Anyone have much experience with the Voigtlander 28mm 1.9 ASPH? If so, any comments? I plan to buy one for an M7.

-- Scott Munn (scott@bokeh.net), March 20, 2002

Answers

scott, I've been debating getting a Voigtlander lens for my M6 TTL (a 90 mm in my case) howeer I'm starting to lean against it. The reason for going Leica in the first place have to be the quality of the lenses! Why pay so much money for a quality house and then put a $300 lens on it? Thus, I've giving up on my VC quest and I'm now looking for a good used Leica lens. Just my 2 cents. Cheers,

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), March 20, 2002.

Hold your breath until tonight. This morning before work I developed my first three rolls with my new 28/1.9--many of the pix shot at f2. My physical impression is that I'm in love with the way the lens feels--everything is done just right, especially the focus ring placement and texture, and it's hardly come off the camera in the week I've had it. I had a 28/2.8 Elmarit once (2nd version), and the Voigtlander certianly handles much better. The Voigtlander VF is definitely superior in all respects to the Leica one, which I never liked when I had it, and was the main reason I got rid of the lens. Anyone who says it's a cheap lens hasn't touched one.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), March 20, 2002.

Excellent lens for the value. Never had a Leica 28mm and see no need. Use nearly the whole Voigtlaender LTM lens line and I am happy with this decision.

-- Richard (richard.srienz@swissonline.ch), March 20, 2002.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00695t
Cheers

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), March 20, 2002.

"The reason for going Leica in the first place have to be the quality of the lenses!"

Agreed! In principle. However, I'm buying the M7 primarily because of its quiet shutter and AE, and

"My physical impression is that I'm in love with the way the lens feels--everything is done just right, especially the focus ring placement and texture."

is also important to me. I've had my hands on both the Leica and the Voigtlander 28s, and I prefer the latter (the focusing ring IS nice; I don't like the tabs on the wide leica lenses). The fact that it's so much cheaper is a big plus, but value for money isn't my main criteria. It all comes down to image quality, of course - if the Leica really is indisputably head and shoulders above the Voigtlander then my choice is clear enough, but if we're talking sounds only dogs can hear, I'll be happy to stray from the true path.

Thanks for the help.

-- Scott Munn (scott@bokeh.net), March 20, 2002.

I want one now! Damn!

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 20, 2002.

Thanks to Lutz for the review. And Scott, I add my 'get one now' vote. I have used one on a nearly new M6 for the past couple of months and I am very impressed. I can't image where or how the Leica could be that much better. I love the feel of the lens. It is so smooth to use and is much easier to focus swiftly than my 'tabbed' 50/2 Summicron which spends a lot of time in the bag after getting the VC 28/1.9. Quite frankly I think the difference between quality of rangefinders lens and those used on SLRs has more to do with the ability to build simplier, less complex lenses than it has to do with who the manufac

-- Dayton P. Strickland (daytonst@bellsouth.net), March 20, 2002.

From looking at my negs (no prints yet) I'd say that my new 28/1.9 is definitely superior at F2 to what my Elmarit could do at 2.8. It appears to be an incredible lens.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), March 21, 2002.

Michael, which version Elmarit are you comparing it to? And how much does it block the viewfinder.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 21, 2002.

I meant, how much does the Voigtlander lens block the viewfinder. My V. III blocks it beaucoup.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 21, 2002.

>The reason for going Leica in the first place have to be the quality of the lenses!

I sympathize with this statement completely however if a lens is great it is great regardless of who made it. On the other hand a Leica lens will, say, last 50+ years with heavy use while the VC will last 20+ maybe. If money is no object then no decision making would be necessary.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), March 21, 2002.

"a Leica lens will, say, last 50+ years with heavy use while the VC will last 20+ maybe"

If that's the case maybe I should buy 4 or 5 Voigtlanders (or however many it takes to equal the price of the Leica) to use one after the other for the next 100 years or so...

-- Scott Munn (scott@bokeh.net), March 22, 2002.

Bob,



This is an excerpt of my last year's review.

Cheers.

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konerman.net), March 22, 2002.

Let's be honest.........we all like to say we shot it with a Leica. So what happens when we shoot with a M6 and VC lens?

I'm not trying to be a smart arse here, but does it really matter?

Not for me. But if Leica approached me and asked to put my photos in a Leica exhibition and many of the best were shot with a VC lens, I'd be in a bit of trouble. "like that's ever gonnna happen!"

Shoot with what works....both financially and performance wise!!!

VC gets my vote when finances are tough, or when you don't feel the need for the extra build quality. Leica maybe twice as good in build quality and up to five times the price. You do the sums.

-- Kristian (leicashot@HOTMAIL.COM), March 22, 2002.

I'm just gathering opinions as to the quality of the glass - the Voigtlander build quality appears to be acceptable and, to me at least, ergonomically preferable. I know it's a difficult question because ultimately we judge the picture quality for ourselves, and I don't imagine too many people buy both simply for purposes of comparison. I could assume you get what you pay for, but I can think of occasions when, sadly, I haven't. In the end, I'm not particularly bothered if I'm using a Voigtlander or a Leica.

-- Scott Munn (scott@bokeh.net), March 22, 2002.

PS. I guess the obvious solution is to rent the Leica if I can, and borrow a Voigtlander.

-- Scott Munn (scott@bokeh.net), March 22, 2002.

My Elmarit was the 2nd version. With the Voigtlander there's no hint of the slight smearing of the image I saw in the edges wide open with the Elmarit. I don't find a slight lack of sharpness as irritating as smeared images, but the Voigtlander is sharp, too.

In these discussions someone always pops up and says "we buy Leica for the lenses." I've never done that--I originally bought Leica for the finder, and the comfort in my hands, which to my taste is a consistent failing with Leica's own lenses, but not the bodies. Optics had very little to do with it, and based on the number of people on this board who have complained about the results they get, based on drugstore prints I'd say there's a lot of mindless Leica snobbery in the Leica camp. There have always been a number of excellent non-Leica lenses, and even Leica-beaters in Leica mount--My 85/1.8 Canon was one that simply buried the contemporary Summicron, and the 15mm Heliar is currently another example.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), March 22, 2002.

Friends,

Here's something I sense--am I wrong? There has been far more discussion on this board about the Ultron 28/1.9 than the new 'cron 28/2.

I have had the Ultron for almost a year now. A few thoughts. Wide open it is very good. I have a black version and I've noticed the paint chips easily--it isn't as good as Leica paint. I still prefer black as it isn't as obtrusive as silver through the viewfinder. The hood is less annoying than Leica's 28/2's but it is annoying enough on an M6 and Hexar RF. The hood is less obtrusive on on the CLE. I repainted the feet markings from red to orange. Mechanically it is fine so far. There is dust inside the lens which I might have removed some day.

These days I'm back to using my slightly heavier old Elmarit, with a shallow hood made of step up rings, on my M6. I like the feel, the sense of absolute solidity. Yet that Ultron is optically better apparently.

Okay, here's where the party gets wild. What I like about the Ultron is exactly what I like about my Elmarit and old and often awful 'lux 35/1.4. Each has a personality, a signature that I love. This is something that goes beyond lens tests, though a lens tester can probably explain this sensation in scientific terms (as could a shrink, I'm sure). With the Ultron the subject somehow comes out at you when the lens is at 1.9 (which is a smigin faster than 2). Is it because of the softness of the edges, maybe a curvature of the field that one finds in old 'cron 35/2s and (I think) in the new Hexar 35/ 2? I don't know. (Here maybe the shrink has something to say!)

Recently I got a 'cron 35/2 ASPH which is a super lens. But there is something too perfect about it I feel at times. It's a lens with no surprises, unlike my flary 'lux 35/1.4. It is a Father Knows Best sort of lens. It does the right thing in the right situation. Except for my own failures, my shots with this lens are perfect. Wide open the Ultron cannot compare to it, as it indeed cannot compare to Leica's 28/2 wide open. But there is that certain something to it that may well come from imperfection (pardon the vagueness). The Leica 28/2 seems like a Father Knows Best Lens; the Ultron has at bit of the Honeymooners touch to it.

Anyway, for serious heavy duty work Erwin Putts is probably right in recommending the mechanically tougher Leica 28/2. But if you go in for wars you're better off with an Nikon F3 and Nikkor 28. (See Cameraquest's piece from the battle photographer).

If you are doing street photography I think the Ultron 28/1.9 will be just fine. All in favor of Scott getting an Ultron for his M7--

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), March 27, 2002.

"the Ultron has at bit of the Honeymooners touch to it."

Hmmm - I bet putting Ralph Kramden on you M6 would block a LOT of the finder...!!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 27, 2002.

Not only was my M6 the most troublesome camera I have ever had but my third type elmarit 28mm M lens of very poor build quality.It cost 650sterling pounds and a year out of passport it was returned to Leitz because of numerous specs somewhere around the 4th&5th elements. leitz submitted an estimate for this of 0ver 700pounds sterling later reducing it "kindly" to 523 p.s. ihad the job done in LONDON for 91ps I am a leica user since 1953 and have owned 5 M bodies and 10lenses

-- Rodney WILLIAMS (willicwm@bushinternet.com), June 02, 2002.