Experiences with Cosina Voigtlander?

[tjaded]

Hi all--
I am sort of in the market for a Cosina Voigtlander....either a Bessa L or T. Does anyone here have either (or both) and if so, can you give me any opinions of them? How about the new lenses, too. Any favorites. etc?
Thanks!
Matt

 

[DaveOttawa]

I have the Bessa L

Not sure exactly what info you are looking for or what your expectations are (what you plan to shoot for example) but I have a Bessa L, use it mostly with the CV25mm/f4 (old model w/o RF coupling, with brightline CV finder).

I enjoy the simplicty of it and the finder works very well for me, very few problems with parallax framing errors or focusing (scale focusing).

I thought I might find it very difficult to compose with what, for me, was a very wide angle lens but it seems easier than with that angle of view on an SLR for some reason, maybe because the finder is so bright.
Some pics with CV equipment here if you're interested, captioned with equipment used: http://www.pbase.com/mononation/cv

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Lots of posts on APUG about this, basically Cosina Voigtländer cameras are great for the money and have probably done Leica a big favor in re-kindling interest in 35 mm rangefinder cameras. The only downside I have discovered in owning L, T and R2a is that the rangefinder mechanisms are not as shockproof as Leica - and, of course, the cameras, with the extra moving baffle in front of the shutter used for exposure metering, are not as quiet as Leica M.

The Bessa L, being without a rangefinder, you would probably not want to use with a lens longer than 35 mm, whereas the T has the longest rangefinder base of any Bessa and is thus good for telephoto up to 135 mm. The Bessa L is quite ridiculously cheap, particularly second-hand, works well (including metering) and has no hidden problems.

Regards,

David

 

[copake_ham]

There's lots of LTM glass out there for you to grab and the price on an L or R is worth it.

I have a R2S so I can use my Nikkor "S" glass. It's a fine camera - but as David notes - it's not robustly built. That said, I tip my hat to Mr. Kobayashi who created a new, modern metered body to mount some classic Nikon RF glass onto!

 

[elekm]

You would be better served by getting on of the Cosina Voigtlander M-mount cameras. They can use the LTM lenses with an adapter. With the LTM cameras, you can only use LTM glass and not M lenses. Just something to consider.

Remember the L has no viewfinder, so it's not the best choice for non-wide angle lenses.

Roger Hicks and his wife use the Bessa-T. I had an R for several years. I still have the Rollei 35 RF (R2 clone).

In general, these are good values. Reliable cameras. Very nice viewfinders. Not terribly expensive.

One thing is true. The quality of construction and choice of materials appears to have improved with each model, including the use of more metal and less plastic.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I have 2 Cosina/Voigtlander Bessa Ts. One for B and W film, one for Color film. Love em! I use a 21mm f4 Color Skopar on them a lot.

 

[rst]

... the rangefinder mechanisms are not as shockproof as Leica - and, of course, the cameras, with the extra moving baffle in front of the shutter used for exposure metering, are not as quiet as Leica M.

That is right, the Bessa rangefinder might not be as shockproof as that of a Leica, but OTOH it is very easy to adjust it yourself in case that it is misaligned. I think the extra moving baffle in front of the shutter is part of the shutter to make it light tight. The base of the Bessa comes from Cosinas SLR cameras, like the Nikon FM-10 and FE-10 which have the mirror in front of the shutter. But I might be wrong with this. So it is true, Leicas are quieter than Bessas, but I think you won't hear any of them when shooting on the street in a city. It might get more problematic when using it in a very quiet place.

ciao
-- Ruediger

 

[Doug Smith]

I have a Bessa L with a 25mm which has turned out to be one of my favorite walkaround cameras. It's simple to use and keeps on working. The lens is great. I used to have an R2A but it was prone to frequent jamming (which others have also reported on various forums) and finally the gears in the advance mechanism stripped. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Nokton48]

I have two L bodies, which I use with the 21 and 25 CV lenses. Fine shooters.

I have a T with winder, which I use primarily with my 50mm Canon 1.2, and my 85mm f2 Jupiter-9, mainly in lower-light. This is also an unbeatable combo.

These are all great cameras for the money. Hard to go wrong, really.

 

[f1.4]

I guess this boils down whether you want to use M-bayonet lenses (Bessa T) or screw-mount (Bessa L). If you have no screw-mount lenses in advance or only a few, I would go for the M-bayonet. Lets you use CV and Leica M lenses directly, plus gives the option of using the old screw-mount versions with an adapter.

 

[Nokton48]

I guess it boils down to, do you want to use every possible M and L lens, and have an -extremely- accurate rangefinder? Then spend $200-$300 (depending on black or chrome) and buy a T. Or, if you need a "box", because you can comfortably "guess" focus wide lenses, and you enjoy the simplicity of that experience, get an L, for $75-$150.

Either way is equally good, depending on your needs

 

[Roger Hicks]

I guess it boils down to, do you want to use every possible M and L lens, and have an -extremely- accurate rangefinder? Then spend $200-$300 (depending on black or chrome) and buy a T. Or, if you need a "box", because you can comfortably "guess" focus wide lenses, and you enjoy the simplicity of that experience, get an L, for $75-$150.

Either way is equally good, depending on your needs

Seconded, with the additional observation that even the T is only about as accurate as an ordinary ZI or Leica because of the extremely short RF base even after magnification; I'd not want to use 50/1.5, 75/2 or 90/2 lenses with any Bessas except the T, and even then, it's marginal. And if you want to use the 135/2,8 (one of my favourites) you need an M body anyway...

Cheers,

Roger (who has just come back from Navarre shooting, among other things, 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar, 50/1.5 Sonnar and 135/2.8 on MP and M8)

 

[dslater]

Seconded, with the additional observation that even the T is only about as accurate as an ordinary ZI or Leica because of the extremely short RF base even after magnification; I'd not want to use 50/1.5, 75/2 or 90/2 lenses with any Bessas except the T, and even then, it's marginal. And if you want to use the 135/2,8 (one of my favourites) you need an M body anyway...

Cheers,

Roger (who has just come back from Navarre shooting, among other things, 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar, 50/1.5 Sonnar and 135/2.8 on MP and M8)

Hi Roger,
I'm not really sure what you mean here - the Bessa T has a longer effective baseline than an M6 - 53.7mm for the T vs. 49.86 for a .72x M6. The .91 M3 seems to have the longest effective baseline at 62.33mm. Frankly, I'd be inclined to get an M3 with the Voigtlander VC Meter II instead of a Bessa.

 

[cmedin]

I just got a Bessa L and 25/4 Skopar, and while I've only run a roll through it (with very pleasing results!) so far, I have to say that it seems very nicely put together, the Skopar is an excellent lens, and a lot of fun to use.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,
I'm not really sure what you mean here - the Bessa T has a longer effective baseline than an M6 - 53.7mm for the T vs. 49.86 for a .72x M6. The .91 M3 seems to have the longest effective baseline at 62.33mm. Frankly, I'd be inclined to get an M3 with the Voigtlander VC Meter II instead of a Bessa.

Sorry: I should have made myself clearer. The difference is between a longer actual base, reduced to 0.58x/0.72x/0.85x, thereby reducing the effect of any mechanical errors (in a camera that is more precisely made to begin with) and a shorter base length, multiplied by about 1,5x, thereby magnifying any mechanical errors.

My wife and I have R2 and T Bessas, and have had others. We have also used the ZI for an extended test. As I said in the original post, I'd not use the fast lenses at full aperture except on the T, and purely from personal experience, I have found that marginal. Not useless: just marginal.

I'd second your suggestion to buy a s/h M + VC meter, except that I'd recommend M2 for the 35-50-90 finder frames instead of 50-90-135. But if you don't like/use 35, that won't matter.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I'd second your suggestion to buy a s/h M + VC meter, except that I'd recommend M2 for the 35-50-90 finder frames instead of 50-90-135. But if you don't like/use 35, that won't matter.

Just for information, another alternative for non-metered cameras is a shoe-mounted Gossen Digisix or Digiflash - in Britain, the Digisix is about £80 including tax, shoe attachment about £10 more.

Regards,

David

 

[Woolliscroft]

I have the original screw mount R and use it alongside my 1930s Leica IIIa, for which it also acts as a light meter. I have found it a little gem, very light and easy to use, and I have not had any of the reliability issues some have reported. It's not a Leica, but it doesn't claim to be and the Voightländer glass is amazingly good for the money. I particularly love the 15mm. A lot of people seem to treat it as a bit of a toy, but a lot of my work involves archaeological site photography where it really is very useful and superbly sharp.

David.