Why WOULDN'T You Buy Voigtlander Lenses?

Why WOULDN'T You Buy Voigtlander Lenses?

  • I only want the best regardless of cost

    Votes: 47 7.2%

  • Never tried any

    Votes: 96 14.7%

  • They are so inexpensive they can't be any good

    Votes: 14 2.2%

  • I already have some, they're great!

    Votes: 494 75.9%
  • Total voters
    651
Cosina has done a marvelous job in their RF lenses; some approach the best other brands optically, some with build quality, some about as good in both qualities, and for attractive pricing too.

I've had my 25mm Snapshot Skopar for 6 years. It's not one of my most-used lenses. I understand it's among the best of the earlier CV lenses optically. I certainly have no dissatisfaction with its performance, going by my results and of course the lovely photos Bertram has pulled out of it.

"undefined and milky" midtones imply low contrast to me, and a strange reversal of the usual S-curve, with steep toe and shoulder with flat slope in the middle. A processing issue maybe, but doesn't correspond to my experience.

Interesting that Cosina has apparently retained the same glass from the Snapshot Skopar in produsing the new RF-coupled 25mm; they must have found no reason to reformulate it optically.

They really have done some interesting things, often unique in the industry, in short-run lenses like both the 50mm Heliars and the 35 Nokton. Good for them, and may it continue thus!
 
Paul T. said:
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. .
Click to expand...

The 25/2 is a high contrast lens, of course it is , everybody can see it.
If "the midtones are flat " means it isn't able for differentiated greys in the midtones of B&W photos, then I have to say I cannot confirm this experience.
Especiall in diffuse light and covered skies, and with chromogenic film my experience is just the opposite.

Less contrasty lenses tend to sink in a mud of washed out greys if you do not balance them with a more contrasty film/exposure/development.

It all depends on the circumstances, of light and film and general statements lead nowhere. The only thing you can say generally is that it is a contrasty lens.

Bertram
 
Doug said:
C
"undefined and milky" midtones imply low contrast to me, and a strange reversal of the usual S-curve, with steep toe and shoulder with flat slope in the middle. A processing issue maybe, but doesn't correspond to my experience.
I!
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have no idea, how a high contrast lens could produce undefined and milky midtones, that is a contradiction.
Yes, a processing issue maybe, or a matter of film and how to expose it. And that is what I referred to when I said in my first answer that this "milky and undefined" thing must have something to do with the craft.

Bertram
 
Returning to the picture of the two motorcycles for a moment. I forgot to add that it is a scan of an 8X10 on an Epson 4990 from a print made on VC RC with a 2 1/2 filter. Once scanned, I posted it. There was no fiddling with it in photoshop. At least, in the case of this particular Ultron, it doesn't seem to be abnormally contrasty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantastic value for money and the quality is excellent. For the price you half expect them to be like some of the cheap eastern european lenses of the past where quality control was non-existent and the results were a bit of a gamble. Every CV lens I've owned (6 so far) has been excellent with a build quality that puts Nikon/Canon to shame.
 
All CV lenses aren't created equal, and I'm not talking about sample variance and QC here. There is a world of difference in build quality and feel between something like the 25 or 15 and the 35mm Nokton or the 40. The 35 has the build quality of the 35 lux and optically I can't tell the difference between the two on my R-D1 at a common f/stop. Whilst I'm tempted by Leica glass on a regular basis I guess I'm not willing to make the sacrifice to afford it. In the same way I'm tempted regularly to buy a nice old Porsche 944 Turbo but look at my MX5 (Miata) and come to the conclusion that for 85% of the time the Miata is going to be just as good plus will leave me money in the bank to pay the insurance and fuel...
 
I like my 28 Ultron a lot shooting B&W at wide apertures, but rather less stopped down shooting colour. I far prefer my M-Hexanon 28 for that. Does that make one lens "better" than the other? I think not. Thats why I have two 28s, three 35s, two 50s and a 55. I also have a Summilux 75 which I find about perfect for me at that focal length, so I only have one. But others may well prefer the Summicron or CV Heliar - and they're not wrong.

Much of this is about taste and ways of working. I think CV lenses have a very fine place in the RF arsenal - and I'm not giving up my Ultron!

...Mike
 
I bought a v6 Summicron just so I had one Leica lens. It is very good but the CV 25 and 35 are the ones usually on the camera and they are great. I wish I'd saved my money and bought a CV 50 instead.
 
I love to experience different flavors or signature looks with lenses from different makers and from different times. While newer lenses most likely all are sharp and contrasty, after a while I seem to view images from new lenses as being very similar.

I use a Nokton 50/15 and Skoparon 35/3.5 for the Voightlaender Prominent, and my only "new" CV lens is the CV 25mm/4 without rangefinder capabilities.

I love to change between lenses like the Summicron (rigid) and a Nikkor 50/2 and a Canon 50/1.2 and a Zeiss Jena 50/2. These lenses have different looks that you can identify.

If I had bought my lenses mainly from one manufacturer, there would be the risk that the lenses will result in images with a similar look.

Raid
 
Last edited:
mike_j said:
I bought a v6 Summicron just so I had one Leica lens. It is very good but the CV 25 and 35 are the ones usually on the camera and they are great. I wish I'd saved my money and bought a CV 50 instead.
Click to expand...

Mike, if only you had asked I would have sold you my 50 Nokton instead 😉
 
I've got a CV25/4 and it's fine in its own right. You'd have to spend X times the money to get comparable build in present day autofocus lenses. But when it comes to build quality per dollar, they pale in comparisson to the Konica M-Hexanons..
 
Hi.

I don't own an M8 (at least not yet, one can always hope), but I have 2 CV lenses: 35mm 2.5 on my Nikon SP and 50mm 1.5 on my M6. Both are great lenses, with the 35 being one of the best lenses I own. They are really great.
Cheers
 
I bought 12mm, 15mm, 35mm f2.5, 35mm f1.7, 50mm f1.5 and 75 f2.5 more or less as soon as each was available. I sold the 35mm f1.7 because I did not use it enough and the 50 f1,5 because I did not like the boke. Since I use fast lenses wide open often most of the frame is OOF so this was a catastrophe for me. I use the 15mm a lot.
 
nightfly said:
Well the 28mm Summicron is 1.6" long and the CV 28 is 2.5" long (stats from B and H). The Elmarit is 1.2" long.

That's a significant difference.
Click to expand...

They're actually close to the same size. I measured the Leica at 1.56" and the CV at 1.88", so the latter is a little longer (it's getting a little later and Liddy bumped the ladder...)

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gabriel M.A. said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that's a very important point. The CV lenses have different characters just as the Leica lenses do. Some CV lenses have high contrast, some medium, some low, etc. And contrast, of course, is just one piece of the puzzle.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom