Voigtlander Lens Quality

I'm looking at investing in a Bessa R3A and a 35/40 as well as 50mm lens. For

any users out there, how would you rate the quality of the voigtlander lenses?

I'm looking for maximum sharpness.

This was shot with a 21 or 25 voigtlander.. I think they're competetive with Leica lenses

optically but just not as nicely crafted and fine to the touch.

 

http://chaospress.com/2002_4_image15.html

If you want absolute sharpness, go for the 50mm f/3.5 Heliar. PopPhoto (yeah, yeah, I know it's only PopPhoto. But Erwin Puts said the same thing) said it was "the sharpest lens [they] have ever tested."<br>

Granted, it is a f/3.5; but if you don't mind a tripod and slow film this should be your go-to lens.

<br><br>

For 35mm lenses, the Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2 has been consistently referred to as the quintissential 35mm lens (in terms of sharpness, bokeh, and 3D-effect). See <a href="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46107">here</a>.<br><br>

 

But if you're into sharpness, why not go for MF or even LF? There are some really nice kits that can be picked up for the same price as an R3A and a lens or two, and the size of the negative will blow away even the best 35mm film and lens combination.

Hi Dave,

 

I'm still satisfied with my 35mm Ultron, it's sharp, resolution and color-saturation are good, flares not more than others. I had the 50mm Skopar that wasn't the right lens for me, sharpness wasn't overwhelming and flare was a real problem. The 15mm is a great one, too. Mechanically they are fine, especially the Skopar, and the silver finish seems to be better then the black one.

 

kind regards, Thomas

"But if you're into sharpness, why not go for MF or even LF? There are some really nice kits that can be picked up for the same price as an R3A and a lens or two, and the size of the negative will blow away even the best 35mm film and lens combination."

 

FYI, Dave is a big time LF photographer. ;)

Okay, I'll probably be burned at the stake for heresy, but have you ever considerd a 35mm Jupiter 12 with M adapter? It really is a beautiful lens and very sharp. Supposedly, it is a copy of the Zeiss Biogon mentioned earlier.

Sharpness is ok, but there are other aspects of quality too, such as build quality.

The most recent M mount CV lenses also have a high standard of build quality: 35mm PII, the 40mm twins, and new versions of the 21mm and 25mm. Those are also very good optically. Some of the older ones are OK but lose paint easily. The oldest ones are a bit lightweight but most (all?) of them have been replaced now.

 

Why not just go for the 40mm Nokton - It's a great lens.

The sharpest 50mm I have ever used is the 50mm Lux Asph. That lens in itself is a reason to by a Leica M-mount camera. Next sharpest down are the 50mm Summicron and 50mm VC Nokton. I don't think you will find the 50mm Nokton wanting for sharpness in the least.

Build quality and performance of my 35mm PII seem fine. But I had to return the first two samples because infinity was off. Apparently there were some quality control issues. So buy only from reputable stores where you can return the lens.

 

Ulrik

Thanks very much for the responses. As mentioned, I already use large format and medium format a fair bit.....as well as DSLRs professionally. I have just been interested in having some light gear that will still provide sharp enlargements. I know I won't get a grain free 16x24....but as long as I get a relatively sharp one, I'll be happy. Well, maybe I'll never be happy....but oh well.

Stuart's comment on the sharpness of the 35mm Jupiter 12 points out a major issue with FSU lenses: variability. The one I had was easily the least sharp lens I have ever owned -- even at 4x6 print size. It did (just) meet its official specs on resolution.

If you cannot afford the Leica M lenses, the VC lenses are a very good option. I own an Ultron 35 mm f/ 1,7, an Apo Lanthar 90 mm f/ 3,5 an Wide Heliar 15 mm f/ 4,5. All are excellent performers.

Another choice are the new Leica M Summarit Lenses, all made in Germany: see the Erwin Puts for more info about the nwe Summarit lens range.

Ciao.

The 90mm Apo-Lanthar is great, and no complaints about the build quality. The only reason I sold mine was because I wanted an F2 lens.

The ONLY reason to own a Leica is the GLASS, why buy overpriced (yes, they know their market) junk.

"Junk"???

 

Surely you jest.

Compared to Leitz glass, yes. CV makes other rebadged lenses for much less. Why buy a Leica in the first place, just buy a CV body?

My reasons for owning and using Leica is different from yours. I like the bodies and lenses for their small size and ease of use. I can carry around all day two M6's with four lenses, lots of film and accessories with virtually no effort. That's important to someone like me--I just had cervical spine surgery and I know how painful it can be to carry heavy photo equipment. Lens wise, the Leica lenses are nice but I fail to find them superior to the Canon or Nikon lenses I've used, just different. And significantly smaller. I've been quite happy with the Voigtlander lenses I've used, both in build quality and in optical performance without regard to price. I'm not an equipment snob--I use what works best for me. Overall, if I based my decision as to what equipment to use solely on the final image quality, both my Pentax 645 lenses and the lens sets for my beat-to-hell Mamiya TLR's produce vastly superior results than any of the Leica lenses.

Good for you! Why buy junk?

I have two. The 25/4 snapshot skopar (not rangefinder coupled) which I'm very satisfied with, and the 50/2.5 which is a dog (at least mine is). Do your research (like this) and you should be all right. Obviously there will be more variation in Voigtlander than in Leica and the price reflects that, but stick to the ones that people say work well and you can get some bargains.

Ancient proverb: 'One man's junk is another man's cruise liner ....'

Perhaps the best and fairest appraisal of the CV (and other) lenses for Leica can be found

on Sean Reid's site (www.reidreviews.com). It is a pay site, but very much worth the small

annual membership charge. Sean is a fine photographer and writer; I think you will find all

the information you need there - from a truly authoritative source.

 

As far as build quality goes, while the CVs may not be quite up to Leica standards, I think

that you will find that they are usually superior to the so-called professional SLR lenses

available from Canon, Nikon, and others. Image quality is a personal matter - I happen to

like them a lot - but build quality is not a reason to look elsewhere in most cases.

 

Ken

I have the V/C 35/2.5 PII and the 50/2 Heliar Classic, and I think they are both outstanding. I will admit that I've never owned a Leica lens, but I feel no need whatsoever to "upgrade." At this level of quality, you should be thinking a lot more about your images than your gear. I don't hear a lot about the 50/2 Heliar, but I absolutely love this lens. Extremely sharp, beautiful bokeh, and built like a tank. People say the 35PII is great, which it is, but I think the 50/2 is better. Used V/C lenses sell for 90-95% of the original cost on 'bay, so you don't have much risk in trying them.

I have 15 Ultron-35 Skopar-75 Heliar.

I can say I'm totally satisfied with the quality of picture and built.

Probably I'm not that damned perfectionist who uses only Leica lenses on Leica bodies. I use them both and all of them are extremely good for me. I like them better than my Nikkor top lenses that producing good but "dull" pictures in comparison with VC lenses to say nothing of Leica.

I have the 35/1.7, 50/1.5, 90mm and 15mm. The 35mm is my go-to lens on the R2, but it has a documented build issue that I ran into. Some screws in the lens come loose, and in my case, fell into the camera and jammed the thing. Rebuild. Now it works perfectly. That issue aside, that lens is awesome.

A couple shots:

<p>

http://www.photo.net/photo/2443368&size=lg

<p>

http://www.photo.net/photo/2449551&size=lg

<p>