Zeiss AND Voigtländer lenses the better option in comparison to the original Leica ?

A simple comparison from "just one posible option". Remember : Leica has a real mass of all kind of super - performer - lenses!


Here it is (one of the world best lenses designed ever!) it is the well known :

Leica Noctilux-M 1:0,95 /50mm ASPH
a good price for today (no 1.April fool) = USD 11.800,-

So folks that is no option for you perhaps ?

Here is a good alternate lens (the speed isn't much fast - but a little better optical
charactrristic I would expect from this cheaper Leica M lens)



This here fellows is the brand new Leica APO-Summicron-M 50mm
f/2.0 ASPH (black-chrome edition) New release !

A real great lens (I would give my car away for this lens - but I need my car)!

I guess it is much expensive for you also?

You want a price - I see : USD 9.595,- (preorder via B&H)

But - that is my point - how about to recognize that the restriction is from 35mm film?
I am sure that a cheapest Mamiya lens with 120 film gives more quality because of the higher format.......you obviously don't want to hear...? Understand - a normal Mamiya 4,5 x 6 / 6 x 7 is NO RANGEFINDER (and MAMIYA 7 is from too heavy weight for you ......


.......??? UNDERSTAND !

OK if you can live with a compromiss in regard of lower quality /characteristics you can bundle a pack of lenses from Voigtländer - then you will have a lot of lenses
(at every angle you have a need of)?

But there are lenses from Zeiss and Voigtländer with extreme good characteristics!

Have a look :


Here it is the superior ZEISS C Sonar T, f 1,5 /50mm ZM

.....hmmm to compare Zeiss Sonar with Leica APO Summicron (and the Zeiss lens is made
from Cosima???) yes AFAIK !
THAT IS NOT FAIR FOR THE ZEISS - WHY IT IS NOT FAIR?

Here is the price for the ZEISS : USD 1200,- ?

Coming to Voigtländer and a couple of lenses with the name NOKTON!

THIS HERE IS NICE FOR OUR LITTLE COMPARISON :




It is the Voigtländer Nokton 50 f/1.2 Aspherical lens !

what is the price for you (most in the US).....???

Don't wonder about : USD. 1050,- (todays price B&H)!

So what should this say? Is Leica not the best any longer? Perhaps - but this is more a question of philosophy and a question of own preference! And it is about if you need your
car!

with regards

PS : I guess you are now knowing for what lens my preference is ?? What is your opinion?
From my point the pricing of modern Leica stuff is made for people who would need the double price! "My neighboour now drives a brand new sportscar :
.....!

I soon will got him - with a new Leica M and a couple of lenses !"

But people - the porsche is allways more expensive.... - you can't got your
neigbour with a Leica!


PPS : Have some of you made experience with such lenses ?The higher priced M-mount lenses? Any trouble with characteristics of Voigtländer in general?

Dumping Mamiya here was April fools. No, just fooling around.
Apple to oranges is to compare 0.95 lens to non 0.95 lens.

I wouldn't touch any ZM lens. Thirds in aperture is anoying and no real focus tab.

Can't say anything about APO, I don't need super accurate colors.

In 50mm after trying most of Leica 50mm made lenses, VM and ZM lenses I prefer Jupiter-3.
Size, performance, quality of build.

In 35mm after four VM lenses, I settled down with Summarit-m 35. I like how well it is build, how handy and smooth it is and how it renders on darkroom prints.

The Leica Noktilux lenses,as I understand, are highly specialized lenses corrected to provide best performance in low light situations. As for contemporary Leica products they may offer improvements imperceptible to the human eye. However, there are high rollers for whom $100,000 is pocket change and always buy the best, like the rest of us spend one dollar. A Porsche doesn’t make the cut. I have a friend who has a garage full of MB, Maserati, Lamborghini, etc.
Does anybody remember the Hermès Leica M with the peeling leather?
I have taken some very nice pics in poorly lit venues of jazz and classic musicians with my non-aspheric Nokton. One doesn’t always need a 50 cal. bullet to shoot a field mouse.
At 1.095, depth of field must be really shallow. At some point, it’s all about marketing.

Zeiss AND Voigtländer lenses the better option in comparison to the original Leica ?

Click to expand...

I'm sure they are better if you can't afford the Leica lens. Without the lens, the camera makes not much of a picture.

The difference between those lenses would only be apparent on the latest digital cameras. Film is a great leveller. In addition to the lens the image has to go through film stock, development, scanner and/or enlarging lens. Sub optimal for quality, but each stage adding their nuance to the final image. Why anyone would spend the price of a car on a new lens to use on a film camera, is beyond me.

I’m wondering... how old is the op?

A: 1-12
B:13-14
C:14 1/2-15

P.S.: it’s only a question of disposable income. Performance is of no importance.

What's your point, Trendland?

miha said:

What's your point, Trendland?

Click to expand...

Form my point the Zeiss C Sonnar T is the best lens if you need a realistic pricing! The characteristics in regard of best color corection and in regard of total resolution is just perfect!
It seams so it is from little more charasteristics of quality in comparison to the Voigtländer!
(A friend own this Zeiss and have shown enlagements 30 x 40 in color! Just REAL great!)
So the Leica APO Summicron M 50mm f / 2.0 ASPH can't be 10 times better corected?
Remember the pricing! The issue to all Leica M series lenses (with some exeptions = the cheap beginner standard lenses) is the following : The max. quality you have still with max. open lens!
That isn't the same with the Zeiss and also not the case with the Voigtländer....!
To me the Voigtländer Nokton is a real good offer! You have a very nice lens for a comparable
realistic pricing!

with regard

PS : If you have the budget to buy the expensive Leica lenses (my concern is just to the highest priced Leica - therefore this comparison) you only will do it from reasons of prestige!

I guess in concern of colors and resolution some fellows here who are using sheed films are still laughing about!

guangong said:

I have taken some very nice pics in poorly lit venues of jazz and classic musicians with my non-aspheric Nokton.

Click to expand...

Aha....!

With regards

NB23 said:

I’m wondering... how old is the op?

A: 1-12
B:13-14
C:14 1/2-15

P.S.: it’s only a question of disposable income. Performance is of no importance.

Click to expand...

That will end in pointless waste!

with regards

PS : A!!!! I am a 2 3/4 years old genious!

Ko.Fe. said:

Dumping Mamiya here was April fools. No, just fooling around.
Apple to oranges is to compare 0.95 lens to non 0.95 lens.

Click to expand...

.....hm comparing the 0.95 of the first Leica and the 1.2 of the Voigtländer - what is it?
Around a 1/3 stop or exact 1/3 stop?

with regards

PS : I have the need of my calculator.....!

The only "modern" Voigtlander lens I handled was of aluminum construction.
These high end lenses are much more substantially spec'd and built for long-term use..

choiliefan said:

The only "modern" Voigtlander lens I handled was of aluminum construction.
These high end lenses are much more substantially spec'd and built for long-term use..

Click to expand...

...hmm but isn't aluminium still fine (regarding the plastic from autofocusing lenses)?
Titan is from characteristcs of steel (with the weight of aluminium) but it is not soo expensive below 200g ! That should mean : You have not to pay thousants of bucks more for having Titan!

with regard

PS : To me every metal use is fine! But your concern is in direction of CuZn x right?

trendland said:

PS : If you have the budget to buy the expensive Leica lenses (my concern is just to the highest priced Leica - therefore this comparison) you only will do it from reasons of prestige!

Click to expand...

Interesting perspective.

trendland said:

.....hm comparing the 0.95 of the first Leica and the 1.2 of the Voigtländer - what is it?
Around a 1/3 stop or exact 1/3 stop?

Click to expand...

Almost one full stop (0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0 ...)

miha said:

Almost one full stop (0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0 ...)

Click to expand...

R e a l y .....?

with regards

PS : Then I did it wrong - all the years.....
PPS : Might be it is that you call a "Stop" but it isn't a full LV then?....or is it...?

Look at the section, "Typical one-third-stop f-number scale" here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

Theo Sulphate said:

Look at the section, "Typical one-third-stop f-number scale" here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

Click to expand...

Just from remind : 2.8. -> 2.0 -> 1.4 -> but indeed (now) I should have a look about!

with regards

PS : Over soo many years the max. open stop was f 1.2 but today you came at 0.xxx thats indeed
NEW !

........Wikipedia isn't up to date too! See:



Well - what wikipedia is not knowing : One have not to know - perhaps....!

So up to f 1.4 everything is OK! I remember from all the time f1,7 is not a full stop (LV) same is with
f1,8 oft course! I remember the allways high priced f 1.2 lenses and if I remember correct some sayed : " One should think about that the more money for f 1.2 / 50mm lenses is a lot for having less than 1 LV more speed"

So - because here we have a log. funktion I would indeed need a calculator! But without calculator
(It is just a guess) f1.2 "COULD BE" :

A) 1/3 LV faster than f1.4
B) 2/3 LV faster than f1.4
C) 1. LV faster than f1.4........... My " guess " is to 2/3 LV!

Then we "may" complete the following : 2.8 -> 2.0 -> 1.4 -> 1.0....

with regards

PS : It is more an academic concern than a concern from practice. When I am shooting "avaible light" (often with the use of 120 films) I use a tripod and don't care so much about 1/3 LV's

What I practice is from low speed films : therefore my decision is about 1/8 sec. or better with 1/2sec? No sometimes I am in the way with 4 sec. or 8 sec. And now remember the LV between
1/8. - 8 sec.........but one may use ISO 800 films at f 0.95 also! But it is REAL expensive!

PPS : As I mentioned before - I have the impression that some absolute high priced lenses today
(within the past I can't remember such high altitude pricing beside extreme tele's or special Rodenstock for example) .....that such highest priced lenses are manufactured
TO COMPENSATE NOT HAVING A PORSCHE!

I'm going to guess that most people couldn't tell the difference from photos taken with a £100 Nikon 50mm f1.8 compared to the lenses mentioned in the first post.

A lot of analogue-version pixel-peeping going on here on APUG/Photrio, as witnesseth another way too long thread, awash with fanciful MTF charts, but no accompanying evidence of affordability of those lenses, nor critically, established competency (at a professional level) in photography -- where MTF and lens comparisons are far less important than getting out there and working as income generation.

Ste_S said:

I'm going to guess that most people couldn't tell the difference from photos taken with a £100 Nikon 50mm f1.8 compared to the lenses mentioned in the first post.

Click to expand...

I don't know if they cannot see the difference but I am pretty sure that they don't care.

Don't be so stricly in the assessment of photographers who don't care so much about the difference
between a cheap E series Nikon and a highly expensive one!

with regards

PS : From normal prints in small formats real experts have a hard job to find a difference - hmm?
And there are many people out there making 99,5% 10 x 15 prints beside their big print once a year
13 x 18 ..........or 5 x 7 (in inch) !
Wich kind of idiot would state : I need a > USD 10.000,- lens next because all my photographs are looking REAL UNSHARP.......!

No one cares if a picture is taken with a $10,000 lens or a $100 lens. The important thing is the picture (and the photgrapher's eye), not the lens. Can you identify a lens from a picture? Good luck!

If I were wrong, no one would appreciate pinhole photography .

Dali said:

No one cares if a picture is taken with a $10,000 lens or a $100 lens. The important thing is the picture (and the photgrapher's eye), not the lens. Can you identify a lens from a picture? Good luck!

If I were wrong, no one would appreciate pinhole photography .

Click to expand...

Let us better state the issue you mentioned (correct from my point) in that form :
"Art comes from ability"!

And concerning resolution (you therefore need the lens as a tool) it is most different see :

Photographer : Marie Cosinda
Dimentions : Polaroid



Photographer : Andreas Gursky
Dimentions : 185,4 x 363,5


OK - is it art because it is sharp? I will not discus wich of this boths examples is more art
or if 2. example is art !

But just to make clear : It is fine to me if the intention of a photographer goes in direction of
art AND the technical parameters are ALSO fine! That is sometimes in concern of format!

The bigger format - the more art? No - absolutely not! But let me state : " Sometimes a shot
H A S to be sharp and high resoluted! "

You shot pinhole as you stated : Look at this here :

(c) International Center of Photography / Magnum Photos

Photographer : Robert Capa
Dimentions : 22,8 x 34,1 cm

So there is also an intention to come to less sharpness - right? You don't want more resolution as
your pinhole is giving you - because that would perhaps "destroy" your photography - right?

Think about - tools are always just tools - but sometimes there is OF COURSE a need of
special tools - here it is just this question: " How much can be enough (from costs) " ?

with regards

PS : Well - Capas intention wasn't to come to less sharpness ! Be sure he was equipment fine :

ContaxII + Zeiss 50 Sonnar1,5 VS?

PPS : OK - unsharpness is most iconic here but wasn't originally intended why?

Of course you are knowing : Because Cappa had a bad day : D- Day!