Leica or Voigtländer lenses -- differences?

[Colin Corneau]

Folks -

I have a line on a nice Voightlander 35mm 1.7 lens. I'll be getting either an M6 or a Bessa rangefinder soon and like the slightly less expense of the Voightlander. (The Voightlander does fit onto an M6, IIRC..?)

I'm definite on the focal length...just wanted to tap into some expertise on the subject of rangerfinder lenses.

Is there a substantive difference in quality between these two makes?

many thanks - Colin

 

[Jersey Vic]

Hey Colin; Theres been some serious tests on these lenses. They're really good. Very sharp and contrasty. The Voigtlanders do fit on Leicas and most come in either the ltm mount of the M mount. If you get an ltm mount lens, you'll need an adaptor to put it on a Leica M or an M mount Bessa. http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtlen.htm

 

[Morry Katz]

"Is there a substantive difference in quality..."

Of course there is. The Leica build is superior and so is the performance. Leica didn't get the reputation it has out of thin air. You'll get what you pay for. I had a Voightlander system and went back to Leica.

Morry Katz - Lethbridge.

 

[arealitystudios]

as an owner of both brands (not necessarily in the 35mm focal length) I can say that yes indeed the Leica lenses tend to be better in both build quality and image quality. But then again, given the price difference they better be!!!

That being said, I am very VERY happy with my Voightlander lenses. They are sharp and have a better build quality than the price would normally have you believe.

I don't think anyone looks at the images I make with my Voight lenses and says to themselves "that's good, but he should have shot it with a Leica lens"

 

[Eric Rose]

I have both VC and Leitz lenses for my M3 and M5. As mentioned the build quality of the VC lenses are not as good as the Leitz but I would say for the lenses I have they are at least 90% as good. Optically you would have to be an MTF nerd to see the difference. Having said this I am basing my opinions on the 35mm Skopar VC lens vs the 35mm pre-asph Summicron. Both of which I have.

Check out his link for more complete information: http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?Lens-LSM-Tom35.html~mainFrame

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I also have a mix of Leica and Voigtländer lenses.

Leica is certainly better, though at a price.
The main shortcoming of my Voigtländers is that they tend to vignette quite heavily.
Also, Leica lenses tend to handle flare better (maybe because of the very well-designed shades that come with them).

 

[Bateleur]

Leica certainly wins hands down, as mentioned on both optical and build quality. If the 35mm will be your prime lens go for the best you can afford. As a suggestion, consider Zeiss as an attractively priced alternative (to Leica)

 

[Xmas]

I have a line on a nice Voightlander 35mm 1.7 lens. (The Voightlander does fit onto an M6, IIRC..?)

You need the (35mm) LTM to M adapter as the f/1.7 is only available in LTM, nearly 40 GBP new now... I'm confident the CV will clear the M6 meter shelf but not tried it yet.

Is there a substantive difference in quality between these two makes?

You have said quality, you have not asked about build standard, optical performance etc.

The f/1.7 is a big lens, looks like a SLR reverse telephoto recycled, it is a good performer if you can get one in good optical condition, & it wont be dear. The CV fashion conscious have al gone to the CV f1.4 35mm.

Unless you buy one of the 'lastest' Leica aspherics you wont be worried about performance.

The f/1.7 is noted for dissassembling itself, it needs screw drivers to reassemble, but dont try it if you are not practical, mine seems to be ok, may need to be vibrated to get the internal screws to loosen.

If you dont like the size/ergonomics then the Canon LTM f/2 35mm will only be a bit more expensive, it is old '60-'70, but will slay the contemporary summicron, for photos contra jour - typically 50% more then CV f/1.7.

Noel

 

[Colin Corneau]

Thanks, all -- Noel, I wasn't aware I'd need an adaptor to fit the V-1.7 to an M6.

And Eric, that link was fantastic. A very good read.

 

[sepiareverb]

I've had the CV 35/1.2 lens, and currently use the Leica 35/1.4 pre-ASPH and the latest 35/2.0 ASPH. The CV had a very different look, not exactly softer as in less focussed, but softer as in less contrast. Wide open or stopped down this held true. I used the CV 75 for a time as well, but always found it somewhat gritty in look compared to the Leica lenses.

 

[jmcd]

Smooth, gritty, contrasty, vintage—what qualities do you seek? Zeiss, Voigtlander, and Leica all make fine lenses optically, but the looks on print differ. The Voigtlander Ultron 35/1.7 is a great lens with little distortion, excellent sharpness, and moderately high contrast—a really nice lens at a competitive price. It also has a built in hood with a push-on cap—a set that is very practical in everyday use.

I did sell mine because I liked better the Zeiss 35/2, which has minimal flare and remarkable image quality. Could I pick a picture from it out from a stack of prints from other lenses—I think so. Edit/add—I have heard others describe the print quality from this lens as "plasticky" in b&w—but I love it. This just illustrates that opinions and preferences differ.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Hoo boy...NOW the hard stuff begins. A lens' personality or distinct qualities..? Important, I think.

 

[jmcd]

Another way to look at it, if you have a chance to buy an Ultron in good shape at a good price, you can try it out. If you take care of it but don't like it, you can very likely sell it for what you paid for it, then try something else.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Problem with the Ultron (which is the one at my local shop) is its LSM not M mount...minor point but I'd have to shell out for the adaptor.

I'm feeling the love for the Nokton 1.4, about now. The part of me that's given to extremes is gazing at the 1.2 model too, but it feels like more of a gimmick not an honest expression of how I shoot and what I want to create.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Hoo boy...NOW the hard stuff begins. A lens' personality or distinct qualities..? Important, I think.

No joke!!

Add bokeh and 3-D quality (something my Zeiss lenses excel at) to the mix...

 

[sepiareverb]

Problem with the Ultron (which is the one at my local shop) is its LSM not M mount...minor point but I'd have to shell out for the adaptor.

The adaptor will work with all kinds of lenses, from CV and Leica- and could also be sold at cost pretty easily.

 

[Xmas]

Problem with the Ultron (which is the one at my local shop) is its LSM not M mount...minor point but I'd have to shell out for the adaptor.

I'm feeling the love for the Nokton 1.4, about now. The part of me that's given to extremes is gazing at the 1.2 model too, but it feels like more of a gimmick not an honest expression of how I shoot and what I want to create.

The Nokton f/1.4 is a lot smaller & has a different signature then the Ultron f1.7 but even with an adapter is more expensive. You pays your money you makes your choice.

As well as these two there are the CV f/2.5 35mm in LTM and M mount, the Canon f/2 in LTM, the ZM f/2 & the Leica f/2.5, f/2, f1.4. The fit to your hands is pretty critical, if you cant use it it does not matter how well it performs or how cheap it is.

Noel

 

[tom_bw]

If you are happy with what you have, stick with it!

 

[Tim Gray]

I'm sure it's all been said before in this thread, but the Voigtlander (VC) lenses are great, especially for the money. While I do like the Leica (and Zeiss) equivalents more, the Voigltander lenses are much cheaper and 95% as good. Also, they fill some gaps that Leica and Zeiss don't fill, like the 35/1.2, a reasonably priced super speed 50, or ultra compact (and cheap!) lenses like the 28/3.5, 15/4.5, and 21/4. I'd say on average the VC lenses are sharp in the center, *might be* less sharp on the edges, and *might* have a bit more distortion than the Leica equivalent. Also, bokeh might not always be to your liking, but I wouldn't worry about that too much if I were you. Mind you, from what I've seen, over in SLR land, people RAVE about the VC lenses.

I think the VC 35/1.4 is a great buy. That is one in particular that people complain about bokeh wise. However, it's fast, sharp, cheap, and small. Sounds good to me.

The Zeiss lenses are mostly more flare resistant than the VC lenses, and most of the Leica lenses too for that matter. They are a bit more conservative in their design (a bit slower, a bit bigger) than Leica, but great buys if you go for them. The 35/2 is particularly nice - I had that lens for a while it was wonderful. Very even sharpness across the frame, zero distortion, and very flare proof.

I say if you find a VC 35/1.7 for a good price, get it. If it doesn't suit you, you should be able to sell it for about the same price you bought it for.

 

[haris]

Do you want to buy 2.500 Euros Leica lens instead of 400 Euros Voigtlaender lens (that is to buy 6 times more expensive lens) and to get lens which is 20% or 50% or 100% better, but not 6 times better?

For me, if I had hundreds of thousands of Euros on account I would, I would buy Leica lenses and cameras, but since I don't have hundreds of thousands of Euros, I bought Voigtlalender camera and lenses.

And I wouldn't even save for Leica. I mean, would I be better photographer and have better photographs if I have Leica instead of Voigtlaender? No, I wouldn't. So, I am happy without Leica.

But, if I win lottery, then...

 

[Xmas]

Hi

My CV lenses are not detectably different from my ZM or Leica lenses, in my normal use.

My mate tries them on his M8 wide open (in coffee shops) and chimps the corners and likes the ZM lenses more, than the CV or Leica lenses, if you do resolution chart shots you may be able to detect a difference, in mural prints.

The answer to why I have a selection is they were bargains, at the time.

Noel