Cosina Voightlander 40MM SLII f2.0 or 35/1.8 DX?

[john_hinkey]

<p>I have an opportunity to pick up this Voigtlander for $200 and it's in like new condition. Any reason (besides lack of AF) I shouldn't get this lens instead of the Nikon 35/1.8G (if I can find one)? I'll be using it on primarily on my D300 when lack of AF won't be a major issue.<br>

Anyone had both, and if so what's your opinion?<br>

Thanks - John</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have never used the Voigtlander so that I have no experience about how it compares against the Nikon 35mm/f1.8 AF-S. The Nikon is a very good lens but has some moderate amount of CA issues.</p>

<p>If you plan to keep this lens forever, this is a non factor. Otherwise, I think it'll be much easier to sell the Nikon should you want to do so in the future. The Voigtlander is more a niche-market lens.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>lack of AF is enough of a reason.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>I like the Voigtlander 40mm (I had the original SL) on film. I thought it actually made a better "normal" than a 50mm did. The diagonal of 35mm film is 43.3mm, so we expect a normal to be 40-45mm. 50mm is an aberration, because physics says a fast "real" normal is a pain to make on an SLR: a 45mm f1.4 has to be quite retrofocus, and even a 50mm f1.4 is surprisingly asymmetrical. My favorite normals were the 40mm SL and the Nikon 45mm f2.8.</p>

<p>The 40mm SL was one of the lenses I got rid of when I pretty much went to digital full time about 2001 on APS cameras (yup D100, $2000 each). I found that on a 1.5x crop, I disliked it for exactly the same reason that all major camera manufacturers have a "hole" in their lineups from 1x to 2x "normal". You get a nice 20-30% series of increments: 20, 24, 28, 35, 50mm, then a whopping 70% jump from 50mm to 85mm, and back to 20-30%, 85, 105, 135, 180mm. I call this the "universal hole". 1.5x normal just feels "awkward", it's a bit too long to feel "normal", but a bit too short to feel like a tele. That's the reason the original Nikon 58mm f1.4 (much, much easier to make than a 50mm f1.4) failed in the market place.</p>

<p>Even the 35mm f1.8 feels too long to me. I found myself often drawn to the 28mm as a normal, until I acquired the Sigma 30mm f1.4. It's relatively heavy, and not that exciting wide open, but at f2, it's quite respectable, better than the 40mm SL or 35mm f1.8 wide open, I'd say, and a near perfect 45mm equivalent.</p>

<p>And I'll have to chime in with Peter, I don't like manual focus lenses on any AF body that isn't either fit with a split image screen or has a 3 indicator ("too near/too far" triangles and "in focus" dot, like D2X, D700, or D3). I'm pretty sure D300 doesn't have the 3 way indicator.</p>

<p>Your mileage may vary. If you get it and decide you don't like it (or decide not to go for it) please email me, I wouldn't mind a $200 40mm SL II for my full frame D3.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Shun, I think the Voigtlander, at the price he's getting it for, is a low risk: he should be able to sell it for what he pays for it. Nikon or not, a brand new 35mm f1.8 DX is going to drop, once this shortage is over and used 35mm f1.8 prices get sane...</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>Yup. Get the Voigtlander. Use it until a 35/1.8 is available. Sell it and pocket the difference. BTW: IMHO, the Voigtlander is just as good and has less CA. You do lose out at AF. It is also about 1/2 the size.</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>I just picked up the CV 40mm SLII f2 - it looked like it was brand new - the owner said he was going all digital, which made no sense to me as to why he didn't want to keep it. The few test shots I made with it while I was evaluating it were quite impressive. This may just be the sharpest lens I own shot wide open (I have the 85/1.8AFD, 180/2.8ED-IF AF, 50/1.8D) - meaning if I shot all the lenses I own at their respective largest aperture this may be the most sharp on a relative basis. It's small, well built, and I like the focusing action very very much.<br>

However, like almost all of my lenses the AF indicator on my D300 (& D80) is terribly inaccurate for f/1.8 - f/2.8 aperture lenses resulting in poor AF accuracy at close distances where the DOF is next to nil. Definitely going to get a KatzEye split prism screen for my D300.<br>

- John</p>

[josephwalsh]

<p>Another advantage is the CV will make an excellent wide/normal should you move to FX.<br>

Good choice, John.</p>

 

[john_hinkey]

<blockquote>

<p>Another advantage is the CV will make an excellent wide/normal should you move to FX.<br /> Good choice, John.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, this was a background consideration of mine. Although I have no immediate plans (err . . my wife would have a cow!) to get an FX camera, I can clearly see that I may get one in the next couple of years as the prices come down.<br>

I'll continue to test out the lens and report back.<br>

John</p>