Any opinions on cosina glass for leica M?

I've found the CV lenses to be excellent - almost all as good as the best Nikon glass I've used, but generally not quite as good as Leica glass. The possible exceptions are the 35/1.2 Nokton and the 50/3.5 Color-Heliar, which are both really outstanding lenses and rival anything I've used.

<p>

I find the color rendition of CV lenses generally warm and saturated; their warmth is "pinkish" whereas warm Leica lenses tend to be "yellowish"; see <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HHZ5">this thread</a> for a comparison of a bunch of 50s including several Leica and one CV.

<p>

Except for the Color-Heliar 50/3.5, where it isn't much of an issue, the bokeh of the CV lenses is consistenly less good than that of modern Leica lenses - though in my view the Summilux ASPH 35/1.4's bokeh is harsh and the Summilux ASPH 50/1.4's bokeh is borderline.

<p>

Flare resistance isn't as good in the CV lenses as it is in the Leica lenses pretty much across the board.

"I stand by my opinion that Erwin Puts is nothing more than a Leica puppet whose only real love is the sound of his own voice."

 

His more recent 'musings' dispel the former, though they seem to reinforce the latter.

 

"Now, Leica is designing lenses to win resolution/contrast competitions, but the trouble is, as suggested by someone above, and by Erwin Puts, that one can make use of these differences by using the finest grain films and a heavy tripod."

 

Or eclipse those differences by using a larger film format.

"I stand by my opinion that Erwin Puts is nothing more than a Leica puppet. . . "<p> ". . . all sound and fury, signifying nothing. . . " <p>Puts can defend his own credentials if necessary but I haven't seen any of his critics expound anything more that blind attacks upon his authority and character, not adddressing the thrust of his observations. If anyone knows more about the subject it would be nice if they wrote a book, It might be interesting!

I've used CV 12, 15, 35/1.2, and 75 on my Ms. I sold all but the 12. I found the 12 to be sharper than the 15 (on tripod), more "radical/fun", and nothing else out there to compare to (forget about the Zeiss f16 w/filter, cost option). I sold the 35/1.2 because it wasn't really faster than my 'lux, maybe 1/4 stop in the center only, at a huge penalty of size/weight. I sold the 75 because I just didn't use it much. My main travel kit is 21/35/50, and 12 when I can get another finder. I dropped mine in Antigua, Guatemala.

The real value of Cosina glass is that it generates endless discussion on the leica forum. It is just about the finest troll bait in the tackle shop (next to digital vs film and film is dead). I started a CV thread myself a while ago, so I know.

 

Soon on this thread, someone will say that the difference between Cosina glass and Leica glass is not as great as the difference between a poorly executed composition and a good one. And that will probably end the discussion for a few days.

Wait - is film dead? Oh no.....

Hi,

I bought the 75mm Heliar. At smaller aperatures it was not bad. Not great, but not bad. Opening up it was terrible. At f/2,5 it was unusable due to very low contrast and lack of sharpness. It was the worst lens I have ever used. Even though it was new,the construction of the lens was poor. Bad quality control, probably. I don't plan on buying another lens made by Cosina.

Peter

Claude is not accurately representing that Erwin Puts says about CV lenses. He liked some of those lenses very much. And he also stated that these lenses represent excellent value for money.

By the way, is it my imagination, or is this a reunion thread? I seem to see lots of names here I haven't seen in some time....

I was once told by an owner of several restaurants that people will return to your restaurant when there is one particular thing on the menu that they really like, and while a person may be overall yet adventerous, they will remember that meal and then the restaurant and then come again, whether they end up ordering that or not, depending on their mood.

 

The subjective decision to keep a lens and/or to buy that lens at all far outweighs any objective evaluation of lens performance, however valid. The build, the size, the feel, the filter size, what you paid, what someone special said, and absolutely, some great results in an exotic location or fantastic documentation of an outstanding event or gathering of friends can endear a lens to the photographer in a way that is difficult to overcome even if a direct test could show that another lens is "better". In fact, once I have had such a positive experience with a lens, I try not to look farther because the lens has proved itself "good enough" to me, which is very high praise. I tend to rely on a lens for a given application that already proved effective for me in similar situations, regardless of how it performs or "feels" in all situations. There is not a perfect lens for all situations unless you are prepared to conform to all of its parameters, which is worthwhile if you choose to do so.

 

I am not resorting to the claim that the photographer makes the photo. Because I am not a professional photographer, I place the highest priority on the expereince of photographing, which means that the absolute quality of the lens is only one aspect of the endeavor, and in reading the above posts, it should be clear that many photographers with a lot of experience with Leica lenses still find the VC lenses to be very satisfying.

Uh, excuse me Eliot, but how can quoting verbatim be misrepresentation?

"i have owned vc lenses from 12mm thru 50mm and my photos were not as good as my leitz m lenses"

 

Would love to see samples of how the Leitz 12mm bettered your Voigtlander 12mm. (Wink)

"Uh, excuse me Eliot, but how can quoting verbatim be misrepresentation?"

 

By quoting a fraction of what he said out of context, and leaving out the parts that I mentioned which were favorable toward CV, you gave a biased impression of what EP really said.

""Puts being a Putz" is just puerile and not particularly clever"

 

Well I think it's quite clever and rather amusing. Maybe you should lighten up?

Mitch gets a little mixed up sometimes and thinks he's my mother, that's fine, whatever floats

his boat.

The M mount Cosina 15mm Heliar certainly outperforms the Leica...Oh!,thats right, Leica doesn't make one. A sturdier mount would be nice, but l'm rough on mine, carrying it around daily for a couple years sans case or lens cap. The glass still looks fine. I'm not even sure that the focussing mount is needed. Mine just stays at one meter and depth of field is enough.

"Peter McDonough , aug 16, 2006; 09:16 p.m.: Hi, I bought the 75mm Heliar. At smaller aperatures it was not bad. Not great, but not bad. Opening up it was terrible. At f/2,5 it was unusable due to very low contrast and lack of sharpness. It was the worst lens I have ever used. Even though it was new,the construction of the lens was poor. Bad quality control, probably. I don't plan on buying another lens made by Cosina. Peter"

 

I have a 75mm Heliar I bought used several months ago to test whether I really liked the focal length, and I've been quite happy with its performance and construction. I think this points up a challenge with lower-cost lenses - sample variation. It sounds like Peter got a lemon.

 

I also have a CV 28/3.5 that is actually quite nice optically and mechanically, just slow.

I've got the 12mm. It is an amazing piece of glass, for sure, and there's no direct comparison from Solms. But I have to say, I don't actually take it around with me much. And I'm on my second finder for it, the first having cracked when dropped onto a carpeted floor. It'd be great for taking on a trip to, say, Pompei, when you're inside the old, small, Roman bildings and even the Elmarit 21mm can't get enough in. But that's about it.