Jump to content

CV 35mm f2.5 Colour Skopar / starting lens


geotrupede

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am helping my friend to decide which lens to get.

After long consideration 35mm is the way to go.

 

The dream kit is a CV 35 1.4, which is just outside of the budget.

(So LEICA is not even mentioned) The camera is an M8.

 

We found two alternatives within reach:

the CV35mm f2.5 or the CV35 f1.7.

 

The f 1.7 is preferred but a little bigger.

The question for the forum is specifically:

how is distorsion?

how is out of focus?

have you got any example?

can we compare the two?

 

I looked on flicker but there is a lot of stuff on G1, but not much on M8.

Please help

Thanks

G

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get a used lens and save some money, also honestly it doesn't matter much if its 1.4, 1.7, 2.0 or 2.5 for a first lens. I have been hunting fast lenses for years yes they are nice but much more expensive and the difference is so small and depth of field is much more important in most situations you will be shooting at 4.0 and 5.6

You might consider a used 40 Summicron 2.0 Leica C

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the super fast reply!

yes used is one of the key indeed. I should have mentioned :-)

 

 

As I said the 35mm is not a variable, at least that is settled.

 

About the 1.7 vs 2.5 I am not sure there is a big difference and that is why I am asking for, have you got an example to show?

I am looking at distorsion and out of focus rendition.

 

I know for example that the LEICA 28 2.8 has not the same out of focus of the CV 28 1.9, because I have both... and I kind of like to use 2.8 and 1.9 at times... so it is an important parameter for me... now if this applies to my friend I do not know.... you may well be right :-)

 

Thanks

G

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - Leica Lenses are an investment. But it is an investment for lifetime. From my experience I do not recommend a Voigtlaender as a first lens for an M8. If you really want to see the quality you can get from a M8 you should opt for the 1:2.8/28mm ASPH. As a first lens - specially on a M8 - you will be completely satisfied. If money really matters - do not use a M8.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice, burt I guess we all need to start somewhere.

To be frank as much as I think leica's lenses are incredibly good, I am also convinced that you can have fun also with old and (note not affordable) c h e a p e r alternatives.

And the M8 does not have many alternatives, as you can get it for a good price used...

an M6 (or M4 or Bessa) is more affordable, but is not digital (which I may argue is a plus, but it is not a plus for my friend)...

 

The original questions are:

Do you have a picture taken with an M8 and with a CV 35 f 1.7 or 2.5?

Do you have any first hand information on the two lenses that you can share?

This would be very helpful.

:-)

 

Thanks

G

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes - Leica Lenses are an investment. But it is an investment for lifetime. From my experience I do not recommend a Voigtlaender as a first lens for an M8. If you really want to see the quality you can get from a M8 you should opt for the 1:2.8/28mm ASPH. As a first lens - specially on a M8 - you will be completely satisfied. If money really matters - do not use a M8.

 

Are we talking investment in this case or photography, I assumed the latter,,,

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a Skopar 2.5 on my M2, so examples for your purposes won't be relevant, but it's an excellent lens, very compact, has nice contrast and it's as sharp as you need.

 

Don't listen to those who say that you should only use Leica lenses. I compared the Skopar with a Summaron and a Summicron. With the 5X7 prints I made, to be honest I couldn't say which was better.

 

Also, with the M8, the edges of field of view aren't being used, which is where critical sharpness will be most evident.

 

I don't know about the 1.7, other than being obviously a tad faster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 35/1.7 Ultron and a 35/2.8 Summaron. The Summaron is 'better' than the Ultron at f2.8 - sharper, more contrast, and less colour fringing, although at f5.6 I can't see any difference. And it's smaller and lighter. However, the Summaron stops at f2.8, which is why I keep the Ultron for those really low-light situations, when I can predict them! Maybe the Ultron handles flarea bit better . . . maybe.

 

The CV 35/2.5 is reputably at least as 'good' as the Summaron and - on the basis of its reputation - I would suggest getting it rather than the Ultron IF there's no anticipated need for the extra stop-and-a-bit lens speed and the idea of a compact lens appeals to you. If you need the extra speed, then there's no contest, get the Ultron.

 

Prices for the CV lenses are typically quite a lot less than for a Summaron. Whichever one you get you'll be happy with - provided it's a good example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the f/2.5 focuses a little bit closer than the f/1.7 35mm. I personally love the small color skopar VC lenses. Their quality is superb!

 

The 35mm Color Skopar PII is a fantastic little lens. I did a write up of it along with a lot of photos here:

 

Review: Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar Pan II

 

More shots here

 

I love this lens. You honestly can't go wrong with it. It is so small and light, you won't imagine using anything else! F/1.4 would be nice...but for the size you can't beat it. Sharp little lens!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like James I use my example on film, but another vote here for the 2.5 Pancake. I actually prefer its performance and rendition over the v4 Summicron and sold mine in favour of the CV lens.

 

Like others suggest if you are buying to use rather than invest I would say buy on preferred signature and desired results not on the brand name.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi My name is Noel and I have not bought a lens all day, yet.

 

I have

 

two off classic f/2.5 CV 35mm

two off pancake f/2.5 CV 35mm and

a f/1.7 CV 35mm

 

I do have other non CV 35mms.

 

There are no detectable problems or differences between these lenses full frame i.e. film, I only use /5.6-/11.

 

The optional larger hood for the classic is desirable (street shooting) although I use one of the pans without any hood, it can flare like that, but less frequently than cron or lux pre asphs.

 

They are getting more expensive, shop around, they seem to have doubled in price, cant think about what Leicas are doing (in £).

 

The 28mm f/3.5 CV is also a useful lens.

 

Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a Zeiss 35 2.8? That was my choice as my first and for now only lens on the M8. It gets great reviews that consider it as good or better than Leica, has been great to use and I think the quality control is more consistent than cv (even though I believe they are made from the same place). I bought one used for around $600.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked these two because the colors were similar. First photo CV 35/2.5. Second 35 Summicron type IV. CV is as sharp as you could ever want. Good build. Very small. Best bargain in M photography.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...