Using Voigtlander lenses on Leica M

[art_tyree]

<p>I am looking at extending my lens set to super-wide. The Voigtlander 15mm lens made by Cosina looks like an interesting option (and far cheaper than Leica-made glass), and the importer describes it as a rectilinear lens, i.e. not fish-eye in its perspective. Would like to know what experience other Leica shooters have with this and other Voigtlander lenses and how you appraise their optical qualities (sharpness, contrast, color). </p>

[starvy]

<p>Hi Art,<br>

I have used only the old Leica lenses and very modern Cosina Voightlanders but around the 35mm, 50 and 90mm marks. Perhaps my limited budget does not allow me to dream of the Leica too much, I find the CV lenses to be of excellent build quality and every bit as comparable to the top glass from Nikon and Canon. <br>

Do they compare to the modern Leica lenses? Know but you are paying a 10th of the price in some cases.</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>I have the 15. It is fantastic. Distortion is never apparent to me at all. There are essentially no alternatives to it given its size, price and quality. I initially used it on M bodies, and it does great, but you do need to look carefully through the external viewfinder in composing to really study what you are shooting to know what you will get on the final film. There is no down side to this lens.<br>

Cosina does a good job at mainly targeting things you can't get from anybody else so they keep a niche. For example they make 21 and 25 f4 lenses that are tiny pancakes and superb (I have read). I have the 28 f1.9 Ultron, and it is very good and cost a fraction of the cost of the Leica 28 cron, but in the instances when Cosina offers a lens like this, the only advantage becomes the price, and they do make themselves vulverable to direct comparisons to the Leica options that is similar but frankly better. I admit that bugs me even if it shouldn't. The 28 Ultron is great and maybe just a bit lower contrast wide open, but in some situations and depending on my mood, "knowing" it isn't as good is a bother. But that is my personal problem, right?<br>

They are well made and perform very well. I would always suggest however just thinking and studying a bit about the specific lens you are considering and never just spontaneously buying anything unless you are so efficient with reselling that you can change your mind at little cost.</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>double post?</p>

[art_tyree]

<p>My thanks to Starvy and Mark. I am going through the "just thinking and studying a bit" phase, to use Mark's apt phrase, and found the idea of a 15mm lens intriguing. I certainly like the appearance of the Cosina lenses (nice metal and finish, lovely focus and aperture scales) and their compact dimensions. Your comments are already helpful in assessing the potential quality of the 15mm and other VC lenses. Yes, lenses are tools--they should be acquired for a purpose: the 15mm might be the ticket to semi-panoramic images (which have their own caution-points re. composition), and interior architectural photography (which should be distortion-free). </p>

[Rob F.]

<p>I use the 15mm CV on my M8.2, in order to get a 20mm equivalent view. So I am using about 70% of the image size. One of these days I'll try it on a film M. On the M8.2, the image quality is as high as I could ever want! Sharpness and color saturation are excellent. And at the less than full frame image area, I get no light falloff at all. With this lens, who needs an M9?</p>

[SCL]

<p>ii used one for several years....a bit too wide for me ultimately. There's been a lot written about this lens, and it has been a very popular lens. My copy was very sharp with quite accurate color rendition and contrast, I used it mostly on slides. Other CV lenses have attracted a pretty good following, particularly the Nocton.</p>

[r22eng]

Art,

I have both the CV 15 and 21 lenses. Both are very good for everyday use. My preference has been to stay with the 21CV. The 15CV is

good. Fantastic depth of field coverage at f8. Most of my photos are at f8 and zone focused. However, I always have to be careful to

keep my left index finger out of the photo. It's just the way I hold the M and the 15 just picks it up.

 

The Nokton 35 1.4 single coated lens is my everyday lens. The Nokton 50 1.5 has been a good performer. I use both most of the time

mounted to two Ms.

 

My travel kit is the 21, 35, and 50CV. Sometimes just the 21 and 50. They are light and inexpensive. I don't worry about losing them.

This frees me to just go and shot.

 

My current project has been to shot with only CV lenses to see if they really make a difference for the type of street and travel

photography that I do. So far the images are good enough. No clinical testing of resolution and sharpness. Just did you get the shot and

were the photos sharp enough.

 

Yes the Leica lenses seem to be smoother focusing than th CVs. But I zone focus the wides most of time anyway.

 

Ricky

[art_tyree]

<p>Thanks all, for the good information--just what I wanted: experience with the lenses. I may well decide 21mm is wide enough for now--used a 20mm on a Nikon and had to be careful not to get my twinkle toes in the photo (I often compose vertical). Just checked prices on used Leica 21mm--four-digits a pop. I note that Nikon lenses have some noticeable barrel distortion, while the CV equivalents have much less (of course I'm comparing mirror-reflex camera lenses to rangefinder camera lenses). I'm pretty well convinced by now that a CV lens will not be a compromise in image Q on my veteran M3 and M2. And in fact maybe an edge better than all but top of line Nikon DSLR lenses. </p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>I've had mine since 1999. Excellent lens. The latest version is RF coupled.</p>

[gary_b._herbst]

<p>I have used the VC wide lenses (25, 21, 15, & 12) on a M2, M6 and the M8 and find them to be very good for the uses that I need. I would caution about using them on the full frame digital Leica M9 and M. There are some colour problems on the sides of the frames that can not be corrected by the in camera settings. I am of the understanding that most, if not all of the problems can be corrected by the use of software. </p>

[allancobb]

<p>The 15mm Super-Wide is a staple of my rangefinder shooting, I use it frequently on either my Canon III LTM rangefinder or my M6 with the LTM adapter. Here's an example:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16590017-md.jpg" alt="Jing Gua Shi Seashore" width="680" height="444" border="0" /><br>

Jing Gua Shi seahore, Taiwan</p>

<p>This lens is amply represented in my PN portfolio... easily one of the best lens purchases I ever made!</p>

[Fotohuis RoVo]

I have the C.V. SWH 4,5/15mm-M on my M7. It is a good lens but not so well build as the regular Leica lenses. However

the optical performance is amazing for the price/quality. But 15mm is very wide so for limited use.

[soeren_engelbrecht1]

I have both the 21/4.0 and 28/3.5 lenses for my M3 and IIIa. Compact, solid and highly recommendable. The 28 angle of

view is my favourite - the entire gallery here was shot with this lens:

 

Http://www.imagepro.dk/China_2012

 

The 21/4.0 is also really nice - some samples in this gallery, including the opening shot:

 

Http://www.imagepro.dk/Japan_2012

 

In short, you can't go wrong with these lenses. Especially for the price :-)

[Fotohuis RoVo]

<p>In 21mm there is a new 1,8 version. For what I have seen on the Photokina in Cologne and some photos from a preliminary serie also very good.</p>

[r22eng]

Www.cameraquest.com has a write up on the 21 f1.8 by Tom Abrahamsson. Nice lens for $1,249. Worth considering if

you really need the speed in a 21mm. The trade off is size and weight compared to the 21 f4.

 

They have a couple of photos done using the lens. I think Tom has more samples on his Flickr site of photos done using

the lens.

[Farkle-Mpls]

<p>Here is one of my favorite shots on a borrowed VC 15mm lens. Taken this past summer on some Provia 100F which, I discovered too late, was expired and slightly magenta.</p><div></div>

[Fotohuis RoVo]

<p>M7+CV SWH-M 4,5/15mm on APX 100 / Retro 100.<br>

St Jan Cathedral in 's-Hertogenbosch.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8422/7718599108_f7840caea0.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="337" /></p>

<p> </p>

[art_tyree]

<p>Carl and robert, thanks for sharing the photos. I don't see any barrel distortion--remarkable. I am eager to shoot some pix with the VC 15mm. Carl, where did you round up that many rangefinder shooters? Nice-looking group.</p>

 

[frederick_muller]

<p>The VC super-wides are awesome. I use the 15mm regularly on film cameras, and it's great. The sharpness is stunning. The 12mm is literally glued onto one of my RD-1s bodies, where it is cropped down to an astonishingly sharp 18mm. Both are excellent for both B&W and color. These are best buys in my view.</p>

[jeff_guthrie]

I used the 15mm SWH lens for awhile, but found it to be too wide for m taste, I sold it and bought at 21mm Skopar,

which I think is a great lens. I also shoot the 50/1.5 Nokton, which is a wonderful lens, and seems to perform better

than my 50mm Summilux. The 21/4 Skopar is a better lens than my old Super Angulon.

[luis_rives]

When it comes to lenses, Cosina has a spotty record. I have the 15/4.5 m-mount and it is indeed excellent. I would venture to say that it is one of the best values in all rangefinder lenses currently in production. Probably some of their other lenses fall in this category, like the 12mm, 21, and 25. On the other hand, some of their other offerings are downright garbage, specifically the 35/1.4. This lens has been widely blasted for suffering from CA and barrel distortion, both of which are unacceptable in a modern lens design. Its more than unacceptable, it is embarrassing for a lens manufacturer to put out a lens like this. I would even say that its way overpriced, because of its flaws, at its retail price of about 25% of a used pre-asph Summilux 35mm. Then they bring out a 35/1.2 which is no better either, how about cleaning up the 35/1.4, then we can talk about a 1.2. I won't even talk about their high-speed 50mm lenses, which are extremely difficult to design and build, and their offerings have also been heavily criticized for their flaws. You would think that for a company that manufactures the Zeiss rangefinder lenses, all of which are superb (I know because I have four of them), a little more care would have been exercised with the Voigtlanders. This tells me, not that they cannot manufacture world class lenses, but that they are building them to a price point. Well, if they made them better they would have an even bigger following.

[aplumpton]

<p>Luis, <br /> Good points. We can thank Cosina for providing some very decent optics for Leica LTM and M cameras, and others using these lens mounts. Many who cannot afford a $7500 50mm Summicron or a $10,000 Nokton aspherical have other less expensive moderrn choices available (including Leica's own 50mm f2.5, the Zeiss-Cosina 50mm lens or the Konica or Cosina-Voigtlander optics including the f1.5 lens) and the 35mm f2.5 C-V lens is a decent lens for those not able to afford the roughly 8 to 10 times more expensive aspherical Summicron.</p>

<p>A significant problem with some Cosina optics is the slight decentering that can occur in manufacture and the somewhat lesser full aperture performance or light fall-off in others (like the 25mm V-C lens - or to some degree with the 12 or 15mm optics). It is well known that even very expensive enlarger optics, from the top-tier companies, had problems of decentering due to manufacturing control.</p>

<p>Notwithstanding their manufacturing limitations, due in part to costs, many of the V-C lenses do as well or better than the best Leica optics of the early days of the M camera. Erwin Puts gives a good idea of the strengths and weaknesses of V-C optics on his site.</p>

<p>Cosina has provided optics to those who cannot afford the very high prices of Leica lenses or the somewhat more expensive Cosina-Zeiss lenses (which tend to be heavier and bulkier than the C-V optics of similar focal length). Closing down the aperture of a C-V optic often brings it to a very respectable performance.</p>

<p>Another factor is the limitation of LTM and M type 35mm format film cameras, and to some degree their digital equivalents, to provide the resolution necessary for quite large print sizes. At some point the lens is better than the film or the output and at more usual print sizes and I think it is questionable if optimising the lens is the only way to go, or is even significant for many users whose prints will seldom exceed 8 x 12 inches.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>From what I have seen in reviews, Cosina is apparently not without a top optic, the 50mm f3.5 Heliar, which is as excellent or better at equivalent apertures than the f2.8 or faster 50mm alternatives from the Leica and Zeiss design teams. Not too bad for a manufacturer of budget optics.</p>

[art_tyree]

<p>Thanks to recent posts on my thread, I am getting a good education in optics available for Leica mount.<br>

I appreciate the observations made from experience; I certainly would't be able to buy all those lenses, even from Cosina, and try them. But the 15mm/4.5 and the 21mm look like good choices, and would like to add them to my presently modest lens arsenal (50mm Summicron DR, 35mm Summaron, 90mm and 135mm Hektors), all from 1960s.</p>