V/C lens build quality, Thumbs up or down?

[jeff_rivera5]

There is a person on this forum ( I'll let them identify themself if

they want) advertising a VC lens. When I contacted them about the

lens, they said the front ring may be loose. I did a search on VC

lens build quality and there have been some complaints.

 

So what do you think? Those who have VC lenses, are you happy with

the build quality? Anyone have things break or loosen to the point

of not being usable? If so, how long did you own the lens before the

problem arrived. Part of the appeal (for me anyway) of the Leica

stuff is how good it feels in the hands. If the VC stuff doesn't

even come close, it's no bargin for me, I'd rather buy old LTM stuff.

 

Anyhow, I'd love to hear your comments.

 

thanks,

[douglas_green1]

IMHO, the build quality is quite good, maybe even excellent. But the quality of the finish is nowhere near as good as the quality of the manufacturing. The black paint wears off much too easily.

[patricks]

I've owned both a 35/1.7 and a 75/2.5, both has zero problems in terms of build quality and behaviour. It seemed like they weren't on par with Leica, or with Konica Hexanon RF lense for that matter, but for the price I think you get very good optical performance. A good CV lens is certainly better than no "perfect" Leica lens, in my book.

 

For a large number of shooters, I would dare say that they couldn't really see the difference in results between many CV or Leica lenses, but many people simply "must have" Leica gear, for one reason or another (I'm partly guilty here, but it comes and goes luckily).

 

It is really not fair to compare a $300 CV lens with a $1,000+ Leica lens...

 

Lastly, from what I've heard the build quality might be a tad uneven for the CV lenses - which particular lens were you looking at?

[jeff_rivera5]

Patrick,

 

I'm looking at either the 28 3.5 or the 35 2.5 classic.

[gerald_widen]

I have the VC 25/4 Skopar. While the quality isn't up to Leica standards it is still pretty good. OTOH Leica build quality isn't up to the old Leica quality if you compare for example the recent 50 Summicrons to the DR/Rigid versions or the M6 to the M2/3/4.

[fredlee70x7]

Jeff, I own only one VC lens which is 28/3.5. I also own several current version Leica lenses. The build quality of the little VC lens is excellent, comparable to Leica's to an ordinary shooter like me. Unlike you're looking for a tank-like lens which can endure war zone environment.

[steve_unsworth1]

Im my experience the black paint wears quickly and the silk-screening on the lens caps doesn't last very long either, these may be important to you - personally I don't care. Other than that no comlaints.

 

CV lenses I own are 15, 21, 25, 28 (f1.9) and 90. In order of usage (most used first) 21, 15, 28, 90, 25.

[harry_akiyoshi]

VC lenses vary all over the place in terms of build quality. The 28mm 3.5 is quite well-made, for example -- a really solid little lens -- but the 50mm 2.5 is pretty flimsy.

 

I've tried a lot of VC lenses, and I own the 35mm 2.5 Classic and the 75mm 2.5. They're good lenses. The 75 is markedly better than the 35, both optically and mechanically, but the 35 isn't bad. It's not Leica, and the finish is coming off a bit, but I'm satisfied with it for the price. A lot of it is a matter of personal taste -- I'm not very hard on my gear, generally, so I find the VC lenses pretty adequate in terms of build quality. If I need to pound nails I'll use a hammer.

 

If the feel is very important to you, buy Leica. A few VC lenses (28mm 3.5, 90mm 3.5) are almost Leica-like, but most of the lineup is still trailing by a significant margin. Optically it's a much closer race.

[paulstenquist]

I own only one Leica lens, a 1953 Summicron 50/2 and one CV lens, a 75/2.5. The build quality of the CV lens is not up to the incredible standard set by the early Leica lens. However, the performance of the CV is very, very good. I own a lot of Pentax lenses, including sixties M42s and seventies K-series glass. The CV is not the equal of these either in terms of build and finish. However, it is quite comparable to most modern manual focus lenses, such as the Pentax A series of the late eighties and nineties. Unless you're willling to pay a premium, that's the way they make 'em nowadays.

[Alex_Es]

Jeff,

 

This is a very limited and subjective answer. I've heard stories about the 35/1.7 coming apart (this is an early lens). My experiences have been good for the most part.

 

My V/C lens (all LTM except where noted) are: 12/5.6, 15/4.5, 21/4, 25/4, 25/4 (SC), 28/1.9, 28/3.5 35/2.5, 35/2.5 (SC), 50/2.5, 50/3.5.

 

The worst problem I had with a lens per se has been the front label coming off of the 12/5.6. I glued it back on. The 21/4's external view finder's frame tilted to the left. I fixed it several times but it kept tilting back. I now use a Leica 21mm v.f. That's how much I like the 21/4.

 

All in all, I think that the later the len's production date the better its build quality. The SC lenses are especially very well made. I have found that all of my V/C lenses have stood up to my not gingerly treatment.

 

V/C cameras are another story. They do need better quality control--and this is in regard mostly to small but annoying things going wrong. I've talked about this before on the Forum.

[michael_kastner]

I'm still waiting for a 'cron or Elmarit 75. If they don't bring one out in the next few years, I'll stop moaning, get a CV 2.5/75, and be done with it.

[george_conboy1]

I would give a thumbs up, Jeff, particularly on the 28 f3.5. I have that lens as well as the VC 25 and 15, all in chrome. For me the 25 is a waste, too close between 21 and 28. Further the 25 seems not as well made as the 28 - doesn't seem to have the same heft. The chrome finish has been quite durable despite regular use, and the 28 very much reminds me of an old Nikkor 28 in LTM I had 20 years ago. Optical quality of the 28 is excellent if not perfect.

 

All in all I agree with what is said above - good value for the price.

[steve_barnett2]

The engineering quality of VC lenses is excellent across the range. The build quality on the other hand may be suspect in isolated cases. Ideally anybody would purchase a VC lens and have it immediately stripped and reassembled by a really good technician. You would have a superb lens. But for most people waiting for a loose component is just one of those things. It then gets fixed and you carry on. In any case the optical quality of VC lenses is so superior to LTM that it isn't an issue, unless you actually want the more esoteric qualities of softness and truly superb bokeh. Go for the VC, but only in a VC/LTM choice. If you however have an M camera the 'M' lenses usually win out except perhaps the 21mm where I and many on this forum may sway back towards the VC with an M mount for pure optical quality and usability in equal measure.

[Alex_Es]

I forgot to mention I own a V/C 75/2.5 (Silver). I have a finish problem only with the 28/1.9's black finish. It is not a bad problem--just the aging is a little faster on it than my older Leica lenses. All the lenses I cited above are black except the 15/4.5, 50/2.5 and 50/3.5 (which is an exceptionally well made lens). Seems black paint is more problematic than silver.

 

No question that Leica optics and build quality are generally higher than C/V. Yet, the C/Vs do hold their own.

 

I've written about 35mm lens in this regard in this Forum before.

 

The 35/2.5 (classic and S/C) is a very good lens in terms of build quality, finish durability and optics in my experience.

 

Before I got my 'cron 35/2 ASPH I carried a 35/2.5 classic and an old 'lux 35/1.4 (pre-ASPH). I used the 35/2.5 for daylight because it didn't flare all over the place like the 'lux.

 

The 28/3.5 is heavy for its size. It is very well made in my view so far. Optically it is very good.

[Aoresteen]

Jeff,

 

I have the 21mm, 15mm, and the 28mm f/1.9; all purchase Nov/Dec 2001. No problems at all. I don't baby them (maybe I should) and they have held up very well. If they were stolen today I'd just email Camera Quest and buy them again. They are a very good value.

[kevin m.]

I've owned or used the 25, 28 Ultron, 50 Nokton, 75 and 90, and in no case was the build quality near a modern Leica lens, let alone a vintage one. The optical performance was pretty darned good across the board, however.

<p>

My real beef with the VC lineup is that it's only a good value for the money compared to <i>Leica</i> prices; when compared to the prices of other Japanese cameras, the VC stuff is <i>way</i> overpriced for what you get. The 28 Ultron, for example, is a bargain (optically) compared to the Summicron 28, but it simply doesn't feel like a $450 lens. Compare it to a good Japanese prime lens from the 'classic' (pre-plastic) era if you want to see what real build quality is like.

<p>

If you want a lens with Leica quality in both build and optical performance for less than Leica prices, then the limited Konica RF lineup is the best option. The 28, 35, 50 and 90 are as good as equivalent Leica glass, and the build quality is in some ways even better.

[peter_n1664876959]

Jeff I have a new CV 35mm/f.2.5 pancake lens that I bought about 6 weeks ago (don't like tabs). I can't tell how it will wear, but it looks about the quality of a Nikkor with respect to finish. Filter size is a bit weird (43mm) but optically it is a cracker, sharp as anything and with an incredibly short throw from close-up to infinity.

[stephen_w.]

Kevin,

 

They ARE expensive because Leica people buy them.

[matt_m__toronto_]

no problems with vc lenses here.

 

m

[jeff_rivera5]

Kevin, you make a good point, as does Steve. I think that's my beef too, they don't feel like $200-400 lenses, the feel like the $50-150 plastic SLR lenses (Canon, Nikon, et. al.). But they are also one of the few options for Leica and Leica like cameras.

[henricus]

<p>Jeff,

<p>I have the Nokton 50, Color Skopar 35 and the 90 APO. All are quality lenses that perform well. I have not had a lick of problems with these lenses. My experience with Leica glass is limited. I just got my Cron in the mail today and haven't used it yet. I don't think pawing it counts. ;-) I will say this, when it comes to build quality the V/C lenses are better than the consumer grade SLR lenses, but not as good as the pro SLR lenses. I don't see the M lenses having a consumer grade lens like the SLR lenses do. I don't think the FSU lenses really count as they are LTM and out of production. I guess one could say that the Cosina lenses ARE the consumer grades, but I sure don't get that sense.

[harry_soletsky1]

I've had a 15mm Heliar since it came out and for the price it's quite good. Optically the Hologon is better but at it's present value, I'm somewhat reluctant to use it especially as the graduated filter is a must and is hard to protect and it's very slow at f16. I also have a 28mm f1.9 and so far no problems and I use it regularly and so far no problems and the finish is holding up.

[john_collier2]

Dropped many Leica lenses, no problems. Dropped Nokton and the diaphrams blades

all fell out. Simple and inexpensive to fix. I buy Leica for my heavily used lenses

because they are tough as well as spectacular. I buy Cosina where Leica does not

make that focal length or for a seldom used focal length. It is not really fair to

compare the two given the order of magnitude difference in price.

[jack_matlock]

My 15mm came apart (front element separated from rest) when packed in checked baggage on a recent trip. It seems to have been connected by a few spots of solder.

 

Anybody know where I can get it repaired?

[henry_ting2]

My VC 12mm and 15mm have no problems. However, the 21mm have a inaccurate focussing problem (refer to recent thread on this issue).