please, do it !!

IMO each technical discussion should be based on a minimum of technical competence, if not, it is getting esoteric, in other words ridiculous. That is what I meant with blahblah.


bertram

 

[Ossifan]

But isnt't it more than just the assembly - I mean there will also be differences in ground glass, coatings, etc. - just a thought.

 

[clintock]

I have much more faith in Cosina's ability to control quality than in my own ability to consistently read a thermometer or agitate just the right amount for the contrast I'm after.

 

[Paul T.]

The 4/25...is contrasty but I never noticed "milky and undefinded midtones". Must have something to do with your craft, not with the lens.

Bertram

Perhaps, Bertram. Perhaps not. I don't think holding a different opinion from you is any reflection on my craft. I would say that, by definition, higher contrast means less detail in the mid tones. VC make some excellent lenses, the 25mm is excellent value for money, but it's not up to their best lenses, like the 28mm Ultron - it also vignettes wide open.

 

[Bertram2]

Perhaps, Bertram. Perhaps not. higher contrast means less detail in the mid tones. .

Higher contrast in general can mean less resolution = detail, but this does not concern only the midtones. and if any lens tends to a "milky look" then it is rather the one which is designed for more resolution. That is why I found "milky and undefined midtones" contradictionary to all my experiences with CV and for example Leica, which is designed for more resolution.

Bertram

 

[Paul T.]

I don't want to get into a rant about the 25/4 - it is a great lens for the money.

I'm sure there's the odd person who thinks the 25/4 ISN'T a high contrast lens. I think it's undeniable that it is. And in my usage, I've found that the midtones are flat; hence the greys seem uniform and opaque, like looking at milk, with no surface detail. There is a very specific look - for instance, John Hedgcoe's photos of henry Moore's sculpture, with beautiful texture - which that lens simply does not suit. I have seen photos taken with the 28mm Ultron which suggest it might have this look, but the 25/4 certainly does not - instead its strengths are its size, its excellent ergonomics - if you like zone focusing - and its price.

 

[harmsr]

The CV lenses are very nice, regardless of price. I own some CV, Zeiss, and Leica.

There is no shame what so ever to have a CV lens in comparison to the others. They perform very well.

I own the 15 for use on the M8 as a superwide. I also own the limited edition 50/2.0 collapsable which lives on the ZI body.

Best,

Ray