Any opinions on cosina glass for leica M?

[claude_batmanghelidj]

I have always been a huge fan of Leica glass. All the leica lenses I have used

have had superb bokeh, and glorious color rendition. Would anyone care to

comment on the quality of the Cosina Leica M clones (if you can call them that)?

 

Puts says "And all have a somewhat dull, flat rendition of details and

outlines." This seems a pretty damning indictment. So I take it they are not

worth bothering with? I mean if you like Leica, you are simply going to be

dissatisfied with the cosina lenses? Kind of like if you are used to smoking

Cubans, a Dutch knockoff won't cut it, or something like that? Or are the cosina

lenses pretty decent? Good but different?

 

Is Puts just being a Putz, or is he on the money?

[el_fang]

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. Anyone who's ever actually used the Cosina glass will tell you that they are all fine performers, indistinguishable from Leica glass in real-world shooting. In my own experience I personally preferred my VC Nokton over the mediocre pre-ASPH 50/1.4-M, and I still think of the Nokton as one of the best high-speed 50s out there.

 

<p>Of course, I actually use my lenses to take pictures. Res-chart monkeys may have a differing opinion.

[steve w]

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

 

when shadows were grainy with the vc's i know why i went back to leica's

[fred_c1]

>when shadows were grainy with the vc's i know why i went back to leica's

 

Leica's never underexposes the shadows ... does that make sense? Or can someone point me to a negative film that isn't grainy when underexposed?

[Nowhereman]

A lot of people like the tonal rendition and bokeh of the 35mm/F1.2 Nokton, although I've

never tried one; and I believe that the quality of gradation a lens produces is a lot more

important than it's ability to resolve newspapers tacked up on the wall. A friend of mine here

in Bangkok has just ordered one.

 

And Claude, you do yourself a disservice in terms of how you come across by making fun of

people's names -- "Puts being a Putz" is just puerile and not particularly clever.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

[dan flanders]

I have both and have a healthy respect for either of the brands. My favorite lens is a collapsible Summicron, but I use the C/V Snapshot Skopar for most of my wide angle needs and it is satisfactory for my expectations in addition to costing far less than the 28 Elmarit it replaced. Erwin Puts' s critics have yet to offer any solid data to back there criticism so I just accept his writings for what they are worth and ignore the uncredentialed criticisms. A lens should be judged in how well it satisfies the needs of the user and in most instances those needs are reflected in his pocketbook. Leitz lenses are among the best in the world and considering their costs, the CV lenses I have used run a close second.

[terry_rory]

My 40mm f/1,4 Nokton Classic is very nice thanks.

[david_d4]

Actually I thought Mr. Puts's initial reviews of the CV glass were on the whole highly favorable. IIRC, he rated many of them as equal to the previous generation Leica glass, which really, should be good enough for anyone. I believe he rated the 50 f1.5 Nocton higher than the pre-asph. 50 Summilux.

[tom_burke3]

I don't have any now, but I have owned the 35 f1.7 Ultron and the 25mm f3.5 (or whatever

it is). Oh, and a 90mm f3.8 (?) APO-Lanthar.

 

I enjoyed using the Ultron on an M2. I had no other 35mm lens so I can't give a

comparison, but I was pleased with the results. I had been unable to find a pre-ASPH Leica

35mm Summicron, and certainly couldn't afford a new ASPH 35 'cron, so the Ultron was

my choice perforce. As I said, I wasn't dissatisfied with it. It performed well and felt

reasonably substantial.

 

The other two were more problematic, mainly for being so slow. The 25mm was pretty

good, I suppose, and it's by far the cheapest way of getting that sort of wide-angle lens

for a Leica, but it always felt toy-like and insubstantial. It's not coupled, and focussing is

by click-stops. The add-on viewfinder was good, however. The 90mm had good

performance, but again was just too slow. I remember shooting in York Minster (a

cathedral) with a 50mm Summicron I had & then trying the 90mm. With the Summicron I

was shooting at something like f2.8 & 1/60th, sometimes 1/30th; when I fitted the 90mm

I found myself having to shoot at f4, which meant trying to hand-hold at 1/15th or even

longer, with a 90mm lens. Not fun. Outdoors in better light it was easier to use of course,

but I didn't find it satisfying. It too felt very light and insubstantial.

 

My view: the faster lenses at 28mm, 35mm, 40mm and 50mm are worth looking at. I am

perfectly prepared to believe that they don't offer the same performance as Leica lenses,

but they get closer than you have any right to expect and they cost a fraction of the price

of Leica lenses. The slower ultra-wides offer a cheap way into that style of photography,

but also require greater compromises to be made.

[wai_leong_lee]

Most people have given Cosina high marks for providing decent performance at reasonable prices. Puts has said the same thing, eg. of the 50/1.5 Nokton vs the 50/1.4 non-asph. For real-world shooting, camera shake, aperture selection and correct exposure determine the quality of the image much more than choice of lens.

 

However, there is no way that a $300 lens can be better than a $3,000 lens if you set both down on an optical bench and took photos in a controlled environment. $3,000 per piece gives the manufacturer a lot more to play with in terms of glass, design expertise, QC, etc.

 

Beyond lpm, contrast or other objective parameters of lens performance, there are also subjective parameters such as quality of finish, weight and size, feel and touch. There are also considerations such as colour rendition and bokeh for some people.

 

I had the Nokton 50/1.5 once, performance was ok, and I thought it was great to have a lens that could use common 52 mm filters. But I sold it after a few months because it felt huge and ungainly compared to my 50/2 DR. The chrome also felt very cheap compared to the 'Cron, and I felt it really didn't fit in well my concept of what M rangefinder items should be (ie to be small and unobtrusive).

[claude_batmanghelidj]

Thanks for all the responses, the leica forum has to be one of the more lively ones. "Dull flat rendition," does not describe any Leica lens I have ever seen, old or new, so I find a contradiction here, in his saying that the CV lenses exceed or meet the standards set by the previous generation leitz lenses, which were already world beaters.

 

That was what set me off.

 

I have used the following RF lenses:

 

45mm, 28mm Contax G: Absolutely stellar performance, world beating lenses. Genuinely excellent.

 

35mm 1.4 older summilux: Not sure what the terms are, but maybe these are correct for the strange artefacts I saw in my prints: coma, flare, ghosting. This was one whacky lens, but easily one of my all time favorites. I loved the strange colors and glow that I found, I mean really loved it.

 

50mm Canadian cron: Another gorgeous lens. Bokeh out of this world, lovely color and tonal rendition.

 

CV 75mm: used a few times. Nothing special

50mm 1.4 Canon: Nothing special

 

35mm Aspheric cron: Sharp. Almost too much for me. Personally I am a big fan of the older leitz lenses. This lens was excellent, but I think my tastes lean towards the ones from the 60s-80s which are the ones I have used the most.

 

Apart from Mamiya 6 and Fuji GA645, that's about it. If I include Nikon A35 point and shoot, Then I would have to conclude, that from my experience the Japanese lenses are flatter and more uninspired than the Leitz, with the exception of the Contax G lenses, which were Japanese, but allegedly Zeiss designs.

 

I have picked up a 40mm CV lens for use with the Bessa R3A I just got, and I'm waiting to see what turns up on the negs. I am not expecting anything much, but if it is even a little bit as good as the Contax or Leitz lenses then I'll be very happy.

[thanz]

Honestly,

most of Cosina's lenses are really great, you'd be hard pressed to find someone that could

tell the difference between a print made with a 75mm summicron and a 75mm Heliar, or a

35mm summilux and the 35/1.2 Nokton at similar settings, and so on. Sure there are

trade offs when comparing a 2200 dollar lens to a 300 dollar lens, sometimes paint,

sometimes build quality and size are the issue, you have to decide if they are worth the

price difference for yourself.

Some Leica lenses are legendary and have no equal competitior in the VC lineup, but alot

are very similar in real world performance. Don't forget about the new Zeiss "m" mount

lenses, they appear to be another viable alternative to Leica glass.

It all comes down to the fact that most of this gear is capable of taking better pictures

than we are, good luck!

 

Todd

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> Leica's never underexposes the shadows ... does that make sense?

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

None whatsoever.

[jimsimmons]

I use a 40mm Summicron (1975) and a CV 25mm Skopar (2002). Their color rendition seems about the same, sharpness about the same, contrast about the same (Skopar maybe a bit contrastier). The Skopar has some falloff in the corners that wish wasn't tehre, but mostly at f/4. I'm not a test bench kind of guy, but I've looked at some tripod-shot Velvia slides from the Skopar blown up pretty big in a Rollei projector, and they hold up pretty well.

[kevin m.]

The current Leica lenses are unmatched for quality, but they ought to be considering the

price is many multiples of the competition. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a case

where the equivalent VC lens actually outperforms any current Leica offering in any category

but 'bang-for-the-buck,' but for handheld shooting, it's probably a moot point.

[frederick_muller]

I own and use a lot of Cosina glass. My favorites are the 15mm VC Heliar, 28mm VC Ultron, 28mm VC Skopar, and 50mm VC Nokton. The 21mm VC Skopar, while slowish, is nothing to sneeze at either. I have found no reason to complain about the image quality, except that the 28mm VC Skopar has just a bit more distortion than I would like ... I live with it and love it for its compactness and build quality (don't sneer, the 28mm VC Skopar is really well built in my opinion).

 

I've traded Cosina glass away in favor of Leica glass and vice versa. I had a 35mm VC Pancake II that gave good results, but I traded it away because I wasn't using it enough relative to my Leica and Canon 35's. Nothing wrong with its quality; I just wasn't using it. I just traded away my 28mm Summicron and kept my 28mm VC Ultron.

 

Sometimes I think way too much is made of quality differences between modern lenses. To me it makes more sense to compare generations of lenses, for instance current Leicas vs those from the 50's and 60's. Or Leicas to Canons and Nikkors of the same period. You probably have much more discernible differences to speak about there.

 

I read Puts's lens tests and after a while they all sound alike. "At 15mm very fine micro detail becomes barely visible". Compare this to lens x where "at 15mm fine micro detail is now clearly visible" (but is VERY fine micro detail clearly visible or barely visible?) Go figure. I do look at Puts's stuff now and again, but honestly, it's a cure for insomnia.

[nee_sung]

I have a CV 35/2. I bought it because test results show it to be the equal of Leica's 35/2 (pre-asph). I was thinking of selling the Leica lens and freeing some cash for other equipment.

 

I took same subjects and placed the photos side by side. The qulity looked the same, thus confirming the test results. But I found the colour of the CV lens to be a bit cool. I went back to the test results and sure enough, it says "colour: slightly cool". I missed that bit.

 

I don't like cool colours. So now I'm thinking of getting rid of the CV!

 

Maybe it's just a case of having gotten used to Leica for too long. I've had the Leica 35 for more than 10 years (bought new).

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> you'd be hard pressed to find a case where the equivalent VC lens actually outperforms any current Leica offering in any category but 'bang-for-the-buck,' but for handheld shooting, it's probably a moot point.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Considering the tiny percentage of people who regularly use tripods, and the difference in tonality and overall image quality between a Leica on tripod and a (dirt cheap used) medium format camera on tripod, this actually says quite a bit.

[thomas_t]

CV makes a fantastic line of lenses, many of them outperforming the older Leica lenses in terms of sharpness, contrast. Can they outperform the latest-asph Leica offerings on MTF terms, probably not. But they are well-built, affordable, and fantastic tools.

 

On the other hand, there are a minority of 'great' photographers who insist that they can spot the difference between Leica and non-Leica lenses. So if you are a 'great' photographer, buy Leica and save yourself the later hand-wringing ;-)

 

I own both, and am happy with both. The stellar stand outs in my opinion are: 28/1.9 ultron, 21/4. Other CV lenses have their own fans (I simply haven't tried them all). The question on each individual lens selection is whether the vastly more expensive Leica is worth the sometimes marginal difference in signature. Only you can answer that to your satisfaction :)

[wmwhee]

Based on the performance of the vc 15mm lens, which is a gas to use, I would buy another vc lens.

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>Would anyone care to comment on the quality of the Cosina Leica M clones (if you can call them that)?</em></p><p>They're good. Just about every M/LTM CV lens has already been discussed here; wasn't Google of any help?</p><p><em>I have a CV 35/2. .... I'm thinking of getting rid of the CV!</em></p><p>Well, there's one exception. (I've never even heard of a CV 35/2.) What's your asking price for this rare item?</p>

[frederick_muller]

"I found the colour of the CV lens to be a bit cool. I went back to the test results and sure enough, it says "colour: slightly cool". I missed that bit.

 

I don't like cool colours. So now I'm thinking of getting rid of the CV! "

 

 

I do think that's a valid observation, but it's a matter of personal preference. For example, while I really like the 50mm VC Nokton, I find its colors, in particular its blues, are less saturated than those I get from a 50mm Lux or Summicron. It's a quality I keep in mind when I select my lenses because I am a real fan of color saturation. Not a reason to slam the VC offering, just a quality to keep in mind. I'm sure similar observations can be made about ZM lenses ... in fact I am sure I'm heard that the 50mm ZM Planar has a different color quality to it than the Summicron.

[bill a.]

Worth the read...

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml

 

and

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/fastlensreview.shtml

[dan d. chang]

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. Anyone who's ever actually used the Cosina glass will tell you that they are all fine performers, indistinguishable from Leica glass in real-world shooting. In my own experience I personally preferred my VC Nokton over the mediocre pre-ASPH 50/1.4-M, and I still think of the Nokton as one of the best high-speed 50s out there.

 

EL

Your attack on Mr. Putz's comments on Leica vs Cosian is baseless. Mr. Putz comments Nokton is better than old pre-ASPH, he also said, VC 15/4.5 vs. Zeiss 16/8, 15/2.8 is performed very well. Most Mr. Putz's comments are based on at least scientific evidence. At least I believe his comments better than your personal experience.

[Nowhereman]

Leica used to day, according to Guntherf Osterloh, in his penultimate edition of his Leica-

M book, that they designed lenses to make good photographs, overall; and that Leica

users should not be concerned if Leica lenses didn't win lens "competitions" on the basis

of resolution as published in photography magazines. 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. Meanwhile, a lot of people feel that the older lenses are

"smoother", that the out-of-focus characteristics are better. Looks like Leica have thrown

out the "bokeh with the bathwater" in their latest ASPH lenses. Me, I prefer the

Summilux-50 pre-ASPH to the latest ASPH version, from what I've seen of the latter.

Resolution simply isn't the most important lens property to me; gradation and, to some

degree, bokeh, is more important.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok