Voigtlander 28mm asph

[scott_munn1]

Anyone have much experience with the Voigtlander 28mm 1.9 ASPH? If so, any comments? I plan to buy one for an M7.

[patricks]

scott, I've been debating getting a Voigtlander lens for my M6 TTL (a

90 mm in my case) howeer I'm starting to lean against it. The reason

for going Leica in the first place have to be the quality of the

lenses! Why pay so much money for a quality house and then put a

$300 lens on it? Thus, I've giving up on my VC quest and I'm now

looking for a good used Leica lens. Just my 2 cents. Cheers,

[michael_darnton1]

Hold your breath until tonight. This morning before work I developed

my first three rolls with my new 28/1.9--many of the pix shot at f2.

My physical impression is that I'm in love with the way the lens

feels--everything is done just right, especially the focus ring

placement and texture, and it's hardly come off the camera in the

week I've had it. I had a 28/2.8 Elmarit once (2nd version), and the

Voigtlander certianly handles much better. The Voigtlander VF is

definitely superior in all respects to the Leica one, which I never

liked when I had it, and was the main reason I got rid of the lens.

Anyone who says it's a cheap lens hasn't touched one.

[richard_srienz]

Excellent lens for the value. Never had a Leica 28mm and see no need.

Use nearly the whole Voigtlaender LTM lens line and I am happy with

this decision.

[lutz]

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00695t

<BR>

Cheers

[scott_munn1]

"The reason for going Leica in the first place have to be the quality

of the lenses!"

 

<p>

 

Agreed! In principle. However, I'm buying the M7 primarily because of

its quiet shutter and AE, and

 

<p>

 

"My physical impression is that I'm in love with the way the lens

feels--everything is done just right, especially the focus ring

placement and texture."

 

<p>

 

is also important to me. I've had my hands on both the Leica and the

Voigtlander 28s, and I prefer the latter (the focusing ring IS nice; I

don't like the tabs on the wide leica lenses). The fact that it's so

much cheaper is a big plus, but value for money isn't my main criteria.

It all comes down to image quality, of course - if the Leica really is

indisputably head and shoulders above the Voigtlander then my choice is

clear enough, but if we're talking sounds only dogs can hear, I'll be

happy to stray from the true path.

 

<p>

 

Thanks for the help.

[kristian dowling]

I want one now! Damn!

[dayton_p._strickland]

Thanks to Lutz for the review. And Scott, I add my 'get one now' vote.

I have used one on a nearly new M6 for the past couple of months and I

am very impressed. I can't image where or how the Leica could be that

much better. I love the feel of the lens. It is so smooth to use and

is much easier to focus swiftly than my 'tabbed' 50/2 Summicron which

spends a lot of time in the bag after getting the VC 28/1.9. Quite

frankly I think the difference between quality of rangefinders lens

and those used on SLRs has more to do with the ability to build

simplier, less complex lenses than it has to do with who the

manufac

[michael_darnton1]

From looking at my negs (no prints yet) I'd say that my new 28/1.9 is

definitely superior at F2 to what my Elmarit could do at 2.8. It

appears to be an incredible lens.

[Rob F.]

Michael, which version Elmarit are you comparing it to? And how much

does it block the viewfinder.

[Rob F.]

I meant, how much does the Voigtlander lens block the viewfinder. My

V. III blocks it beaucoup.

[raymond_tai]

>The reason for going Leica in the first place have to be the quality

of the lenses!

 

<p>

 

I sympathize with this statement completely however if a lens is

great it is great regardless of who made it. On the other hand a

Leica lens will, say, last 50+ years with heavy use while the VC will

last 20+ maybe. If money is no object then no decision making would

be necessary.

[scott_munn1]

"a Leica lens will, say, last 50+ years with heavy use while the VC

will last 20+ maybe"

 

<p>

 

If that's the case maybe I should buy 4 or 5 Voigtlanders (or however

many it takes to equal the price of the Leica) to use one after the

other for the next 100 years or so...

[lutz]

Bob,<BR><BR><CENTER><IMG SRC="http://www.konermann.net/

ultron.finder.jpeg">

</CENTER><BR><BR>This is an excerpt of <A HREF="http://

www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00695t">my last

year's review</A>.<BR><BR>Cheers.

[kristian dowling]

Let's be honest.........we all like to say we shot it with a Leica. So

what happens when we shoot with a M6 and VC lens?

 

<p>

 

I'm not trying to be a smart arse here, but does it really matter?

 

<p>

 

Not for me. But if Leica approached me and asked to put my

photos in a Leica exhibition and many of the best were shot with

a VC lens, I'd be in a bit of trouble. "like that's ever gonnna

happen!"

 

<p>

 

Shoot with what works....both financially and performance wise!!!

 

<p>

 

VC gets my vote when finances are tough, or when you don't feel

the need for the extra build quality. Leica maybe twice as good in

build quality and up to five times the price. You do the sums.

[scott_munn1]

I'm just gathering opinions as to the quality of the glass - the

Voigtlander build quality appears to be acceptable and, to me at least,

ergonomically preferable. I know it's a difficult question because

ultimately we judge the picture quality for ourselves, and I don't

imagine too many people buy both simply for purposes of comparison. I

could assume you get what you pay for, but I can think of occasions

when, sadly, I haven't. In the end, I'm not particularly bothered if

I'm using a Voigtlander or a Leica.

[scott_munn1]

PS. I guess the obvious solution is to rent the Leica if I can, and

borrow a Voigtlander.

[michael_darnton1]

My Elmarit was the 2nd version. With the Voigtlander there's no hint

of the slight smearing of the image I saw in the edges wide open with

the Elmarit. I don't find a slight lack of sharpness as irritating as

smeared images, but the Voigtlander is sharp, too.

 

<p>

 

In these discussions someone always pops up and says "we buy Leica

for the lenses." I've never done that--I originally bought Leica for

the finder, and the comfort in my hands, which to my taste is a

consistent failing with Leica's own lenses, but not the bodies.

Optics had very little to do with it, and based on the number of

people on this board who have complained about the results they get,

based on drugstore prints I'd say there's a lot of mindless Leica

snobbery in the Leica camp. There have always been a number of

excellent non-Leica lenses, and even Leica-beaters in Leica mount--My

85/1.8 Canon was one that simply buried the contemporary Summicron,

and the 15mm Heliar is currently another example.

[Alex_Es]

Friends,

 

<p>

 

Here's something I sense--am I wrong? There has been far more

discussion on this board about the Ultron 28/1.9 than the new 'cron

28/2.

 

<p>

 

I have had the Ultron for almost a year now. A few thoughts. Wide

open it is very good. I have a black version and I've noticed the paint

chips easily--it isn't as good as Leica paint. I still prefer black as

it isn't as obtrusive as silver through the viewfinder. The hood is

less annoying than Leica's 28/2's but it is annoying enough on an M6

and Hexar RF. The hood is less obtrusive on on the CLE. I repainted

the feet markings from red to orange. Mechanically it is fine so far.

There is dust inside the lens which I might have removed some day.

 

<p>

 

These days I'm back to using my slightly heavier old Elmarit, with a

shallow hood made of step up rings, on my M6. I like the feel, the

sense of absolute solidity. Yet that Ultron is optically better

apparently.

 

<p>

 

Okay, here's where the party gets wild. What I like about the Ultron

is exactly what I like about my Elmarit and old and often awful 'lux

35/1.4. Each has a personality, a signature that I love. This is

something that goes beyond lens tests, though a lens tester can

probably explain this sensation in scientific terms (as could a

shrink, I'm sure). With the Ultron the subject somehow comes out at

you when the lens is at 1.9 (which is a smigin faster than 2). Is it

because of the softness of the edges, maybe a curvature of the field

that one finds in old 'cron 35/2s and (I think) in the new Hexar 35/

2? I don't know. (Here maybe the shrink has something to say!)

 

<p>

 

Recently I got a 'cron 35/2 ASPH which is a super lens. But there is

something too perfect about it I feel at times. It's a lens with no

surprises, unlike my flary 'lux 35/1.4. It is a Father Knows Best

sort of lens. It does the right thing in the right situation. Except

for my own failures, my shots with this lens are perfect. Wide open

the Ultron cannot compare to it, as it indeed cannot compare to

Leica's 28/2 wide open. But there is that certain something to it

that may well come from imperfection (pardon the vagueness). The

Leica 28/2 seems like a Father Knows Best Lens; the Ultron has at

bit of the Honeymooners touch to it.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, for serious heavy duty work Erwin Putts is probably right

in recommending the mechanically tougher Leica 28/2. But if you go

in for wars you're better off with an Nikon F3 and Nikkor 28. (See

Cameraquest's piece from the battle photographer).

 

<p>

 

If you are doing street photography I think the Ultron 28/1.9 will be

just fine. All in favor of Scott getting an Ultron for his M7--

[andy_piper2]

"the Ultron has at bit of the Honeymooners touch to it."

 

<p>

 

Hmmm - I bet putting Ralph Kramden on you M6 would block a LOT of the

finder...!!

[rodney_williams1]

Not only was my M6 the most troublesome camera I have ever had but my

third type elmarit 28mm M lens of very poor build quality.It cost

650sterling pounds and a year out of passport it was returned to Leitz

because of numerous specs somewhere around the 4th&5th elements.

leitz submitted an estimate for this of 0ver 700pounds sterling later

reducing it "kindly" to 523 p.s. ihad the job done in LONDON for 91ps

I am a leica user since 1953 and have owned 5 M bodies and 10lenses

[roy_gumpel]

When I think back on some of the more impressively 'sharp' images I have

seen close up, I recall some by my former teacher Larry Siegel, who ran The

Image Gallery, then The Midtown Y Gallery in NYC . I printed some older

negs of his from mexico once, and man, they were just stunning. They were

shot with an M3 I believe....and the lens used was an old Canon 35mm lens

that he picked up for $40 or so in a junk shop in mexico. I showed at the 'Y' in

1980 with photographer Ernesto Bazan (now in Cuba) and I also recall his

photos being really 'sharp'. He did those photos in sicily when he was a

kid...probably on a beat up old minolta or something. And I made a bunch of

photos early on with a cheap vivitar 28 2.8 lens that often elicited the question

of" what lens did you do that with??" Folks...It usually ain't about the

equipment....look at all the gorgeous stuff you can find in a minute on the web

that are shot with $15.00 Holgas and such cameras. Fact is, I really should be

out shooting right now instead of reading and writing about 'sharpness' and

stuff like this that is meaningless pretty much. But most guys (and it is mostly

guys that talk endlessly about all this) aren't very talented in the actual area of

creating art, so worrying and chatting about gear is the main thing for them.

The difference in price from a great cheaper lens to a Leica lens could buy

you lots of fil, and a great 2 or three week photo road trip. I heard someone

say that on this forum(I think) awhile ago, and I think it is the best way to look

at it!

 

roy gumpel ny state

[scott_munn1]

I agree with most of what you say, Roy, but it's harmless fun to

chat about equipment. People might tend to obsess about it

because it many cases they're spending a lot of money. Of

course, I take your point that a lot of money needn't be spent to

take great pictures.

 

I'm not a professional photographer, and don't even play one on

TV, though I do occasionally sell my pictures - the last few

almost by accident, to advertising agencies which stumbled

across them on the net. I certainly don't need a Leica to do what I

do, though the relatively quiet shutter has been an advantage in

some situations. I just bought my M7 because I liked it and, for

an (all-too) brief period in my life, I could afford it. Unfortunately it

has made the trip back to Milton Keynes here in England twice;

they finally replaced it. Fact is, I don't trust it as much as I do my

Nikon FM3a...

 

PS. I got the Voigtlander. No regrets.