Voigtlander vs. Others

Bromo33333 · Sep 25, 2006

I was perusing a bunch of reviews on rangefinders (I have GAS currently) and wanted to know what the main differences between Voigtlander and the others. Voightlander is always listed as having finish quality "not as good as a leica" :confused: but what does that mean and how does it stack up? A leica is an amazing piece of gear - but how does it compare to a Nikon FM2 for build quality for example?

And also - how does it stack up with Contax copies like the Nikon S3?

I suppose this is an open question - but I am after a rangefinder that has decent build quality (should equal the Nikon FM2 that I have) that will be less than the $3500 or so of a new Leica (like a LOT lower).

I have a FSU Kiev 4A that is built like a battleship, makes you miserable to use it - but boy are the photos sharp! (So I would want something that doesn't feel like it is going to seize up at any moment!)

Will S · Sep 25, 2006

I think that the build quality of the Voigtlanders is just as good as the Nikons. I own a F100 and a Bess R3A and I think the Bessa is sturdier. I've had to have the focus pad on my Nikon serviced and replace the battery pack because the rubber seal came loose in the three years I've owned the camera. I've owned the Bessa a lot less than that, but my strictly gut reaction examining the two cameras it is every bit as well constructed as the Nikon if not better.

Leica quality? I don't know. The only Leica I could compare it with is significantly older and it cost more than the new R3A. Frankly, I'd rather have the new R3A.

Maybe some others will chime in here, but I think that they are great cameras and I've been very pleased with the lenses as well.

Best,

Will

Claire Senft · Sep 25, 2006

Why not get the Contax version and continuw using your Contax mount lenses?

I would hazard a guess that because it has many fewer moving parts that it will give as good of service as the Nikon SLR mentioned.

copake_ham · Sep 25, 2006

While I wouldn't agree with Will S of the "versus" question, I do think that the quality of the Cosina Bessa Voighlanders is very good. I own two R2S's (Nikon compatibles). Oh, I also own two F-100's.

As to the original comparison, I think the Cosina wins hands down on a price-to-value comparison. It is certainly not built to Leica standards - and will probably not last until eternity like the Leica - but it is a very good value.

That said, I think it comes down to how old you are and how much $ you are willing to spend. If I were a younger man with the $, I'd go for the Leica - it should last a long, long time. But at my age, while I could afford the Leica, I would probably go with the Cosina. It will last a reasonably long time, can probably be replaced* at a reasonable cost and I would rather put the money into top quality glass.

* Note: You could buy two Cosinas for much less than one Leica - store one away until the other one breaks....

Bromo33333 · Sep 25, 2006

Claire Senft said:
Why not get the Contax version and continuw using your Contax mount lenses?

I would hazard a guess that because it has many fewer moving parts that it will give as good of service as the Nikon SLR mentioned.

I only have 1 Contax/FSU lens that came with the camera - great thought though and it had occured to me initially. I may do that, though, if I could get a few other primes.

copake_ham · Sep 25, 2006

Bromo33333 said:
I only have 1 Contax/FSU lens that came with the camera - great thought though and it had occured to me initially. I may do that, though, if I could get a few other primes.

The problem here is lens availability. I have a Contax IIIa and a Kiev 4AM. I also have the aforementioned Cosina R2S and both a Nikon S2 and SP.

Yes, they all use the same basic lens mount - but not all lenses are compatible. Even the Contax 50/1.5 and Nikkor 50/1.4 are not compatible at infinity.

You get more compatability at wider angles - but the Jupiters are a crap shoot.

Go to Steve Gandy's website: Cameraquest.com to do more research on this.

But figure it this way, w/o a scorecard and a Contax body, and a Nikon S body and a Kiev body and a Cosina/V body - you cannot assume that the S-mount lens you have will fit right.

You're best bet on this issue is to go to RFF.com (from which I am, BTW, banned). There are (were) a bunch of folks there who can "coach" you through the unusual nuances of Nikon/Contax/Kiev/Cosina.

BTW: the history is fascinating. How the FSU dismantled the entire Contax factories and shipped them east. How the US "sponsored" Nikon in the post-WWII era to "copy" Contax patents (and also got Canon to do the same with Leica's) etc.

Have fun in the RF archives!

butterflydream · Sep 26, 2006

The worst course is you buy a new cosina, sell at second hand price and buy a new Leica. Just don't do this.

Stephanie Brim · Sep 26, 2006

I think that if you're going to want a Leica M-mount camera, you should get a Leica. There are reasons. The main one is that you're likely to *want* a Leica later. The Bessa bodies are great. I would not turn one down if it was given to me. However, I'd rather have a 50 year old Leica in my hands. I think it has to do with the camera seeing history that I can only dream about and I like knowing that.

The CV glass, however...completely different story. By the end of next year I plan to have a 35/50/75 set.

David H. Bebbington · Sep 26, 2006

Stephanie Brim said:
I think that if you're going to want a Leica M-mount camera, you should get a Leica. There are reasons. The main one is that you're likely to *want* a Leica later. The Bessa bodies are great. I would not turn one down if it was given to me. However, I'd rather have a 50 year old Leica in my hands. I think it has to do with the camera seeing history that I can only dream about and I like knowing that.

The CV glass, however...completely different story. By the end of next year I plan to have a 35/50/75 set.

Even 50-year-old Leicas wear out! Servicing costs a fortune, and a 50-year-old example could well need new shutter curtains and re-silvering of the rangefinder prisms (a fault which is not readily apparent but makes cameras very hard to focus). The simple answer to what's the difference - handle one and you will see immediately. The Leica shutter is much quieter (partly because Bessas have an extra gray baffle which is used for the very good and useful metering) and this needs to fall out of the way for every shot, and the Leica wind-on action is incomparably smoother. Does this matter to you? After owning around 12 or 14 Leicas, I've decided it doesn't matter to me, which is why I use Bessas (L, T and R2a). Even the R2a cost less new than a Leica service, durabiity is undoubtedly not at Leica levels but I will never wear them out, neither will anyone else who works at amateur level (as I do now) and is not jumping in and out of helicopters and photographing in swamps and jungles!

Regards,

David

rfshootist · Sep 26, 2006

David H. Bebbington said:
. Does this matter to you? After owning around 12 or 14 Leicas, I've decided it doesn't matter to me, which is why I use Bessas (L, T and R2a).
David

David,
you saved me a lot of typing, thanks !

The annoying thing with such threads is always that tho normally only folks like you should answer, I mean folks who used both cameras for a while, they attract people who did not use any of them at anytime.:rolleyes:

And that means somebody needs advice and what he gets are confessions about personal wishes based on dunnowhat or hearsay.

Regards,

bertram

frank · Sep 26, 2006

There is something to be said for using (arguably) the most refined, best engineered and built RF camera in the history of man. Some photographers claim to feel the difference, others claim not to. I own a IIf, M2,3.and 6.

I also use a fantastically beautiful cedar strip and fiberglass wooden canoe. It's worth almost 2K. Every time it touches a rock, I cringe. I'd love a beater Kevlar canoe.

The last camera I bought is a Bessa R2. It's like a Kevlar canoe.

You asked about the Nikon RF's. I have an S. It is built like a tank.

You'd be perfectly happy with a Bessa camera. Unless you can appreciate the best that money can buy. I can't afford the best house, or the best car, the best guitar, the best computer, or the best cigars, or wine, but I could afford to buy some used Leica cameras over the years

Best of luck with your decision!

elekm · Sep 26, 2006

The Nikon rangefinders are very nice cameras, but after having that thing hang from your neck all day you'll be wishing for a lighter weight camera. Common problems include pinholes in the shutter curtains, worn shutter curtains or shutter curtains that are dragging.

The second Bessa -- the Bessa-R -- is really an excellent camera and one that brought many people back to film photography and to rangefinders. They are very good cameras, but make sure the rangefinder is correctly aligned. It's not a particularly quiet camera, but it does what you ask. It's reliable, and the lenses are very good. My hat is off to Cosina.

The Contax IIa is a really sweet camera, but you should be aware that any camera that is roughly 50 years old will need to be serviced unless you buy one that already has been serviced. The lenses are excellent, particularly the postwar Sonnars (50, 85 and 135). Even the prewar lenses are quite good.

There are two types of Leicas -- the screw mount and the M bayonet mount. The screwmount still enjoy a lot of popularity despite being very much behind the times with the need to trim the film leader, a narrow base rangefinder and separate windows for focusing and composing. It's a very compact camera, and the level of manufacturing quality is exceptional.

The M cameras are excellent cameras -- definitely larger than the screw mounts but very well made. They're the last of the line in German hand-built cameras. Definitely not the same as that plastic Canon crap that rolls off mass production lines.

Some advice: If you buy a vintage camera, factor in the price of having the camera serviced.

I've done mini-sites for the Contax IIa and the Bessa-R.

Philippe-Georges · Sep 27, 2006

Buy used Cannada (Ontario) made Leica stuff, they are 'affordebel', not verry old and as good as German made gear.

Seele · Sep 27, 2006

Bromo,

It's been going on since the rebirth of Voigtlander cameras; detractors and supporters are still arguing about this: if one thinks that the Voigtlander build quality is not the same as that of the Leica then there is no point criticizing, just buy a Leica and be happy. If you want a Voigtlander then get one and stop worrying about something "better" out there. It's just as simple as that.

Woolliscroft · Sep 27, 2006

I use a Leica MP and a Bessa R. Both serve very well. The Leica is quieter and I don't doubt will last a lot longer, whilst the Bessa is easier to load quickly. The only real flaw in everyday life with the Bessa is a much shorter rangefinder baseline, which can make focus a bit less bang on when using longer lenses wide open. I have heard rumours that the rangefinder accuracy can be compromised by quite small knocks, but I have never had a problem.

David.

rfshootist · Sep 29, 2006

Bromo33333 said:
but I am after a rangefinder that has decent build quality (should equal the Nikon FM2 that I have) that will be less than the $3500 or so of a new Leica (like a LOT lower).

About build quality and it's relevance:
Above a certain level for me build quality is not relevant. If the camera is robust , reliable and works precisely and if it is a pleasure to handle , what do I need more?
Built like a tank ? What for ? For nails I got a hammer.
For me innovation comes first, the Bessa L has been a much more intelligent concept for example than the most have understood it. Many called it a cheap piece of plastic crap (which is not true) and that was it. Zeiss Ikon now picks the idea up new with the SW.
And the new Bessa R4m and R4a with the 21-25-28-35-50 finder solves a finally a stoneold problem for all wide angle RF fans (the majority ) had to do with, but which could not be solved obviously by any other company. Not to speak of the lenses, stuff you could not get anywhere else like 3,5/50 coll. Heliar, a 12mm and 15 mm Heliar, the pancake, the 1,2/35 and a 1,4/40SC.

So my heart beats for that old camera nuts Mr. Koyabashi and his great Voigtlander line, who has contributed a lot to the revival of RF photography with reasonably priced top quality products, it is great fun to use them, tho the cameras have only 66% of the weight of the German brass tanks

I know this is not a very popular standpoint concerning the holy "build quality"
but i found it should be said anyway in this context here.

Regards,
bertram

Bromo33333 · Sep 30, 2006

Seele said:
Bromo,

It's been going on since the rebirth of Voigtlander cameras; detractors and supporters are still arguing about this: if one thinks that the Voigtlander build quality is not the same as that of the Leica then there is no point criticizing, just buy a Leica and be happy. If you want a Voigtlander then get one and stop worrying about something "better" out there. It's just as simple as that.

Given that Leica mount lenses have sort of become the defacto standard for most rangefinders.

I was thinking about that - what I like about the Leica:
1. Smooth operation
2. Good lenses
3. Refined
dislike
1. Thieves may want to snatch it
2. Funky film loading

I like the Voightlander because it is inexpensive and probably not as subject to camera snatching

I like the idea of the Zeiss Ikon, too, since it is new, and I really like the Zeiss lenses on the Hasselblad - I was thinking they would be similar?

Uncle Bill · Sep 30, 2006

I shoot with a M3 and I second the nomination for Voightander glass.

Bill

Tom Hoskinson · Sep 30, 2006

Bromo33333 said:
...I like the idea of the Zeiss Ikon, too, since it is new, and I really like the Zeiss lenses on the Hasselblad - I was thinking they would be similar?

By similar, do you mean grossly overpriced - like the Hassy and Hassy/Zeiss lenses?

BTW, I have a Hassy system and I also have a Z1 Zeiss with the 50/2.0 Planar.

The Zeiss Z1 is a nice camera, and the 50/2.0 Planar is a nice lens.

However, I think my next 35mm Rf camera will be either the new Bessa R4M or R4A with the 21-25-28-35-50 finder!

Bromo33333 · Sep 30, 2006

Tom Hoskinson said:
By similar, do you mean grossly overpriced - like the Hassy and Hassy/Zeiss lenses?

BTW, I have a Hassy system and I also have a Z1 Zeiss with the 50/2.0 Planar.

The Zeiss Z1 is a nice camera, and the 50/2.0 Planar is a nice lens.

However, I think my next 35mm Rf camera will be either the new Bessa R4M or R4A with the 21-25-28-35-50 finder!

You have a point - very expensive stuff.

I have liked Zeiss lenses - be it binoculars or Hassy regardless of the expense.

I just find it hard to justify a newer Leica, but wonder about ZI and Voigtlander. I suppose I should get off the stick and pick something? :confused: :rolleyes:

I heard about the R4 with the extra framelines - sounds very cool.

copake_ham · Oct 1, 2006

Bromo33333 said:
Given that Leica mount lenses have sort of become the defacto standard for most rangefinders.

I was thinking about that - what I like about the Leica:
1. Smooth operation
2. Good lenses
3. Refined
dislike
1. Thieves may want to snatch it
2. Funky film loading

I like the Voightlander because it is inexpensive and probably not as subject to camera snatching

I like the idea of the Zeiss Ikon, too, since it is new, and I really like the Zeiss lenses on the Hasselblad - I was thinking they would be similar?

And here's a hoot.

I was attending a sponsor's private reception at the ICP of a new gallery show known as Ecotopia.

Most of us were "corporates" but there were a few students milling about. I approached the only one with a camera to say "hi" and commented on his Cosina/Bessa/Voightlander. He told me that actually I was mistaken - it was a M6!

Looking closer I could see the "brick poophouse" level of construction - but...

I'd go with a pair or three of the Bessa/Cosina.

Besides, with the digi M8 now out - what kind of support do you think you will get from Leica for a film camera?

butterflydream · Oct 1, 2006

A second hand Hexar RF (not being produced any more) could be another candidate. It's also a good build quality and many features. 1/4000 max shutter speed, 1/125 flash sync speed, aperture priority AE, automatic film wind/rewind (you know the price of Leica motor M?), continuous exposure, DX coding, same RF baseline length as leica M, shutter speed info. in view finder, swing back film door with window to check the loaded film, etc.

Hexanon lens in M mount is also excellent.

haris · Oct 1, 2006

I have Bessa R2A with 35mm PancakeII payed for new 650EURO, and was offered secondhand Leiva M6 with 50mm Summicron and some 105mm(?) lens for 1250 EURO. After trying Leica, I would still chose Bessa for given prices. Nothing against Leica, but if you don't need ultimate build, and not suffer of brand having illness, Leica is too expencive, and Voitlander is not much worse, especially having quality/price ratio in mind...

Tom Stanworth · Oct 2, 2006

elekm said:
....

The M cameras are excellent cameras -- definitely larger than the screw mounts but very well made. They're the last of the line in German hand-built cameras. Definitely not the same as that plastic Canon crap that rolls off mass production lines.

I've done mini-sites for the Contax IIa and the Bessa-R.

A , lot of that 'Canon Crap' is very solid and durable. No they dont have metal skins that Nikons do but I would stack a 1v,1n etc against any modern Nikon any time. The Eos 3 is also pretty solid and the price of a used 3 is very very low for what you get. My last used (mint) eos 3 cost 10% that of a new Leica. In fact I have just bought a used as new Leica MP and have my reasons, but it is not because my other cameras are plastic crap. Sure the cheapest consumer SLRs are cheap and chearful, but that is because they are, well, cheap! In terms of all round utility and performance I have not found anything as user friendly and generally brilliant as my Canon Crap.

On thread, I believe the CVs come a little unstuck using fast long lenses as their baselength is not so long, so if you plan on shooting 90mm f2s you might struggle, unless you go for an R3 and dont mind the min 40mm frame lines. If you shoor mainly wides to 75mm the consensus seems to be that the R2s are great. Reckon they are great value tho and most say they are well made. One tends to hear most gripes about manufacturing consistency and build being levelled against rogue CV lenses rather than bodies. I found a great used 90 2.8 Elmarit M, but had I not the CV 90 f3.5 would have been ordered. Has fantastic reviews. Remember the Zeiss ZM lenses offer great performance if you want something with Leica (or similar or close..depending upon model) performance with a far lower price (still not cheap).

Tom

Claire Senft · Oct 2, 2006

If you want to use Cosina and wish to obtain good results with longer lenses at the widest apertures then the Cosina RF model that requires seperate finders will give you the best performance that one can get from Cosina. The price being paid is to have a long effective base length combined with bright line finders of good quality that need to be changed for each focal length and that require focus and framing as different acts. But it should do the job!

It does little good to comment on how this or that camera is a cheap piece of junk unless it is a poor value for the job at hand. Even then it would be more moderate to describe it as a poor value or as not being suitable.

Remeber "you get what you pay for" and I would add "spend your money wisely".

Voigtlander vs. Others

haris

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency