Interesting. All Voigtlander lenses are Cosina, or just some?

Bifurcator wrote:
Interesting. All Voigtlander lenses are Cosina, or just some?



I'm sure there are some older Voigtlander lenses floating around that were made in Germany before Cosina bought the name. The Voigtländer Braunschweig Heliar - 30cm f4.5 that Zaitz used to take that beautiful photo of his Bluetick coonhound on page 1 of this thread must certainly be one of them.

So if it says Made In Japan it's CV then. Got it.

Thanks man!

rscheffler wrote:
Thanks Michael. Yes, I noticed focus shift with the 75. I think Cosina optimized it at around f/2.8 for rangefinder focusing. If optimized for f/1.8, then there would be noticeable back focus as it's stopped down until depth of field is deep enough (not sure when it would reach that point). I've only tried this one copy, so I wasn't sure about this, but it's interesting to note that you've had very nearly the exact same experience as I have. I did a test where I photographed a sequence with the camera on a tripod from wide open to stopped down, and the focus shift was pretty noticeable.

A few months ago I found a reasonably priced 90 Summarit and now use it more than the Voigtlander, which I will likely sell. If you're looking for modern lens performance, such as good across the frame sharpness, then I think the Summarits are a better option. The 75 Summarit is supposed to be even better than the 90 and both are smaller and lighter than the 75 f/1.8, which I honestly think is an f/2 lens because I can see no difference in exposures between f/1.8 and f/2. With some M9 experience under my belt now, I also believe that the jump from 50mm to 90mm is more comfortable than the smaller change from 50mm to 75mm.

Hi, Ron thanks for the reply about VC75. I was wondering should I send the lens to Cameraquest to get it adjust initially, cause I am not sure it is just my copy or it is general design decision. Now looks like it is not the problem of my copy but design decision. Given it is a portrait lens, I think they miss the mark. I send you a PM about PP of Leica M9 file, any tip?

Bif: Nice image of VC50 1.5. specially last green plant shot. This is a very nice lens indeed. What body are you using? Don't know why they discontinue it, The size could be smaller, though.

As far as l know there are Voigtlander before C and now it is CV.

Two shots of my son's portrait with VC35 MKI at f1.2. A nice lens, quite sharp wide open and very neutral Bokeh rendering. Color/contrast is different than my ZF lens, but not sure it is from M9 or lens

Jeff Kott wrote:
Bifurcator wrote:
Interesting. All Voigtlander lenses are Cosina, or just some?



I'm sure there are some older Voigtlander lenses floating around that were made in Germany before Cosina bought the name. The Voigtländer Braunschweig Heliar - 30cm f4.5 that Zaitz used to take that beautiful photo of his Bluetick coonhound on page 1 of this thread must certainly be one of them.

Thank you! I have not looked much into the history around Voigtländer but I may have to. These old brands go way back and I find it very interesting. I think my lens was made in the 1920's, but I am not positive - http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html

Deleted

Bifurcator wrote:
Cool! We can be lens brothers.


Lens brothers.....I like that Bif. Do we get like our own cool handshake?

Here's one I shot yesterday with the CV180.......

Yeah, lens brothers!

CV or VC.... I see both. I guess I over on the Leica M8/M9 thread I picked up CV and stuck with it.

Michael: I think Cosina calibrated to f/2.8 because it's probably the middle point for the focus shift before depth of field masks it. If they calibrated it to f/1.8, then everyone would complain that f/2.8 and f/4 are back focused. You're a Nikon user, so might not be familiar with this, but over on the Canon forum, the 50mm f/1.2L has been repeatedly trashed for this. Another consideration is the Zeiss ZM 50mm Sonnar. It also has focus shift and was originally optimized for f/2.8 when it was released, which probably works great for film users. But I think a lot of digital users eventually complained and my understanding is that Zeiss (well, actually Cosina) now optimizes it for f/1.5. Maybe Cosina is being old school with the 75mm by choosing to optimize for f/2.8. BTW, I don't know they've done this with any certainty, but it makes some sense.

So I received the 50mm f/1.5 this evening and I guess will give it a try over the next few days. I definitely see purple fringing from it... So far compared to the 50 Lux ASPH, the CV has a more lively background bokeh rendering, though foreground is smoother and more like the Lux, which is overall very neutral. It seems like a pretty sharp lens wide open...

Michael: yes, the 50 f/1.5 was discontinued a while ago, though Cameraquest still shows some stock. I just happened to stumble across this one used at Robert White in the UK for £300 in mint condition. I've seen it on various buy & sells for around $600 in similar condition. I think I will prefer the 50 Lux on the M9 but really picked up the CV50 for use on the GXR as a smaller fast 50 alternative to the Lux, which I don't like as much on the GXR crop.

Regarding the 35mm f/1.2 v.1: It has a reputation as being a lower contrast lens, so compared to the ZF lenses, I would think it's more the lens than the camera, though the M9 by default is probably a bit higher in contrast than the D700. The lens's contrast should also drop a bit more the closer you are to minimum focusing distance. BTW, I really like the rendering in both of those images.

I've owned the SL-II versions of the CV 20, 40, and 90 for awhile now and used them on a Nikon D700 pretty extensively. I'm pleased with the results I've gotten on my GXR M-mount via a Fotodiox adapter. Unfortunately, even these tiny lenses get bulky on the GXR with the adapter. I may pick up a Zeiss C-Biogon 35mm as my first M-moutn lens to reduce the package size. Anyway, I believe these are all from the 40, from a recent trip to Napa. Oversaturated the grapes on the last one, now they look like blueberries


Image by matthewcummings99, on Flickr


Image by matthewcummings99, on Flickr


Image by matthewcummings99, on Flickr


Image by matthewcummings99, on Flickr

CV Apo 125 ...

This lens doesn't know what CA is....

Very nice shot Paul. I think cloning out those couple of spots of dirt would be worth the effort

Bifurcator wrote:
Cool! We can be lens brothers.

Rich M wrote:
Lens brothers.....I like that Bif. Do we get like our own cool handshake?

Here's one I shot yesterday with the CV180.......

Paul Yi wrote:
CV Apo 125 ...


Original





100% Crop



This lens doesn't know what CA is....

Here are some comparison shots between the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 and the 50 Lux ASPH on the Ricoh GXR, the camera I primarily plan to use the CV on... I'm cross posting this from the GXR thread that probably doesn't get a lot of traffic, so apologies in advance if you've already seen this.

I've had mixed feelings about the 50 Lux on the GXR. The files don't have the same 'magic' that I see on the M9 and to me feel flat and a bit blah. I'm still leaning this way, but am learning that what I've seen appears to be quite dependent on shooting distance. The Lux seems to soften in sharpness and contrast towards near minimum focusing distances. The CV50 seems to have better contrast at near distances. At equal LR settings it's maybe around 300K colder and wide open around 1/3 of a stop slower. The Lux exhibits much smoother background blur (maybe more noticeable if one is tabbing through images to compare) and holds sharpness better to the edges (and this is just on APS-C). The CV50 might have some field curvature and seems to have a sweet spot at wider apertures. Between f/1.5 and f/2.8 the Lux is better towards the edges, but at f/2.8 and beyond the CV50 seems sharper in the central zone (I wonder about my Lux...). The CV50 exhibits some purple fringing at wider apertures in areas where there is high contrast transition and I find the focusing ring a bit too stiff. Who knows, this one seems hardly used, so maybe it will break in a bit more. The 50 Lux isn't effortlessly smooth either, but is better and seems to have a bit longer throw so it's easier to fine tune focus. I still like the ZM 50 Planar the best out of my 50s for focusing feel.

These are all wide open and LR settings were the same except for exposure where I tried to get them fairly close. First image is the CV50, second is the 50 Lux ASPH:

That all seems right to me from my copy. The focus ring is a little stiff compared to Takumars and etc. But not too bad. The PF of the CV 50/1.5 on my GH1 is not that saturated however - although it looks like about the same pixel width, I wonder why that could be? lol Maybe the GH1 is applying it's cheats to the CV - Heh!

At first I didn't think much of the CV 50/1.5 but then I learned it could produce a very interesting 3D look I've not seen from other lenses. It's not really the same as Zeiss's 3D look. It's kinda similar I guess but with a flatter looking bokeh. The subject and near-ish BG are separated into something my brain wants to call volumes. Volume segregation? I guess you can kinda see it wanting to happen in your car shot. Notice how the CV window looks flatter (contained within it's own separate "volume" of space) and with a hard bokeh transition at the window's top. Or maybe I'm just wigging I dunno. It seemed so to me tho. I liked it whatever it was.

And then I stopped it down and it nearly cut off my shutter finger - it got so sharp.

I was wondering if perhaps your GH1 was trying to fix the purple fringing because it looked so weak, unlike what I usually associated with purple fringing...

OK, some more shots... four-way shootout:

Bifurcator wrote:
Krosavcheg wrote:
What do you call it when you constantly misfocus on a 5D with a Ee-s, and native EOS mount on 125/2.5?..

Sticky fingers?



Definitely. The lens is obviously in an EOS mount so I get focus confirmation, but the focus is waaay off.

Is it still way off if you try to focus by eye and ignore the focus confirmation. As I stated earlier, you might have to shim the focusing screen if it's off. Also, the focusing confirm is not consistently reliable for precise focus.

rscheffler wrote:
Is it still way off if you try to focus by eye and ignore the focus confirmation. As I stated earlier, you might have to shim the focusing screen if it's off. Also, the focusing confirm is not consistently reliable for precise focus.

I begin to notice that.
I think my screen is fine. In contrast, I get decent focus (give or take few misses) out of lenses in 50-90mm range and nearly 100% spot on with 21-35mm range (including CY 35/1.4 WO up close). Well, 21 is a ZE so it is using focus confirm - a little bit of cheating there...
My 100-135mm range is apalling...I sincerely struggle to get a single sharp shot out of SMCT 135/3.5 and Leica APO 100/2.8...

That is on both 20D and 5D cameras, and with stock screens....

I am at loss here...:/

It's unfortunate Canon doesn't offer any focusing screens for the 5D with a focus assist pattern, such as a split image or microprism pattern, as they do for the 1 series. With the 100mm and 135mm, can you see that something is in focus somewhere, just not where you want it? If the focus is consistently in front or behind where you want it when you focus by eye, then I would suspect that the focusing screen might need to be shimmed. I believe there should be a number of forum posts about this, either here or on other sites. The only other thing I can think to suggest is to acquire a camera with live view. It helps a lot with getting perfect manual focus, if you have the time to use it for your style of photography.

There's no live view on the 5D? Wow!