Opinions on the CV 90/3.5 Apo Lanthar

[alan_wilder1]

Anyone who's owned this lens awhile have any feed back on imaging and build

quality? Erwin Puts liked the optics with some minor reservation but mainly

slammed build quality complaining of play in the mount etc.

[steve_unsworth1]

I have the lens but don't use a 90 very much. It replaced an old Elmar. The CV is the better lens, sharp and the travel from closest focus to infinity is much shorter making it an easier lens to use.

 

The only lens I can think of replacing it with is the latest 90mm Summicron, and I don't use a 90 enough to justify that.

 

If you buy it I doubt that you'll regret the purchase.

[andrew robertson]

Mine is great. No mount play. Optically it's beautiful wide open and barely improves when

stopped down. The focus is very smooth. It's built out of brass - I'm not sure what Erwin

was smoking when slammed the build quality of his lens, but he is Dutch so it could be

anything!

[blakley]

I have no complaints about build quality - the focusing action is smooth and a little tight, even after use. No play in the mount. It's very compact, extremely sharp, and fairly flare-resistant.

<p>

Here's a picture taken with it:

<p>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photo/963173">

[blakley]

OK, not sure why that didn't work. Look <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/963173">here</a>

[rich815]

<i>...It replaced an old Elmar. The CV is the better lens..."</i><p>I often wonder why just because a lens is sharper it is deemed "better".<p>Personally I happen to often prefer the character and rendition I get from my older 90/4 Elmar-M because it is not tack sharp and overly contrasty. But on the other hand I have a 90/2.8 Contax G Sonnar lens for that reason and therefore appreciate the differences more. The Elmar I use for portraits of people, both formal and casual/informal as it renders skin and edges very smoothly without being too sharp (but is indeed sharp "enough"). The G-Sonnar is great for isolated semi-tele nature landscape and urban landscape shots where I appreciate it's sharper and more contrasty nature. <p>

 

The 90 Lanthar I hear is of the latter character. If that's what you are looking for I imagine you'll be very pleased. Many who use it over in the Voigtlander forum at rangefinderforum.com site seem to be. Might be a good place to post your query as well.

[Bill Snell]

Very nice lens and no problems with build quality. Easier to use than uncoated Elmar 90 f4

LTM. Posting sample pics with both lenses for your info<div></div>

[Bill Snell]

Uncoated 90mm Elmar (1933)<div></div>

[doug_d]

I like the the lens a lot. It is well built for the price. Optically it performs very well. The

paint is not as durable as a Leica product and the focus is slightly stiff, but is uniform

through the range in motion.

 

It is a bargain, particularly if you don't use a 90 too often.

 

Cheers,

 

Doug

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Alan,

 

I've had one since it came out. It's excellent. If you go to www.rogerandfrances.com and click on 'Photo School' you'll find a picture taken with it -- one of my favourite pictures among all I've ever taken in the last 40 years. Of course you can tell very little from a small web image but the original print (on Ilford MG WT) is gorgeous.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[tom_burke3]

I had one when I was using an M2. It was part of a three lens set that I felt matched the M2

perfectly: a Summicorn 50mm, CV Ulton 35mm, and this APO Lanthar. I had no issues with

it optically, although I'm sure a Summicron 90mm would be better.

 

The only thing I found with it was that I really noticed the slowness compared with the

other two lenses. For example I could happily shoot at 1/60 f2.8 or f2 with the others,

even 1/30 f2 on the Ultron when necessary, but when I was using the 90mm I found

myself having to go to 1/125 at f4 - at least two stops slower, perhaps three or even four.

 

I gave up the M2 because I really do prefer automation and I couldn't afford an M7. For a

while used an EOS setup with primes; 24mm f2.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8 and 100mm f2. I

found that I preferred that faster speed.

[john_graham3]

I found that it's better to shoot for the best optical quality for the least money when purchasing a 90 for the Leica, and let the so-called build-quality fall where it may (and in the case of the CV, that ain't too far from the Leica). A 90 is fine for travel snaps and such but the tiny frame (even the M3 is still pretty small but passable)makes it near impossible to discern facial expressions from any distance. So other than portraits a 90 on a Leica isn't going to get used to death.

[steve_larese1]

My 90 CV is tack (it's also my least used) build and focusing are just fine for my taste. I

really appreciate the screw-in metal lens hood and the fact that the lens cap fits over this.

Very compact without the hood, though I never remove mine.

[vincenzo_maielli]

I have read the Erwin Puts test and i saw, another, the very best MTF test of the italian Magazine "Tutti Fotografi" and german magazine "Fotomagazin" or test chart of the american photomagazin "Popular Photography" and italian magazine "Fotografare". The image quality was always at very best quality level. I have bought the CV Apo Lanthar and find them as very fantastic performer. The build quallity it's very good, too. Buy surely, dear friend.

Ciao

 

Vincenzo Maielli

[jeff_drew4]

In terms of value, the whole CV line is a deal! I used the 90mm ApoLanthar for a while and found Erwin's opinion a bit harsh, but considering his points of view, not unexpected. I had no problems with this lens, but the 90mm sat in my bag due to my preferences for the 75mm Heliar, which I used extensively. A couple years ago I sold my entire CV kit and bought into the Contax G2. The Zeiss 90mm f/2.8 is noticeably better than the CV ApoLanthar and currently is priced competitively. Overall the G2 suits my needs better in the long term, but I really miss that Heliar! The G2's biggest drawbacks, IMHO, is the relatively limited number of lenses and the fact Kyocera has ended its manufacture.