gclkc wrote:
A couple of quick photos with my phone... The focusing ring and the adapter's close focusing ring also share similar hill and valley and knurling designs. A bonus.
I’m definitely going to buy the type 2 version of this lens. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it’s totally a personal thing, but am I the only one who thinks the type 1 lens is hideous looking on a Sony or Nikon camera? I do not mean to offend at all, but just stating my opinion.
mudlake wrote:
I’m definitely going to buy the type 2 version of this lens. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it’s totally a personal thing, but am I the only one who thinks the type 1 lens is hideous looking on a Sony or Nikon camera? I do not mean to offend at all, but just stating my opinion.
I agree. It just looks weird on Sony/Nikon/Leica SL because the base is so much wider than the rest of the lens.
Leica nailed it decades ago with the design of the Elmar-M 50 2.8 which even today looks great:
I personally don’t think the CV type 1 looks good on Leica M cameras - again because of the much wider base.
The type 2 does look better, but even then it seems skinny compared to the base. I think it looks good in silver on a silver M - here photo courtesy of cameraquest. I have a feeling it will look even better on a silver film M, and the black version will look pretty good on a black M.
mudlake wrote:
I’m definitely going to buy the type 2 version of this lens. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it’s totally a personal thing, but am I the only one who thinks the type 1 lens is hideous looking on a Sony or Nikon camera? I do not mean to offend at all, but just stating my opinion.
No offense taken! As you said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I realize it's not a look everyone will enjoy. I like that it is an alternative to the usual "beer can" shape of my native Nikon Z lenses (and even my Voigtlander Z mount lenses). I also have the Voigtlander 50mm f3.5 Heliar with an even more pronounced taper. It frequently prompts curiosity and questions from others about the unusual lens.
More importantly, I like the manual focus and aperture rings and the feel of quality materials and construction. But most of all I like the images that the lenses produce!
Yes, it's a matter of taste, but after trying all versions except for the Type I 'Black Matte,' I mechanically prefer the brass constructions of the Type I Two-Tone and Type II Silver.
The brass construction offers a smoother rotation of the focusing ring and a satisfying heft, giving it a quality feel. For aesthetics, I thought I would like the Type II better, and I do, but I find the Type I Two-Tone beautiful in person -- a true masterpiece -- even though it does not truly collapse. When adapted, it may look a bit odd depending on the adapter. I use a black adapter and I like the combination.
Hi, you might have described that elsewhere. What are your thoughts between the new 2.2 and this 3.5 lens - from f3.5 onwards of course and other than the obvious physical differences?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, it's a matter of taste, but after trying all versions except for the Type I 'Black Matte,' I mechanically prefer the brass constructions of the Type I Two-Tone and Type II Silver.
The brass construction offers a smoother rotation of the focusing ring and a satisfying heft, giving it a quality feel. For aesthetics, I thought I would like the Type II better, and I do, but I find the Type I Two-Tone beautiful in person -- a true masterpiece -- even though it does not truly collapse. When adapted, it may look a bit odd depending on the adapter. I use a black adapter and I like the combination....Show more →
Interesting that he showed it wasn’t that great against lens flare, and the ‘old’ apo f2 is better optically if you are really pixel peeping. He also tried to collapse the type 1!
The fact that Thypoch had no issues making their collapsible 50mm f2 lens - a cheaper lens than the new CVs - makes the design of the type 1 more disappointing to me.
Also interesting that he did not mention how the aperture rings are different on the type 1 vs type 2.
What was very cool is he really showed the difference in the black paint finishes. The matt black w white lettering is the finish that Leica offers for a huge premium vs their regular lenses - as on the Summicron 28 and Summaron 28 5.6. But Voigtlander? No difference in pricing. Very nice.
Out of the two CVs I prefer the type 2 as the design is more honest. The fake collapsible look really bugs me - kinda like the fake film advance lever on the M10D!
A few points to consider. Youtube reviews can sometimes be less reliable for making bold statements like 'this lens is better optically' due to varying test methodologies, the number of lens copies tested, and the centering quality of those copies. Sometimes, focusing on one section of the image (like a left or right corner) can be misleading if the lens isn’t well-centered.
In my review, I provided side-by-side pixel-level crops at all apertures so you can see the results for yourself and form your own opinion. There’s nothing subjective about this, except for my interpretation of what I’m seeing. It is what it is.
Regarding flare, my findings differ. I compared it directly to the CV 50/2 APO and 50/3.5 Heliar, and they all showed similar veiling resistance. If the new f/3.5 isn’t optimal, then the others aren’t either. Of course, any lens can be made to flare under certain conditions.
Youtube reviewer (Jimmy) - I usually don't watch these, but here are my thoughts:
- He doesn't test if the lens is free of distortion and misses that it can focus closer (0.35m) than any other 50mm M-mount lenses, including those he compared it with.
- His main focus is on questioning the usefulness of an f/3.5 lens, arguing that only fast lenses have character. He doesn't consider applications like street photography, where you might stop down to f/5.6 or f/8.
- He overlooks that the field curvature is flat compared to other lenses, which is beneficial for landscapes and architecture.
- He critiques the focusing ring being connected to the aperture, which is valid, but for street photography using zone focusing, this shouldn't be an issue since the aperture would hardly change.
- He bought the lens to review it but didn't research the weight, mistakenly stating that the Type II silver brass weighs 150 grams, which is inaccurate.
He also believes that all modern 50mm lenses perform similarly to this APO at f/3.5, which isn't the case. While it's true that faster lenses get reduced aberrations when stopped down, side-by-side comparisons show that both the CV 50/2 and 50/3.5 APO lenses perform exceptionally well and stand out from the crowd.
I appreciate Jimmy's review and welcome any critique on mine. It's always valuable to have different perspectives.
We agree on several points, such as the fact that the Type I model is not collapsible despite what the design might suggest. Also, the f/3.5 aperture doesn’t offer much blur and may be too slow for low-light shooting conditions. We also concur that the Type II model combines aperture and focus control on the same ring, which may be inconvenient. However the Type I version has separate focus/aperture rings.
I enjoyed watching many of Jimmy's other reviews, so here's my contribution to support his channel:
Fred Miranda wrote:
- His main focus is on questioning the usefulness of an f/3.5 lens, arguing that only fast lenses have character. He doesn't consider applications like street photography, where you might stop down to f/5.6 or f/8…
Eh, only fast lenses have character? He’s never used a Lomo Minitar 32mm 2.8 or Brightin Star 28 or Summaron 28 5.6 or..
