CV 75mm Heliar

[peter_mcdonough]

Hi Andrew,

I had the 75CV and got rid of it. Wide open it was very mushy and about as sharp as the plastic lens on a cheap Instamatic. It was flare-prone as well. I would never recommend it, based on my experience.

Peter

[jsbc]

Peter:

 

That is a valid and useful comment although it is slightly at odds with other people's views (most people says that it is of low contrast wide open and flare prone, but the lack of sharpness is new), but does it improve substantially by F2.8 or f4? Can we treat it like a F4 lens with emergency lower light capability? (just like the 35 pre-ASPH Summilux is notorious wide open but by F2 it is comparable to the Summicron.)

 

Anyhow, the original comment about disappointing bokeh (whether you rate that as important) is curious since most people agree there is nothing untoward in the displayed pictures.

[harry_akiyoshi]

Johnson --

 

I've found the lens useable enough at f/2.5. There's no difference in contrast at 2.8. At f/4, you get a considerably crisper picture, and at 5.6 the lens is contrasty and absolutely tack-sharp.

 

I haven't noticed much tendency to flare, oddly; I am careful about shading the front element when I can, though.

 

I guess I've come to the conclusion that the 75's bokeh isn't bad, it's just different from my other lenses. More textured, I guess.

[robert_byrd1]

High-contrast scene shot with 75mm CV.<div></div>

[jsbc]

Thanks guys.

 

I have been thinking about picking one up as part of a two-lens outfit - 35mm and 75mm (the gap between 35mm 90mm seems too big). It is way lighter than the 75mm Summilux, and way cheaper too of course. I have also not shot with this focal length so it should be quite fun.

 

Plus I get to use it on the IIIf.

[alex_p._schorsch]

I don't see why Voigtlander doesn't get their act together and sell lenses with the leica bayonet mount. Aren't Leica users one of their main targets. Maybe it's a copyright issue. Do you think that Vivitar and all those other third parties have paid copyright royalties to Canon and Nikon. I think an adapter for a screw mount must be a real pain in the arperture. Cheers.

[albert_smith]

<I>I don't see why Voigtlander doesn't get their act together and sell lenses with the leica bayonet mount....Maybe it's a copyright issue. </I><P>

 

The new 35mm f/1.2 has an M mount, so it should be possible for to put them on any lenses that they produce. If they did have this 75mm lens with a standard M mount, it would be the deciding factor for me to just get one. No muss, no fuss, just open the box and mount it.

[joel_matherson]

Ive never understood the complaint of the above 2 posters ragarding M mount adapters. Once mounted on my lenses they virturally become M mount lenses and the mounts remain firm. Why sell lenses just to M mount users when you can sell to both M and Leica screw mount users? There are more screw mount cameras out there then M mount remember, Russian, Japanese and German. Its one of the few adapters that work completely with no drawbacks. Im surprised Leica doesnt do the same but have a mount more securely fixed by a couple of screws and can be removed for screw mount users, at least on their slower lenses that would permit such a mounting.

 

Andrew, like others I prefer the Bokeh from the Heliar sorry. Jay has a good underlying point in that I think that it has alot to do with modern aspeheric lenses being so well corrected that the transition to out of focus can seem harsher to alot of people. Even Erwin makes this concession with his tests of the modern verses older Leica lenses. This is also why the 50mm Nokton gets bokeh roasted over the much older Summilux M design. I guess the rule is buy old if you prefer bokeh and new if you prefer sharpness and better contrast.

[jsbc]

Personally I have no problems using adapters.

 

But one thing CV can do is to fix an adapter to their lenses with epoxy or crazy glue and sell it for U$50 more! Much better for bottomline.