Voightlander M lenses?

[ToddB]

Hey guys,

I was wondering what people takes are on the Voightlander M series lenses for Leica are like? I noticed that are a little more reasonable in price. I'd like to score a wide angle lens sometime down the road.

Todd

 

[frank]

Very good lenses, never disappointed or had a problem with them.

CV lenses owned: 21, 25, 35f2.5, 40f1.4, 50f2.5

(still own the 21 and 40)

 

[ToddB]

cool.. anyone else?

Todd

 

[presspass]

I own, and use, the 15, 21, and 40. The 40 is a bit of a mechanical problem - it keeps unscrewing itself - but is easy to fix. Other than that, no mechanical problems and the images are fine. BTW, you might also look at the Zeiss Ikons; more than a Voightlander, less than a Leica.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Todd, Cosina lenses for M mount under Vogtlander label are very well known, popular and reviews are plenty.

I like Color Skopar 35 2.5. Have it as LTM on Bessa R and now PII version on M4-2.
Small, nice, sharp, nothing wrong lens if you can't afford Leica or Zeiss.
Wide enough for me

 

[jimjm]

One reason they're so popular with the RF crowd is they give great performance at a modest price. Most of them seem to hold their value pretty well, so you can buy one to try it out and if you don't like it, sell it for most/all of your money back. I have the 21/4, 25/4 and 35/1.4 lenses. Build quality for the most part is very good.

The general consensus is that they have a more "modern" look with a bit more contrast than some of the older classic Leica lenses. They also make some crazy fast glass like the 35/1.2 or the 50/1.1, if you're into low-light shooting. The 35/1.4 is my "go-to" walkabout lens on my Leica M2 - perfect size and good speed.

The Zeiss ZM lenses (also from Cosina) have very good reputations as well. More expensive than the Voigtlanders, but optically better corrected and also a more "modern" look with high-contrast, sharpness and better flare correction than even the Leica lenses. One benefit of the VC lenses is many of them use the same 39mm filter size as Leica, if you have a mix of the two brands. I think the ZM lenses use 43mm filters.

 

[PittP]

The 25mm/4 is very sharp, minimal distortion, good flare control, a bit contrasty compared to old lenses from the 50s-60s.
To me, out-of-focus is just blunt-blurry; the Zeiss version may be "nicer" in this respect - but this is in the beholder's eye.
Mechanically, after 7-8 years, as new.

 

[Double Negative]

I own a ton of 'em. For example, all but the 25mm Color Skopar (I have the 21, 28, 35 and 50). I also have the 35mm and 50mm Noktons. They're built very well (better than Zeiss ZMs) but not quite as refined as Leica lenses. Optically, they perform rather well - though it varies somewhat. Some lenses have focus shift (but so does Leica; witness the 35 'lux ASPH pre-FLE). Some have distortion and random funky bokeh (e.g. 35mm f/1.4 Nokton, though it IS designed after a lens of similar performance). Some are just cult classics, such as the 35mm f/1.2 Nokton or the older LTM Noktons.

Honestly, they're worth pretty much every penny and I've yet to be disappointed.

I've got a bunch of reviews of Voigtländer lenses if you're interested.

 

[250swb]

I really like them, but not the M versions necessarily, but the LTM ones that offer some gems and can be made into M with an adapter (and mean you have an excuse to also buy an LTM body)

Favourite is the 28mm Skopar, a very fine lens indeed and you are very lucky to find one in LTM mount. Then the 35mm Skopar, again a lenses that punches well above its price point. And to make it a hatrick the 75mm f/2.5 Skopar, a sublime lens that really is a competitor with the 75mm Leica Summarit. But they are many others, just research each one because some are more successful than others depending on the use you want to put it to.

Steve

 

[JamesPage]

Hard to find a bad one. I have the 21/4, 28/3.5, 35/2.5 pancake, 35/2.5 color skopar, and the 50/2.5.

all of them are excellent optically. 95% of the performance of the Leica optics at 20% of the price. Build quality can sometimes be an issue, but thats expected given their price point,

 

[ciniframe]

I bought two, a 21 f4 LTM and 35 f2.5 PII from a Leica shooter who said they were 'too modern' too 'clinical' for him. He wanted to have a older, slightly less contrast of mid 60's & 70's Leica optics. They seem fine to me. The M mount 35 f2.5 PII is really a good, compact 'walk around lens' and will focus to .7 meter. I would really like a 50 f2 Nickel Heliar and the $800 price seems reasonable but strictly out of my budget. I'll probably round out my focal length line up with a I-26m from Fedka, about 1/10 the Heliar price.

 

[Xmas]

I can recommend the 5cm /2.5 LTM because it is well compact only 1.0mm longer then the post '94 Elmar when the Elmar is collapsed (both wearing kit min hoods)! Lot cheaper as well. Lives on my M3.

 

[NJH]

Definitely agree on the older LTM lenses. I have the 75 Skopar and 90 APO Lanthar on adapters, I think they are with me for the long haul. I also have the 21/4 and 25/4 M mount skopars which are less impressive than that pair but tiny and very very good at F8 for most situations and films, I might sell those to get a Zeiss 21/4.5 though as I have a bit of a thing going on for 21mm.

 

[colonel]

I wanted bright lenses but not to break the bank. After much research I bought the 50mm f1.5 Aspherical M and the 35mm f1.2 ii.
I haven't finished testing them yet but the build quality is excellent, the feel is wonderful and the design is quite unique.
The 50mm is relatively sharp in the centre from f1.5 but is sharp corner to corner from f2.8.
I am still testing the 35mm.
I would recommend you look at flickr groups for these lenses to get a sense of their draw. These 2 lenses seem to have a bit less micro contrast then Leica and have a warmer draw unlike the Leica more clinical bluish draw. There is a creamy "Fuji" type look.
Best Rgds

 

[TheToadMen]

This might be an interesting article for you:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/lens-reviews.htm

Bert from Holland
http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl

 

[mdarnton]

I've had 2-15s, 21, 25, 2-28s, 35, 50, and every one of them has been a beautiful performer. The comment that they're "modern" in their look is right on. I like that in the wides (vintage wides can be pretty terrible), and am less happy about it the longer the lens. You really can not go wrong with any of them, I don't think.

Of all of them, my favorite is the 21 which is simply a good clean lens with no nasty quirks (Tri-X, bounce flash, f5.6, zone focus):

[/url]

Party, 2013
by Michael Darnton, on Flickr[/img]

 

[mnemosyne]

I like the 21/f4, 25/f4, 35/f2.5 (but see below); I was not overly impressed with the 50/f2.5 (sample variation; had two real dogs before finding a good one) and the 50/f1.5 (exc. IQ, but terrible handling, but oc this is a matter of taste)
My 35/f2.5 was not really sharp at f4 and larger until it I reassembled and adjusted it (after it had fallen apart one day). Fine lens now, but sometimes problems with flares when shooting into the light.
Hear very good things about the performance of the 90/f3.5, but watch out for haze in this lens

 

[Xmas]

I like the 21/f4, 25/f4, 35/f2.5 (but see below); I was not overly impressed with the 50/f2.5 (sample variation; had two real dogs before finding a good one) and the 50/f1.5 (exc. IQ, but terrible handling, but oc this is a matter of taste)
My 35/f2.5 was not really sharp at f4 and larger until it I reassembled and adjusted it (after it had fallen apart one day). Fine lens now, but sometimes problems with flares when shooting into the light.
Hear very good things about the performance of the 90/f3.5, but watch out for haze in this lens

The optional larger filter is a good idea especially if you drop the camera...

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I like them. Have a 28mm f2 and a 35mm f1.4. I would buy more the the future. Maybe a 21mm as they are pretty common used and are not too expensive. I would love to play around with their 12mm for sure. Their 50mm 3.5 nickel heliar has been on my want list for a long time too.

 

[Xmas]

The optional larger filter is a good idea especially if you drop the camera...

Should have read

The optional larger hood and uv filter is a good...

 

[mnemosyne]

The optional larger filter is a good idea especially if you drop the camera...

I am getting these very characteristically shaped flares with the 35/2.5 PII when shooting with the sun just outside the frame in spite of using the original bayonet lens hood. It is almost kind of a "trademark" sign of the lens. I am wondering if it has to do with the shiny chrome filter threads. Maybe I should use an empty (no glass) black filter mount to cover them. I also have the Summarit 35, which is a much better lens in this respect, but of course it is also three times more expensive!

 

[TheToadMen]

I am getting these very characteristically shaped flares with the 35/2.5 PII when shooting with the sun just outside the frame in spite of using the original bayonet lens hood. It is almost kind of a "trademark" sign of the lens. I am wondering if it has to do with the shiny chrome filter threads. Maybe I should use an empty (no glass) black filter mount to cover them.

Maybe just outside the frame in your view finder, but not outside the view of the lens itself?
Simple test: make a photo and a mental note what is just inside & outside the frame and then check the same on the photo made.

Bert from Holland
http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl

 

[Xmas]

I am getting these very characteristically shaped flares with the 35/2.5 PII when shooting with the sun just outside the frame in spite of using the original bayonet lens hood. It is almost kind of a "trademark" sign of the lens. I am wondering if it has to do with the shiny chrome filter threads. Maybe I should use an empty (no glass) black filter mount to cover them. I also have the Summarit 35, which is a much better lens in this respect, but of course it is also three times more expensive!

The LTM version has a deep (~1inch) lens hood option.
But shiny threads won't help.
Even with deep hood you can get flare if the sun light gets into the lens.
My CV 35mm /2.5 were cheaper than 1/3 the Leica £, by some margin.
My Leica lenses used to flare too.

 

[SimonXpan]

I have 35mm 1.2 it's a very fine (though large) lens - well worth the money and the iq is excellent

 

[colonel]

I have the Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 ii and for my money it's one of the best 35mm lenses period.
A good 35mm M lens comparison is on digilloyd's pay site
Rgds


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk