tsdevine wrote:
It depends on what they generally shoot, what their priorities are, etc.....which may not match yours. What do you like to shoot, and what are your priorities?
I can see where this is going... you are going to ask me to make tough choices! Just kidding. Well that's the thing, I can't justify owning two at the moment. With a baby coming though, I believe I will be more into portraits, family shots, walkaround, than purely landscapes.
May 12, 2021 at 08:00 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
matt-to wrote:
I can see where this is going... you are going to ask me to make tough choices! Just kidding. Well that's the thing, I can't justify owning two at the moment. With a baby coming though, I believe I will be more into portraits, family shots, walkaround, than purely landscapes.
I think with those priorities I would recommend the 35 f/1.2 SE as nice as the 35 f/2 APO is for that type of shooting I think you would really like a value the rendering of the faster lens.
I’m not saying it’s obnoxiously large, or that I’m surprised at its size, but I was hoping it’d be closer in size to the Leica version. Long lenses feel unbalanced to me on an M camera.
Maximilian wrote:
Good review, thank you for posting.
The thread is suffering from trying to serve two masters: Leica M people and Sony E people.
I happen to know that 'SE' means the smaller/lighter 'special edition' lenses CV made for Sony E mount users. Many readers will not.
Same deal with the 50/2 APO thread and lenses, but minus the clue. Those two quite distinct 50mm lenses have the exact same title. Conclusions regarding either mount's CV lenses may not apply to the other mount. The confusion is exacerbated by the use of M lenses on E cameras. Worse still, Cosina use the designation 'VM' for their M lenses but use 'E' for their Sony lenses - not 'VE'.
A small lens for a Sony person used to GM reference points is a large lens for an M user with Leica/ZM lenses as their reference points. Anyway, it's something to keep in mind, and you might have to ask for clarification at times.
I’m not saying it’s obnoxiously large, or that I’m surprised at its size, but I was hoping it’d be closer in size to the Leica version. Long lenses feel unbalanced to me on an M camera.
APO lenses are better corrected for color and spherical aberrations and usually have more elements and a floating system compared to less corrected lenses, even faster ones. Therefore, they are generally longer in length.
The Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar has 11 elements and most lenses on your list have 9 or less elements. The 35/2 Ultron has 8 and the Leica 35/1.4 FLE has 9 elements. The latter is a great lens but as you know, it's not as well corrected for color error, does not have as good flare resistance and corners look a bit mushy compared to the Voigtlander 35/2 APO. So, imo they are lenses for different applications.
The Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO M is only a bit longer than the Leica version while the Leica 35/2 APO with 10 elements is noticeably shorter than the new Voigt. I have not seen them compared yet but I would not be surprised if the Voigtlander is a better performer in terms of resolution and contrast across the image field.
May 12, 2021 at 10:40 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fred Miranda wrote:
APO lenses are better corrected for color and spherical aberrations and usually have more elements and a floating system compared to less corrected lenses, even faster ones. Therefore, they are generally longer in length.
The Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar has 11 elements and most lenses on your list have 9 or less elements. The 35/2 Ultron has 8 and the Leica 35/1.4 FLE has 9 elements. The latter is a great lens but as you know, it's not as well corrected for color error, does not have as good flare resistance and corners look a bit mushy compared to the Voigtlander 35/2 APO. So, imo they are lenses for different applications.
The Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO M is only a bit longer than the Leica version while the Leica 35/2 APO with 10 elements is noticeably shorter than the new Voigt. I have not seen them compared yet but I would not be surprised if the Voigtlander is a better performer in terms of resolution and contrast across the image field....Show more →
The Voigtlander f/2 APO lenses are great options, but physically they are noticeably bigger (but not really heavier) than the Leica M f/2 APO lenses. The Leica lenses are of course many times (about 4 or 5 times) more expensive even if you buy used but they are smaller which does block the viewfinder less. The difference for the 35mm lenses are bigger, but they are still notable for the 50s. Here are the specs:
So the Leica 35mm is 2.6mm skinnier and 17.1mm shorter. The Leica weight includes the built-in hood so it doesn't really weigh more if you use a hood on both, but the weight is close. The Voigtlander also has the bigger filter thread at 49mm compared to 46mm on the Leica.
So the Leica 50 f/2 APO is 2.6mm skinnier and 6mm shorter, which is still noticeable. Again, the Leica weight includes the built-in hood so it doesn't really weigh more if you use a hood on both, but the weight is close. The Voigtlander also has the bigger filter thread at 49mm compared to 46mm on the Leica.
So there is little question that Voigtlander has provided a wonderful pair of APO lenses for the Leica M mount. Price for performance I don't see how anyone could question they are a much better value than the Leica M APO lenses. At the same time I think we do need to acknowledge the Leica lenses are noticeably smaller (and especially the 35) and for some this will be an important issue because it does affect how much the viewfinder is blocked. I doubt there is much difference in sharpness as all these lenses are super sharp across the frame from wide open. To my eye the Leica lenses have a bit better bokeh, but I have only used the Leica 50 f/2 APO extensively and I haven't done side by side tests.
Personally, in the end I didn't pick any of these APO lenses although I think all four could be solid choices (the Leica 35 and 50 APO are pretty ridiculously priced, however). I went with the Voigtlander 35 f/1.7 at 35mm and the Leica M 50 f/1.4 Asph at 50mm. The Leica was certainly a splurge, but in both cases I picked these lenses because I really like their rendering, but that is just me. I do love the CA control of the 4 lenses, but the better rendering to my eye of the lenses I chose in the end won out over the uber sharpness and CA control of any of these 35 & 50 APO lenses.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The Voigtlander f/2 APO lenses are great options, but physically they are noticeably bigger (but not really heavier) than the Leica M f/2 APO lenses. The Leica lenses are of course many times (about 4 or 5 times) more expensive even if you buy used but they are smaller which does block the viewfinder less. The difference for the 35mm lenses are bigger, but they are still notable for the 50s. Here are the specs:
So the Leica 35mm is 2.6mm skinnier and 17.1mm shorter. The Leica weight includes the built-in hood so it doesn't really weigh more if you use a hood on both, but the weight is close. The Voigtlander also has the bigger filter thread at 49mm compared to 46mm on the Leica.
So the Leica 50 f/2 APO is 2.6mm skinnier and 6mm shorter, which is still noticeable. Again, the Leica weight includes the built-in hood so it doesn't really weigh more if you use a hood on both, but the weight is close. The Voigtlander also has the bigger filter thread at 49mm compared to 46mm on the Leica.
So there is little question that Voigtlander has provided a wonderful pair of APO lenses for the Leica M mount. Price for performance I don't see how anyone could question they are a much better value than the Leica M APO lenses. At the same time I think we do need to acknowledge the Leica lenses are noticeably smaller (and especially the 35) and for some this will be an important issue because it does affect how much the viewfinder is blocked. I doubt there is much difference in sharpness as all these lenses are super sharp across the frame from wide open. To my eye the Leica lenses have a bit better bokeh, but I have only used the Leica 50 f/2 APO extensively and I haven't done side by side tests.
Personally, in the end I didn't pick any of these APO lenses although I think all four could be solid choices (the Leica 35 and 50 APO are pretty ridiculously priced, however). I went with the Voigtlander 35 f/1.7 at 35mm and the Leica M 50 f/1.4 Asph at 50mm. The Leica was certainly a splurge, but in both cases I picked these lenses because I really like their rendering, but that is just me. I do love the CA control of the 4 lenses, but the better rendering to my eye of the lenses I chose in the end won out over the uber sharpness and CA control of any of these 35 & 50 APO lenses. ...Show more →
The CV (and Leica) 35/50 APOs are so good for landscape and their 1.4/1.2 are so good for everything else, that IMO it makes sense to own both in each focal length.
For 35, I went with the CV 35 1.2 III + CV 35 APO. For 50, I went with the 50 Lux BC and CV 50 APO. The APOs turn the M10-R into a very compact option to the GFX for those focal lengths.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The Voigtlander f/2 APO lenses are great options, but physically they are noticeably bigger (but not really heavier) than the Leica M f/2 APO lenses. The Leica lenses are of course many times (about 4 or 5 times) more expensive even if you buy used but they are smaller which does block the viewfinder less. The difference for the 35mm lenses are bigger, but they are still notable for the 50s. Here are the specs:
So the Leica 35mm is 2.6mm skinnier and 17.1mm shorter. The Leica weight includes the built-in hood so it doesn't really weigh more if you use a hood on both, but the weight is close. The Voigtlander also has the bigger filter thread at 49mm compared to 46mm on the Leica.
So the Leica 50 f/2 APO is 2.6mm skinnier and 6mm shorter, which is still noticeable. Again, the Leica weight includes the built-in hood so it doesn't really weigh more if you use a hood on both, but the weight is close. The Voigtlander also has the bigger filter thread at 49mm compared to 46mm on the Leica.
So there is little question that Voigtlander has provided a wonderful pair of APO lenses for the Leica M mount. Price for performance I don't see how anyone could question they are a much better value than the Leica M APO lenses. At the same time I think we do need to acknowledge the Leica lenses are noticeably smaller (and especially the 35) and for some this will be an important issue because it does affect how much the viewfinder is blocked. I doubt there is much difference in sharpness as all these lenses are super sharp across the frame from wide open. To my eye the Leica lenses have a bit better bokeh, but I have only used the Leica 50 f/2 APO extensively and I haven't done side by side tests.
Personally, in the end I didn't pick any of these APO lenses although I think all four could be solid choices (the Leica 35 and 50 APO are pretty ridiculously priced, however). I went with the Voigtlander 35 f/1.7 at 35mm and the Leica M 50 f/1.4 Asph at 50mm. The Leica was certainly a splurge, but in both cases I picked these lenses because I really like their rendering, but that is just me. I do love the CA control of the 4 lenses, but the better rendering to my eye of the lenses I chose in the end won out over the uber sharpness and CA control of any of these 35 & 50 APO lenses. ...Show more →
Did you end up getting another M10 Steve?
Personally I went with the CV 40/1.2 + CV 75/1.5 as my main lenses for the Leica but I'm also waiting for the new 28mm f/2 Ultron II.
The 40/1.2 brings the 50mm framelines but I've learned to frame my shoots slightly wider. However, when I am after ultimate sharpness across the field and a better CA correction to my images, I pick up the CV 50/2 APO. I almost purchased a Leica 28/2 asph from the board but decided to wait and test the new Voigt 28 first.
I did get the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO but for the E-mount as a pair to my CV 65/2 APO, mainly for landscapes.
May 13, 2021 at 12:34 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fred Miranda wrote:
Did you end up getting another M10 Steve?
Personally I went with the CV 40/1.2 + CV 75/1.5 as my main lenses for the Leica but I'm also waiting for the new 28mm f/2 Ultron II.
The 40/1.2 brings the 50mm framelines but I've learned to frame my shoots slightly wider. However, when I am after ultimate sharpness across the field and a better CA correction to my images, I pick up the CV 50/2 APO. I almost purchased a Leica 28/2 asph from the board but decided to wait and test the new Voigt 28 first.
I did get the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO but for the E-mount as a pair to my CV 65/2 APO, mainly for landscapes. ...Show more →
I did get an M10 and in addition to the CV 35 f/1.7 and 50 lux Asph, I got the 21 SEM and the 75 f/2.4 summarit. I also had the 7 Artisans 28 f/1.4 that I used on Sony. That will make a decent kit for now, but I too am waiting on the new CV 28 f/2 to make a decision on a small 28mm and I will add the 90 f/4 macro at some point as well.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Did you end up getting another M10 Steve?
Personally I went with the CV 40/1.2 + CV 75/1.5 as my main lenses for the Leica but I'm also waiting for the new 28mm f/2 Ultron II.
The 40/1.2 brings the 50mm framelines but I've learned to frame my shoots slightly wider. However, when I am after ultimate sharpness across the field and a better CA correction to my images, I pick up the CV 50/2 APO. I almost purchased a Leica 28/2 asph from the board but decided to wait and test the new Voigt 28 first.
I did get the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO but for the E-mount as a pair to my CV 65/2 APO, mainly for landscapes. ...Show more →
---------------------------------------------
Steve Spencer wrote:
I did get an M10 and in addition to the CV 35 f/1.7 and 50 lux Asph, I got the 21 SEM and the 75 f/2.4 summarit. I also had the 7 Artisans 28 f/1.4 that I used on Sony. That will make a decent kit for now, but I too am waiting on the new CV 28 f/2 to make a decision on a small 28mm and I will add the 90 f/4 macro at some point as well.
I replaced my CV 75/1.5 and Summarit 75/2.5 with an APO-Summicron-M 75/2 and am infinitely happier.
I replaced my CV 75/1.5 and Summarit 75/2.5 with an APO-Summicron-M 75/2 and am infinitely happier.
Interesting. The price of the 75 cron APO for me meant that I could get the 50 lux Asph or the the 75 cron APO, but not both. I think I will be happy with the 75 f/2.4 summarit. I like its size and all I have seen about its performance. What didn't you like about the 75 summarit or is it just there is more to like about the 75 cron APO?
Not that I am in the market for a 7300 € lens. But with all the praise Peter Karbe gave to the new 35 apo Summicron as his best lens ever, it would be great to see how the Voigtländer compares.
I think that would be an enjoyable exercise and make for some good reading, Fred. My Voigtlander 35mm APO should arrive today, and I'm not likely to return it and buy a new and much more expensive lens as well as a new Leica camera to hold it--but it would also be fun to test the Leica lens adapted to a Sony body. . . .
matt-to wrote:
Which one would you guys chose if you can own only one 35mm lens: the 35/2 apo or the 35/1.2 SE ?
I have the CV 35/1.2 version 1 (M mount), and it could definitely be my only 35.
Can’t beat the out of focus rendering, and I love its character wide open (reminds me of the Noctilux 50 v1).
Sharpens up nicely when stopped down.
I understand the 35/1.2 version 3 (including the SE) is even better, but I have no experience with it.
CheshireCat wrote:
I have the CV 35/1.2 version 1 (M mount), and it could definitely be my only 35.
Can’t beat the out of focus rendering, and I love its character wide open (reminds me of the Noctilux 50 v1).
Sharpens up nicely when stopped down.
I understand the 35/1.2 version 3 (including the SE) is even better, but I have no experience with it.
Thank you for sharing.
I'll put my Ultron 35/1.7 for sale. If someone knows roughly what it is worth (mint condition), I gladly take advices. Prices on ebay seem a bit high - although I'm not against getting more money.
