CV lenses vs. Canon or NIkon

[daubsphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all--

 

I've been reading posts about the Voigtlander lenses vs. Leica glass, and of course, the CV lenses tend to pale in comparison to the Leica, which cost 5-20 times as much. But I've always been impressed by the quality o the CV builds, and I'm wondering whether people have made comparisons between Canon or Nikon lenses and the CV lenses. I've become to believe that the Leica M shooters come in two overlapping clans--those who favor the Leica for the incredible sharpness of the images, and those who favor the shooting style of rangefinders. I'm definitely in the latter camp, and I generally don't care so much about absolute sharpness or distortion or CA.

 

What do the rest of you think? Is CV a brand that produces better lenses than Canon, Nikon, et al, or are they inferior to the big makers? I'm very curious about your thoughts, as I'm a documentary/reportage shooter primarily with the Leica M equipment and don't find myself very concerned about edge-to-edge sharpness and other technical concerns.

 

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

Steve

[kokoshawnuff]

I have always considered the modern rangefinder lenses made by Cosina (Voigtlander and Zeiss), to be very capable and some almost on par with Leica when one considers price. With the Canon and Nikon rangefinder lenses from the mid-20th century you get a wholly different 'look' than you would with any modern optical configuration. Some prefer the look of the vintage lenses (Canon, Nikon, Leitz/Leica), but often suffer from (as you mentioned) distortion, lower contrast, 'lower' resolution.

 

Here's a pretty definitive list of LTM lenses (or here: Canon/Nikon) it might be worth trying one or two lenses so you can see the difference for yourself. They can always be resold if you determine you prefer the look of modern lenses. My personal choice for a Canon LTM is the Black 50 f/1.4, not a bad performer for 50+ years old, but then again neither are a number of Leitz lenses for the same price.

[daubsphoto]

I have always considered the modern rangefinder lenses made by Cosina (Voigtlander and Zeiss), to be very capable and some almost on par with Leica when one considers price. With the Canon and Nikon rangefinder lenses from the mid-20th century you get a wholly different 'look' than you would with any modern optical configuration. Some prefer the look of the vintage lenses (Canon, Nikon, Leitz/Leica), but often suffer from (as you mentioned) distortion, lower contrast, 'lower' resolution.

 

Here's a pretty definitive list of LTM lenses (or here: Canon/Nikon) it might be worth trying one or two lenses so you can see the difference for yourself. They can always be resold if you determine you prefer the look of modern lenses. My personal choice for a Canon LTM is the Black 50 f/1.4, not a bad performer for 50+ years old, but then again neither are a number of Leitz lenses for the same price.

 

I guess I'm really wondering about the performance of modern Canon/Nikon slr lenses vs. the CV lenses for rangefinder...not so much because I want to think about SLR vs. rangefinder (I'm a definite RF fan), but because I think it is a little unfair to compare a CV lens at $500-600 vs. a Leica at $2,000-4,000, in terms of optical performance (which admittedly is not my first concern with lenses).

 

Thanks for your insight.

[Jamie Roberts]

I just deleted a much longer post, but here's the gist:

 

CV has some lenses that are the equivalent of some other lenses from Canon and Nikon. Canon and Nikon have some lenses that neither CV nor Leica can match directly (mainly because Leica chooses not to, it's true, or due to system limitations). Don't forget, some Canons and Nikons cost as much as Leica glass. And don't forget Zeiss too...And then Leica, of course, has lenses that are unmatched in terms of overall performance by the other companies. You just can't generalize.

 

But if you're an RF guy, you should, I think, give the Leica Summarits a chance--even if only for your most used focal lengths--if you don't want to spend too much. They are superb for the money. Remember, optical performance isn't just all about sharpness.

 

But you could definitely round out a reasonable shooting set of lenses with interesting choices from Zeiss, CV and other used M-compatible lenses. You can even do some limited adapting of other maker's lenses to the M (right now I'm shooting a 21mm f2 Olympus on my M9, used with a non-focus-coupling adapter. It's a very nice, very compact lens that zone focuses perfectly!).

[kokoshawnuff]

The comparison of SLR and RF lenses can get a little too convoluted for my patience and understanding of the technical aspects of optics, so I'll leave that to others on this forum. But I can say (as a user of Canon SLR, Zeiss, Voigtlander, and Modern Leica lenses) my experience with Cosina has been nothing but positive—especially at those prices.

[daubsphoto]

So I'm a rangefinder kind of guy *and* I prefer Leica lenses to other makes. But being on an M system means you do have a lot of choices...

 

For example, I don't think there's a 28mm lens out that that honestly compares with Leica's 28 f2 Summicron ASPH.

 

I know there are some Nikon shooters who might disagree, given the near-legendary status of the discontinued Nikon 28 1.4. They cost about the same too right now But I'll stick with the 28 Summicron.

 

But there are a lot of choices here, truthfully: the older CV 28 1.9 is a fabulous lens (and IMO doesn't have some of the focus issues of the newer f2 version--at least on my copies). IMO the CV 1.9 is better than the current EF Canon 28 f1.8 and the current Nikon 28 f2.8...

 

Ah, but Canon make a 35 1.4L and Nikon a 24 1.4--both of which are pretty great, and CV really doesn't have anything to equal them. OTH, you can get a 35 1.2 from CV

 

Then there's Zeiss: there are a ton of good ZM lenses as well to be used on the M9.

 

But once you're at 35mm, then Leica has the Summarits, which are a bargain for their optical quality, or, of course, their current 35 Summicron and Summilux, which are superb lenses.

 

A lot of the used lenses aren't bad at all either! And don't forget, lenses aren't just about sharpness, either: contrast, correction, colour, out of focus rendering and flare-resistance are all lens variables.

 

After trying a lot of lenses from a lot of manufacturers, I prefer the Leicas--and not always the sharpest ones. But that doesn't mean CV, Canon, Nikon or Zeiss aren't good either.

 

So if you're an RF guy, you should, I think, give the Summarits a chance if you don't want to spend too much... But you could definitely round out a reasonable shooting set of lenses with interesting choices from Zeiss, CV and other used M-compatible lenses. You can even do some limited adapting of other maker's lenses to the M (right now I'm shooting a 21mm f2 Olympus on my M9, used with a non-focus-coupling adapter. It's a very nice, very compact lens that zone focuses perfectly!).

 

Thanks, James. I agree that there are a lot of choices. I currently have the CV 15 F4.5 (which is too slow for my needs), the wonderful 35 Summicron, the perfect 50 Summilux, and the not-often-used 90 Summarit. What I'm considering is wide angle lenses in the 18-28 range, and I'm just having a hard time justifying the cost of the Leica glass vs CV or Zeiss.... So I thought I'd try thinking about these lenses vs. my Canon gear. Thanks.

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

{snipped} What I'm considering is wide angle lenses in the 18-28 range, and I'm just having a hard time justifying the cost of the Leica glass vs CV or Zeiss.... So I thought I'd try thinking about these lenses vs. my Canon gear. Thanks.

 

Ok so that's a little more limited in scope. But wide angles are special purpose and harder to build, so I think you'll find that the best Canons or Nikons also cost the same as Leicas, or closer to it.

 

I would personally look very hard at the Zeiss ZM 28 2.8... for $1K I bet it's the best out there for the money.

 

I mean, you could compare a Nikon 24 1.4. CV doesn't have anything near it's quality to tell the truth. But then again, it's a $2K lens.

 

On the other hand, the "normal" Canon 20mm 2.8 lens is much cheaper but also pretty terrible, IMO. So the CV 21s are fine in comparison, though slower IIRC. I'd use the CV personally.

 

You might look for an older 28 1.9 Ultron from CV, which I really liked when I had one. But today I'd take the Zeiss out for a spin for sure.

[kokoshawnuff]

^ And the Zeiss ZM C-Biogon 21 f/4,5 is a wonderful lens also at about $1000

[lct]

...Is CV a brand that produces better lenses than Canon, Nikon, et al, or are they inferior to the big makers? I'm very curious about your thoughts, as I'm a documentary/reportage shooter primarily with the Leica M equipment and don't find myself very concerned about edge-to-edge sharpness and other technical concerns...

Not sure if you want to compare CV lenses to early or late Canon or Nikon lenses, i guess early ones to use on your M body(ies). If so, current CVs can certainly be as good or better but the main CV problem is sample variation. Some samples can be very good, other ones much poorer. Another problem with some of them is focus shift which can make them more or less useless at medium apertures, mainly if you shoot digital. Take a look at OoF rendition which can show sharp edges on highlights and contrasty subjects as well. Now one of my favorite lenses is a CV, the Skopar 21/4 P.

[lars_bergquist]

Cosina can certainly build very competent lenses. They know their optics, and can buy glass from the same sources that supply Leica. Their mounts are sturdy, better than most current Canikon gear.

 

So what's the reason why 'Voigtländer' can sell a lens of comparable specifications for a third of what Leica demands? Some of it is plain design quality, to be sure – the difference between good and excellent does command a price. But in practical shooting, we are often unable to actually see that difference.

 

The real difference is elsewhere. I believe that more than half of what we pay for a Leica lens is the price of assembly quality control, the kind of highly sophisticated control that is applied throughout the manufacturing process. That sort of thing is very expensive. Through the years I have bought four 'Voigtländer' lenses. Two of them have shown bad decentering, the kind of decentering that is easily visible.

 

That I think is the reason for the price difference between Voigtländer and Zeiss branded lenses made by the same company: Zeiss style quality control. Yes, Cosina can do that – if they are paid for it.

 

My own honest opinion is that you can buy a 'Voigtländer' lens if you have a committed and patient and charitable dealer who has or can supply alternative specimens of the lens you want, until you have found one that is OK. (Sean Reid admits that this is the way he buys his Voigtländers.) But such dealers are rare, because most of them have closed shop. Charity does not pay in the marketplace.

 

The old man with his pockets full of Leica

[01af]

... if you're an RF guy, you should, I think, give the Leica Summarits a chance [...]. They are superb for the money. Remember, optical performance isn't just all about sharpness.

Jamie, obviously you have never used any of the current Summarit-M lenses yourself, have you?

[jaapv]

What is the problem in your opinion then? Just out of interest, I have never used them myself.

[lars_bergquist]

The implication that Summarit lenses are not as 'sharp' (a very fuzzy concept) as e.g. Summicrons is completely unfounded. In the cases where a Summarit is competing directly against a Summicron, as in 50 and 35mm, the Summarit is not less 'sharp' than the Summicron. They use classical 'spherical' technology (along with some distinctly un-classical advanced glass) but it is not the main task of spherical surfaces to make a lens 'sharper'.

 

I have direct experience of the 75mm Summarit, which is an excellent optic, probably the best-performing long Leica lens I know with the exception of the Apo-Telyt. To repeat: It is not the wording on the front ring that takes the pictures.

 

The old man of Elmar Days

[Photoskeptic]

I didn't have any experience with de-centering until I bought a CV 35 (sorry, don't remember which one). I sent it back and purchased a 35 Cron ASPH. OTOH, I had a CV 15 which was pretty good, but found the focal length not to my taste.

[Ronazle]

I'm sure I'll hear howls of protest, but most of the Voigtlander lenses that I have purchased tend to flare much more readily than Leitz glass; clearly (to me) they are superior to old Canon RF lenses. The one modern Zeiss lens that I own (21mm 4.5 Biogon) is flawless as far as I can tell. ron

[tgray]

The two CV lenses that I own have been great. I'm sure some of them have problems, just like Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, and Leica lenses sometimes have problems And sure, they might have a few more problems like decentering than a Leica lens, but then again, I bought my CV 28/3.5 for the price it took to get my Leica 28/2 6-bit coded and cleaned.

 

The CV lenses are great if you don't want to sink too much money in a lens (can any one say 15mm?). They also offer some interesting options like the 35/1.2. They might have a little more distortion, or flare a bit more easily, or be slower, or not be as even across the frame, but they are still pretty good, particularly for the price. I think they are better performers than the Canon kit lenses, and probably better than a lot of Canon lenses in the $300-400 range.

 

And Ron: the 21/4.5 is a pretty awesome lens, isn't it?

[Jamie Roberts]

Jamie, obviously you have never used any of the current Summarit-M lenses yourself, have you?

 

I haven't used them extensively, no: currently I use the fastest lenses I can, and so that means a 35 1.4, a 50 1.0 and 1.4, and (until recently) a 75 1.4.

 

But I have worked with the 50 and the 75 Summarits (I really like the FOV for the M9) and might even purchase a 75... I liked it quite a bit, actually, though it doesn't have the character of the Summilux or the Summicron.

 

The 50 and 75 I used are much better than any CV lenses I've used to date (and better than many Canon and Nikon lenses too), and that's the context for my statement: optically, they're nice lenses and for the money they're a bargain.

 

They're also a moot point here, since there isn't anything wider than a 35

[lct]

I have no experience with Summarits 75 & 90 but the 35/2.5 is softer than the Summicron 35/2 asph at full aperture to be honest, mainly on edges and corners. Now it is one of those rare lenses allying good sharpness, good resistance to flare and smooth bokeh. It is said to have some significant CA but i haven't noticed it so far on my crop cameras (R-D1, M8.2). All in all, aside from the 35/2 asph, it is my favorite "slow" 35 over the Summicron 35/2 v4 and Summaron 35/2.8 for color. For B&W and good cooking i prefer the oldies but it's just me.

[pico]

That is an unusual stand here, Steve because for most (I'm guessing) it's all about lenses first - their particular renditions. You don't care, so you really can't lose much by going with CV lenses and selling them again if you find them inadequate. They won't fall apart. You reportage photogs tend to ding up equipment pretty well, and that's your only risk for resale. I've purchased from CameraQuest Home Page and had good results. With a lens I thought was defective (I was wrong) the proprietor even offered to take it back and send it to the manufacturer. (The problem disappeared when I mounted the lens to an M9.)

 

(FWIW, I've rid myself of all but one non-Leica lens. The Leicas are just plain better for me.)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Erik Gunst Lund]

All of these companies are capable of making really good lenses.

 

And yes Cosina Voigtlander is capable of surpassing the competition in at least one lens type:

The 125mm f/2.5 Macro APO Lanthar - a truly stunning lens in Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax and M42 mounts. It goes to 1:1 and has no CA at all and just in all categories excels; Sharp, contrast, wonderful bokeh and tonal graduation.

I have used many of them, since I have repaired and modified them to Nikon mount or implemented CPU in them. A true gem as the current pieces indicate.