What's the deal with CV build/material

I'm by no means flaming, because I love my only CV lens: 35/1.2 V1.

I have no complains with my lens but I hear such mixed opinions across the internet (maybe internet forums are to blame).

My question, is the CV build quality inconsistent? Seriously. I think my lens is fine but maybe I'm lucky, or mine is one of the better built lenses? I don't baby my gear but I'm no abuser...If it varies per lens then I'm interested in the 50/2.5 Skopar, 50/1.5 Nokton (LTM version), and the 40/1.4 Nokton. Maybe a few others down the line but I'm more of a normal focal length shooter.

I also read that some lenses are anodized aluminum, others are brass, and I think a few are nickel (Heliar, I believe). Does the material really matter in terms of durability? Why is CV all over the place? Is this common among other manufacturers? I can understand the material choice to change across the decades but the CV lenses are new.

Nothing that I'm aware of. I have a 15 and love it. Have a 35 and it's a reasonably solid workhorse. a screw came loose, I tightened it.

You will find some folks who are real snobs about lenses -- insist that the Canadian-built Leica lens of this-or-that configuration is better than the Wetzlar-built one, or something.

And Leica snobs (of which I tend to be one, at times) really look down their noses at CV lenses.

But they all take pictures. How good those pictures are is mostly up to you, to chance and (1 percent) the lens maker.

So don't worry. Take pictures.

I have had about 40 CV lenses in LTM and M mount. I sold them to get back to one of each focal length 12mm to 9cm and sold most of my Leica lenses.

No problems with any of the CV lenses. More problems with the Leicas.

The last one I sold to best mate his comment that is a super sharp lens my comment I only sold it cause it was the same as the one I kept. The 35mm /2.5...

Some like the /2.5 5 cm were not high volume.

Some like the 35mm /2.5 are available same optics but different physical shells and cause they are dinky you need to check your hands are not too big!

The brass ones brass elegantly the anodised don't look as nice.

They don't need the dinky mini hoods until you drop the camera...

There is a lot of snobbishness around, and as is the way of the internet somebody only needs to hear one bad story for them to repeat it as if it was their own lens.

I think the core CV lenses for a rangefinder photographer are the Skopar's, 21mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, all superb, the 28mm LTM is also made in brass. I'm not really bothered what materials the lens is made from, but brass is 'self lubricating' and doesn't suffer from galling like alloy on alloy. I should also say the 28mm is sharper in the corners than a 28mm Summicron ASPH at like for like apertures from f3.5 to f8.

Then there is the brilliant 75mm f2.5 Heliar, again a direct Leica contender, Sean Reid having compared it with the Leica 75mm Summarit more or less said 'it's down to personal preference'. An so it goes on, Steve Huff compared the f1.1 Nokton with the Leica Noctilux and also suggested the differences were minimal, except the price, although I sold my Nokton because of the weight and I'm not a big fan of shallow DOF for DOF's sake.

You can go through the CV lenses and cherry pick a terrific selection that would not let you down, sure enough a few could, especially with inherent problems like focus shift, but given the overall quality, variety, and price they should be supported and not looked down on.

Steve

I've only got two cv lenses, the 35mm 1.4 mc, and the 28mm f2, both in M mount. The 28 is just amazing and I think one of the best lenses I have at any price/format in optical performance and handling. It is very compact and just slightly longer than the tiny 35mm and built solid. I would get another cv lens in the future. I think chasing after the leica stuff is too much of a headache.

I think that if there are 100 customers for any product, and 2 of them have problems with that product, you will see the most comments from those 2 and hardly nothing from the other 98 owners.
Thus it can seem that all you read about is problems. If, by unfortunate chance you happen to be one of the 2%, then your fears or only confirmed. This also makes us hyper watchful and prone to imagine faults where none exist.

I have CV 35 2.5 PII and the build of it isn't as perfect as LTM version of same lens I have before. Thier Zeiss 50 1.4 T ZE was high end build to my taste.

Mewael said:

I'm by no means flaming, because I love my only CV lens: 35/1.2 V1.

I have no complains with my lens but I hear such mixed opinions across the internet (maybe internet forums are to blame).

My question, is the CV build quality inconsistent? Seriously. ...

Click to expand...

I have heard here and there, that early CV lenses may have had QA issues. I've only had trouble with my 21/4: screws on the mount rear came loose (easy fix), the frame lines in the external viewfinder shifted (easy fix) and the "feet" broke off. As it is the black version it has brassing, but the lens itself is excellent.

I have a Color-Skopar 35/2 and 28/3.5 - both have had no problems, and shoot wonderfully - the 35mm viewfinder (small, round, metal one) and the 90mm viewfinder - also both with no problems.

250swb said:

There is a lot of snobbishness around

Then there is the brilliant 75mm f2.5 Heliar, again a direct Leica contender, Sean Reid having compared it with the Leica 75mm Summarit more or less said 'it's down to personal preference'.

Steve

Click to expand...

Definitely. The two lenses that have impressed me the most are the Leica 28 f2.8 ASPH, just amazing detail rendition across the frame but to much micro contrast sometimes and the 75 Heliar I bought last month secondhand for £220. Those are my two sharpest lenses but the thing that impresses me with that Heliar is the rendition is still smooth in OOF areas, I much prefer how it renders to my Zeiss 50 Planar as an example, very impressive combination of attributes.

Back on the materials and build thing a common criticism is the dreaded wobble. Is this really such a big deal? My CV 90 APO Lanthar has a small wobble or knock between the two halves, it doesn't seem to effect the focusing and has never got any worse so I think this is an issue blown way out of proportion. Its something I can't be bothered to fiddle with as the lens is wonderful and works fine as is.

By the way many Leica lenses have a loose extra bit of stop at each end of the aperture range, something which seems somewhat pants to me but is just accepted as quite normal when it certainly isn't normal amongst other brands lenses. Leica just seems to get a free pass for things like this.

Personally I feel Zeiss gets off to easily in all this, they are after all CV made lenses with Zeiss designs, coatings and QC but is there a consensus that all of that makes them vastly better than the CV branded lenses? I am not really convinced personally as 4 out of 4 CV lenses bought by me have been what I expected, the only lens thus far that has left me really disappointed in terms of optical performance is the Zeiss 50 Sonnar.

Justifying the price of a Leica is much like justifying the price of a Rolex, you know that when you come to sell you will get most of your money back again.