The CV lenses are absolutely great for the money. I don't have no doubt whatsoever that you get the most bang for your buck if you go with any of the CV lenses. Overall though, again maybe I am generalizing too much here and from the reviews alone since I have not used any CV lenses, I believe that the modern Leica M lenses and the Zeiss ZM lenses are in a slightly better class and they are basically by themself. It would be hard pressed to separate the later two apart in many cases. The choice would be more what you characteristics you prefer.
Without the Zeiss ZM lenses, the choice would have been easier. If I simplify it this way: if you have to fork out $2,000 for a Leica, $1,000 for a ZM and $500 for a CV. I would go for a ZM since it is closer if not in the same class as that of the Leica lens. Again, I am generalizing and not talking about any particular lens in mind.
jaapv said: Another essential is Gunther Osterloh's "Leica M, Hohe Schule der Fotografie", also in English translation.
I agree. Someone gave me this book as a gift. I really enjoyed it. The English version is titled: "Leica M, Advanced Photo School" by Gunther Osterloh.
Edited by Cindy Flood on Oct 19, 2006 at 06:57 PM GMT
jaapv said: .Hi Cindy. How did your bid on the Summarit turn out?
The Summarit should be on the way from South America. I contacted DAG about re-coating the lens. He replied that Focal Point (John Van Stelton) was the only person in the US to do the repair. I contacted John and found out that he must do the inside coating as well because just the mounting of the lens element on the spindle will have scratching affect on the inside coating. The repair is more expensive than the lens. Don from DAG recommended that I test out the lens and make sure it is worth the repair.
You could also consider having the coating removed. That is simple to do. The original Summarit aka Xenon was an uncoated lens, the only difference with the newer version being the coating. The difference between the two versions is close to nil, as coating is really only effective on lenses that are designed for it. Actually the uncoated version is considered to be slightly superior in certain respects. The slight difference in flare resistance is negated by the use of a lens hood (I have a spare third party one if you need one).
Also Oleg in Russia is a lot cheaper in recoating lenses I am told.
Hi Sean,
I am not rendering any opinion nor passing any judgement. I was merely saying that I am not too thrilled with them and that is a personal preference. I am not sure whether I will have the chance to work with them since my lineup is basically covered with either Leica or Zeiss ZM.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
My 75 f2 just showed up from HK. have you heard me say small before. Focuses really nice.
Guy, when you buy from HK to the US, do you have to pay import charges and brokerage fees to UPS?
BTW, just bought one of the same CV 15mm lenses as you. I've never used an LTM-M adapter before - do they attach and stay with the lens, or do you have to mount the adapter and then screw on the lens?
I would think that one could get most of the Leica lenses used and the Zeiss lenses only new so the price advantage isnt that big.
To me looking at Sean´s images /comparisons I have mixed feelings regarding Leica vs Zeiss.
For some subjects I really like the more contrasty, little cooler looking Zeiss images, in some other examples I just feel that the Leica lenses give a little warmer and "smoother" overall look, while the Zeiss might give a crisper look.
However, while seeing the differences in direct comparisons I am sure I could be very happy with either, Zeiss and Leica.
If I would not allready own several Leica lenses (and believe that it makes sense to use a line up where most lenses which give the same look)I would probably go for all Zeiss lenses because of the much lower price.
Then there is the Leica 50/1.4asph and we do not know yet how a Zeiss 50/1.5 would compare.
I might even go just VC if I had to build up from scratch, 28/1.9, 50/1.5 and add a 21 Zeiss.
t_streng wrote:
I am sure I could be very happy with either, Zeiss and Leica.
I might even go just VC if I had to build up from scratch, 28/1.9, 50/1.5 and add a 21 Zeiss.
As you see I am confused
The problem is ... in the end you will always want the Leica ....
I had the 21 ZM Zeiss and jumped for the 21 Elmarit Asph as soon as i had the chance and could make a good deal.
Rational ... no not at all ... because 21mm gets little to no use over here (life starts at 35 mm for me on a cropped sensor).. so it had not mattered having the Zeiss or the Leica in the closet
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Don't forget though the 15 mm comes with a 15 finder but with the M8 you need a 21mm finder . I found a old Contax 21mm on e-bay or I gess you could draw framlines on the 15mm finder
That's the main reason I haven't sold the CV 21... I need the finder for my Zeiss! Also, the 21mm CV finder is the same as the 15, only with framelines. I never used the 15 finder actually. But it'll come in handy if you ever get the CV 12.
ClubShooter wrote:
Oh well, I ended up with the 135/2.8 with eyes. I'm kinda surprised I won and the bidding didn't go higher. It'll be nice to be able to use the main VF... Similar to yours Guy, I believe. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=120040576210
This looks like the earlier version, takes series filters.
AGeoJO wrote:
The CV lenses are absolutely great for the money. I don't have no doubt whatsoever that you get the most bang for your buck if you go with any of the CV lenses. Overall though, again maybe I am generalizing too much here and from the reviews alone since I have not used any CV lenses, I believe that the modern Leica M lenses and the Zeiss ZM lenses are in a slightly better class and they are basically by themself. It would be hard pressed to separate the later two apart in many cases. The choice would be more what you characteristics you prefer.
Without the Zeiss ZM lenses, the choice would have been easier. If I simplify it this way: if you have to fork out $2,000 for a Leica, $1,000 for a ZM and $500 for a CV. I would go for a ZM since it is closer if not in the same class as that of the Leica lens. Again, I am generalizing and not talking about any particular lens in mind.
What I find amazing is how much folks will fork over for the older Leica lenses, many of which may flare quite a bit more than a CV lens that is multicoated etc.
The ZM lenses other than the 15 and 85 are made by Cosina so their price should be a lot closer to the high-end CV lenses IMHO.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Mark he puts a value of 250 dollars on it and marks it a gift , so no.
Lucky for you - we have to pay sales tax and a UPS handling fee. Are the 75's coming in coded?
Looks like you can just leave it on the lens if tight enough and use the M mount on and off the body.
I'm hoping it will be a tight enough fit to allow the lens to be removed directly. I agree a 28/90 frame is best. I'm going to use my 21/24/28 finder set to 21. The finder cost more than the lens did - good heads-up from you, thanks.
AGeoJO wrote:
The CV lenses are absolutely great for the money. I don't have no doubt whatsoever that you get the most bang for your buck if you go with any of the CV lenses. Overall though, again maybe I am generalizing too much here and from the reviews alone since I have not used any CV lenses, I believe that the modern Leica M lenses and the Zeiss ZM lenses are in a slightly better class and they are basically by themself. It would be hard pressed to separate the later two apart in many cases. The choice would be more what you characteristics you prefer.
Without the Zeiss ZM lenses, the choice would have been easier. If I simplify it this way: if you have to fork out $2,000 for a Leica, $1,000 for a ZM and $500 for a CV. I would go for a ZM since it is closer if not in the same class as that of the Leica lens. Again, I am generalizing and not talking about any particular lens in mind.
The CV's are better than the old Leica versions. But the new 28/2 ASPH is slightly better than 28/1.9 and 50/1.4 ASPH is slightly better than CV 50/1.5.
These CV's are probably up there with the Zeiss's.
Don't think because they are cheap they can't be good. For example Canon and Nikon primes are cheap but still there are some very good ones.
I've wrote my personal thoughts already in another forum, so I just copy&paste:
The value of the cheaper Cosina lenses (with Voigtländer or Zeiss brand name) isn't better than the value of the Leica-lenses. Many people only see the extraordinary prices and instantly think of high-image-brands like Nike or Adidas where they pay for the brand name while the product itself is just mediocre (because it is made in the same chinese/vietnamese/indian...-facilities).
Leica-lenses are so expensive because everything, their optical-construction (you can see it even without exact technical specifications that the designs are always more innovative, usually smaller and of better quality), the mechanics (ALWAYS solid brass and aluminium with state-of-the-art-finish, chrome, fit, ball bearing...) and quality control (they test every lens, adjust it to extremly tight tolerances so that every lens you buy has the same optical quality).
You don't pay for the name, maybe the production is also expensive because of the small production numbers (Cosina doesn't make too much M-lenses either) but they're also extremly focused onto the product (no huge marketing), the crew is relatively small and works efficiently.
Just look to every other high-end-lens in the world, they're all this expensive, because production and construction on this quality-level is not cheap! Even the two "real" Carl-Zeiss-Lenses of the Ikon are very expensive, some Zeiss-lenses are even more expensive than Leica!
You get what you pay for! Always remember that a 1000$ Zeiss-branded Cosina-lens is not a gift for you because they just reduced the price by 60% - they take care of their margin, trust me...
They sold lenses like the 2,8/35-70 even under production-costs. What does that tell you about the economical qualities of Leica? Nothing good... ;-) But what does that mean for you as a customer? The best value you can possibly get!
It's the same when you read in the newspapers that they've reduced production-costs by 20% - as part of the shareholder value you can be lucky, but as a customer, who isn't interested in the margin, just in value and quality, you should be extremly careful/sceptical...
You want the best quality? Take Leica or real Zeiss: extraordinary prices but also extraordinary value, because of the quality you get for your money.
You don't need that quality or simply can't afford it? Fine, just look on Ebay, 50 years of finest Leica-Lenses around for great prices but with the same mechanical quality as today.
When you still haven't found what you've been looking for, you can go with Cosina, Konica...
I think it's great when Cosina makes lenses that are affordable and are truly innovative for the system, give you something Leica doesn't (like the 12 or 15mm) - but just saying in a big marketing campaign that you can now buy "the best lenses in the world" for the half price with a great brand-name (Carl Zeiss) and therefore saying that Leica is overpriced (you can see it by their margin... ;-() is disgusting! Those strategies killed a lot great-quality-products! 10 years later people noticed what they've done and whining "this was REAL quality"...
I want to wish the driver (FedEx, UPS, DHL USPS?) a safe and SPEEDY journey to Sean Reid's home this morning and thank you for taking good care of the wonderful cargo soon to be delivered.
Sean, enjoy your weekend! I look forward to Monday's review.
I fear you have swallowed the hype hook line and sinker.
take apart one of the CV lenses, i did, exceptional quality
took apart a japanese zeiss as well, same thing.
my background is physics / manufacturing and global business, was an EVP with major Int'l computer company for a number of years.
one of the things you pay for with leica or a german zeiss is the extremely high standard of living and taxation in germany, as well as the national tax structures as they pertain to business operations.
on a macro view rather than the micro veiw the economics of production in germany are staggering. guess who pays for it, we do.
observations only no criticism intended.
This is also certainly not to denigrate the exceptional quality of Leica or German Zeiss
fwiw, i'll end up with some CV some zeiss and some leica.
re family "style" i think this is greatly diminished in the digital world where the camera makes assumptions re the light and color.
and lest we forget, rf lenses generally outperform slr lenses by an order of magnitude so we're in for a ride!
as a side note i'm German and my family were inventors and designers for Daimler and Zeiss in the old country, so German equipment is near and dear to me.
bill vann wrote:
Gorgel
one of the things you pay for with leica or a german zeiss is the extremely high standard of living and taxation in germany, as well as the national tax structures as they pertain to business operations.
on a macro view rather than the micro veiw the economics of production in germany are staggering. guess who pays for it, we do.
observations only no criticism intended.
The funny thing is that we all from the "western world" like to join the benefits of a good social structure, but when we consume than we would like to have the prices which are only possible from countries which are many years behind regarding social structure.
We also request companies to be innovative, but then we dont like to pay for it.
