I plan to add this lens - Voigtlander Helier Classic 75mm f1.8 for my M9. I would like to hear from those who are already using it on an M9.

Other lenses that I own are:

Leica 28mm Elmarit ASPH
Leica 50mm Summicron (latest version)
Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 Colour Skopar PCII.

Thank you.

There was a thread about the SLII version of this lens a while ago, where I posted a number images made with the M9 and the M mount version there: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1020991

The SLII and M mount version are optically identical.

I guess it depends on what you want from this lens... The Voigtlander is named 'classic' because it's not quite a modern, high resolution lens. It's nice for portraits and similar type work where you're not photographing flat objects that need to be sharp from corner to corner. If you want something closer to perfect, then I would suggest the Leica 75/2.5 Summarit instead (though at a considerably higher price).

rscheffler wrote:
There was a thread about the SLII version of this lens a while ago, where I posted a number images made with the M9 and the M mount version there: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1020991

The SLII and M mount version are optically identical.

I guess it depends on what you want from this lens... The Voigtlander is named 'classic' because it's not quite a modern, high resolution lens. It's nice for portraits and similar type work where you're not photographing flat objects that need to be sharp from corner to corner. If you want something closer to perfect, then I would suggest the Leica 75/2.5 Summarit instead (though at a considerably higher price).

Ron,

Thanks, I read the thread, the pictures were worth a thousand words. At the price, the lens is good enough for me.

Edwin

rscheffler wrote:
The SLII and M mount version are optically identical.


Really? That surprises me, given the register difference between M and F or EF. Is there just a lot of empty space between the rear element and the mount on the M version?

If the Apo Lanthar 90 is any indication, the M and the SLII versions have the same lens diagram, the rear element in the M is also quite far away from the mount.

freaklikeme wrote:
rscheffler wrote:
The SLII and M mount version are optically identical.


Really? That surprises me, given the register difference between M and F or EF. Is there just a lot of empty space between the rear element and the mount on the M version?

Yes: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1106036/0#10557211

I just realized I also posted on that thread of Ron's from way back when.

I ended up returning my 75/1.8

I briefly tried the CV 75/2.5, which is a very different lens, and nicely compliments the 35/2.5. Ultimately I settled on the Lanthar 90 which also has modern characteristics and is very well corrected.

I do like the classic rendering of the 75/1.8 (I get a similar look from the Nokton 40 now) but the CA was too much for me to bear.

rscheffler wrote:
freaklikeme wrote:
rscheffler wrote:
The SLII and M mount version are optically identical.


Really? That surprises me, given the register difference between M and F or EF. Is there just a lot of empty space between the rear element and the mount on the M version?

Yes: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1106036/0#10557211

Ah, thanks, Ron. Sorry to make you answer the same question again.

Jacob D wrote:
I just realized I also posted on that thread of Ron's from way back when.

I ended up returning my 75/1.8

I briefly tried the CV 75/2.5, which is a very different lens, and nicely compliments the 35/2.5. Ultimately I settled on the Lanthar 90 which also has modern characteristics and is very well corrected.

I do like the classic rendering of the 75/1.8 (I get a similar look from the Nokton 40 now) but the CA was too much for me to bear.

Mind sharing why you decided against the 75/2.5?

I wanted to share filters with a couple other lenses and I liked the longer reach. I never did do a direct comparison, but my feeling is that the 90 is probably a slightly 'better' lens, mainly just because its well corrected and sharp from wide open.

Keep in mind, this lens has focus shift. Will be a pain for M9, non issue for NEX. Mine is optimized for f2.8. I seems remember Ron's has the same issue.

Thanks, Jacob

After much consideration, I purchased this lens. I had little knowledge about "classical" look, but having taken portrait shots of a colleague at f/1.8 I do now. At $495.00 (Australian) new, I am very pleased with this lens. As reported by some, the characteristic changes as I stopped down to f/5.6 and I am not unhappy with this. I would like to look at it as having two lenses for the price of one

Thank you everyone for your input.

Edwin, good to hear you settled on the lens and you're liking it.

I might suggest then, the CV 40/1.4 to you. I find now that I rarely use my CV 35/2.5 and reach for the 40 instead. It's the same '2 lenses in 1' concept as with the 75/1.8, although neither of them ever become extremely clinical, they both sharpen up nicely when stopped down. At 2.8 the Nokton 40 is way ahead of the 35/2.5 in terms of sharpness and has a more interesting rendering. The 35 excels at across the frame sharpness, so maybe a better lens for f5.6 and up... but I still prefer the look that the 40 gives.

Food for thought

I also really like the CV 40/1.4.

Jacob D wrote:
Edwin, good to hear you settled on the lens and you're liking it.

I might suggest then, the CV 40/1.4 to you. I find now that I rarely use my CV 35/2.5 and reach for the 40 instead. It's the same '2 lenses in 1' concept as with the 75/1.8, although neither of them ever become extremely clinical, they both sharpen up nicely when stopped down. At 2.8 the Nokton 40 is way ahead of the 35/2.5 in terms of sharpness and has a more interesting rendering. The 35 excels at across the frame sharpness, so maybe a better lens for f5.6 and up... but I still prefer the look that the 40 gives.

Food for thought

Jacob, thanks for the info on Nokton 40. Since I already have a 35mm and 50mm, I will have to put it to back burner for now.

I am in the process of selling my R7 outfit and lenses; afterwhich I plan to purchase a RF film camera - either a Leica or Voigtlander. Since I have an M9, an RF film camera will mean that I do not have to duplicate lenses.

rscheffler wrote:
I also really like the CV 40/1.4.

Thanks, as I have mentioned in my reply to Jacob, purchasing the Nocton 40 will be of low priority.

By the way, is there anyone who has experience with the Voigtlander R2M. It is of course much more affordable than any Leica M.

Edwin Ho wrote:
rscheffler wrote:
I also really like the CV 40/1.4.

Thanks, as I have mentioned in my reply to Jacob, purchasing the Nocton 40 will be of low priority.

Sure, no problem. I was just echoing Jacob's opinion of it. As you likely know, it's not like all M compatible lenses share similar imaging characteristics and it's not unusual for people to own multiple lenses in the same or similar focal length for this reason. I think where the 40 comes in is if you're interested in a bit of the old school look, where there is some wide open glow and the bokeh quality is quite active, in contrast with the much sharper across the frame, cleaner, more neutral rendering of a lot of modern lenses. I haven't used the 35/2.5, so I'm not sure how similar the two are in this respect.

As for experience with the Bessa, I can't help you there. Maybe a new thread would be advised to catch the attention of those who would know. Or perhaps try a more specialized forum, such as rangefinderforum.com

rscheffler wrote:
Edwin Ho wrote:
rscheffler wrote:
I also really like the CV 40/1.4.

Thanks, as I have mentioned in my reply to Jacob, purchasing the Nocton 40 will be of low priority.

Sure, no problem. I was just echoing Jacob's opinion of it. As you likely know, it's not like all M compatible lenses share similar imaging characteristics and it's not unusual for people to own multiple lenses in the same or similar focal length for this reason. I think where the 40 comes in is if you're interested in a bit of the old school look, where there is some wide open glow and the bokeh quality is quite active, in contrast with the much sharper across the frame, cleaner, more neutral rendering of a lot of modern lenses. I haven't used the 35/2.5, so I'm not sure how similar the two are in this respect.

As for experience with the Bessa, I can't help you there. Maybe a new thread would be advised to catch the attention of those who would know. Or perhaps try a more specialized forum, such as rangefinderforum.com

Hi Ron, thanks again for further elaboration on the CV40/1.4, much appreciated. I have now two VC lenses and I am pleasantly surprised by it's quality at a fraction of the price of Leica M lenses.

It is a very idea to start a new thread on RM2.