voigtlander,the best leica lenses in the world

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 hours ago, steve 1959 said:

Not on the fred miranda forum but there is an amazing long review thread about the 21mm f1.4 nokton with lots of stunning images and not just with the sony version of the lens but also plenty of stuff with leica m and that version of the lens..

 

Your Flickr images are more than adequate to show the image quality one can get from the 21mm f1.4.

[fotografr]

Nokton 75mm 1.5 on the M10M.

 

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!

[giannis]

16 hours ago, hdmesa said:

igher contrast optics (input) are always better.

This is debatable (and I don't mean artistic preference for low/high contrast).

All things being equal, yes, higher contrast is better. But things aren't equal, and in optical design, sometimes you have to sacrifice one thing for another. A typical example is, in the 50's and a bit before, contrast and resolution were on opposite ends. You could either have more optical groups in a lens (for better correction of spherical aberrations and hence higher resolution), but this would reduce contrast a lot, due to the higher number of air-to-glass surfaces. This is the route Leica took, for instance, with the double gauss formulas. Alternatively, you could have fewer optical groups in a lens, minimising air-to-glass surfaces and increasing contrast, but sacrificing the max resolution potential of the lens, since you couldn't correct spherical aberrations that well (also distortion, etc.). This is the route Zeiss took, with the Sonnar formulas. In film, and before coatings, contrast was more important, since film's resolution depends on contrast and plummets at low contrast ratios (4:1), which are very commonly encountered in everyday shooting. The caveat is of course, that lens coatings was a great equaliser in terms of contrast, and with multicoating the contrast advantage of low group count lenses was minimised by a huge lot. After that resolution became the limiting factor, and pretty much everybody switched exclusively to Planar (a form of double Gauss) designs. Sonnars, or similar/alternative designs different to Planar (like the original Nokton for the Voitlander Prominent) , haven't been introduced in normal lenses by *any* manufacturer for over 50 years. In fact, the only substantially new and distinctly non-Planar design I'm aware of, "mass" produced, is the 50mm Distagon (Otus). And of course the reintroduction of Sonnars, by 7Artisans and Zeiss themselves.

In any case, I believe contrast is good to have, in case you need it even rarely. Because you can always reduce contrast with filtering, ProMists and the like are more popular than ever, and virtually stuck in front of all cine/TV production lenses permanently. Not to mention availability for other diffusion filters, or soft focus filters (Zeiss Softar, Hoya Softener, etc.). And they usually give a better result than starting with a low contrast lens, even more so when the latter have the tendency to flare, which is not corrigible in post.

That said, if acquiring that extra contrast which is "good to have just in case" means paying substantially more, and you find yourself using a lower contrast look the vast majority of time, then an argument can be made that it's not worth it, *for you*, to spend the extra penny.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, fotografr said:

Your Flickr images are more than adequate to show the image quality one can get from the 21mm f1.4.

Thank you,

I do love the 21mm nokton and always try to find some way to use it in my landscape type pictures.

[hdmesa]

2 hours ago, giannis said:

This is debatable (and I don't mean artistic preference for low/high contrast).

All things being equal, yes, higher contrast is better. But things aren't equal, and in optical design, sometimes you have to sacrifice one thing for another. A typical example is, in the 50's and a bit before, contrast and resolution were on opposite ends. You could either have more optical groups in a lens (for better correction of spherical aberrations and hence higher resolution), but this would reduce contrast a lot, due to the higher number of air-to-glass surfaces. This is the route Leica took, for instance, with the double gauss formulas. Alternatively, you could have fewer optical groups in a lens, minimising air-to-glass surfaces and increasing contrast, but sacrificing the max resolution potential of the lens, since you couldn't correct spherical aberrations that well (also distortion, etc.). This is the route Zeiss took, with the Sonnar formulas. In film, and before coatings, contrast was more important, since film's resolution depends on contrast and plummets at low contrast ratios (4:1), which are very commonly encountered in everyday shooting. The caveat is of course, that lens coatings was a great equaliser in terms of contrast, and with multicoating the contrast advantage of low group count lenses was minimised by a huge lot. After that resolution became the limiting factor, and pretty much everybody switched exclusively to Planar (a form of double Gauss) designs. Sonnars, or similar/alternative designs different to Planar (like the original Nokton for the Voitlander Prominent) , haven't been introduced in normal lenses by *any* manufacturer for over 50 years. In fact, the only substantially new and distinctly non-Planar design I'm aware of, "mass" produced, is the 50mm Distagon (Otus). And of course the reintroduction of Sonnars, by 7Artisans and Zeiss themselves.

In any case, I believe contrast is good to have, in case you need it even rarely. Because you can always reduce contrast with filtering, ProMists and the like are more popular than ever, and virtually stuck in front of all cine/TV production lenses permanently. Not to mention availability for other diffusion filters, or soft focus filters (Zeiss Softar, Hoya Softener, etc.). And they usually give a better result than starting with a low contrast lens, even more so when the latter have the tendency to flare, which is not corrigible in post.

That said, if acquiring that extra contrast which is "good to have just in case" means paying substantially more, and you find yourself using a lower contrast look the vast majority of time, then an argument can be made that it's not worth it, *for you*, to spend the extra penny.

By “higher contrast optics”, I mean higher contrast lenses, not necessarily lens elements. The article I linked to talks about what you’re saying — there are multiple parameters of lens design (and subject matter) that can be mixed and matched to give unique results. So I think we agree that a higher contrast lens is usually more versatile. A low contrast look is easy to simulate in post, but it’s really tough to get a modern look out of a truly low contrast lens.

Edited July 3, 2021 by hdmesa

[giannis]

3 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

By “higher contrast optics”, I mean higher contrast lenses, not necessarily lens elements.

Yeah I meant the same. Elements can't be sharp really, cause on their own they don't produce much of an image.

 

4 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

So I think we agree that a higher contrast lens is usually more versatile.

Yeah exactly. What I mostly meant is, no need to obsess over the higher contrast lens possible (say an extra 10% in contrast), for a much higher price, if you're not gonna need it. But in truth, most lenses are high contrast nowadays, the only exceptions being niche/"retro" lenses, or superfast glass wideopen.

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, giannis said:

Yeah I meant the same. Elements can't be sharp really, cause on their own they don't produce much of an image.

 

Yeah exactly. What I mostly meant is, no need to obsess over the higher contrast lens possible (say an extra 10% in contrast), for a much higher price, if you're not gonna need it. But in truth, most lenses are high contrast nowadays, the only exceptions being niche/"retro" lenses, or superfast glass wideopen.

Agree, and I was saying (or trying to say) the inverse to the person I replied to: to not think that low contrast in and of itself is ever a desirable attribute to pursue. Low contrast without there being some offsetting benefit will just give muddy results.

[adan]

For the record, some background information.

1) Cosina is based in Nakano, a suburb of Nagano City in Nagano prefecture. Site of the 1998 Winter Olympics, and itself at an elevation of 370m/1200ft. It is separated from Tokyo by an arm of the "Japanese Alps" rising to 2280m/7500 feet. And about 160km as the crow flies (much more by road).

If one is going to discuss "cost of living" and such, that has to be taken into account.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/（株）コシナ+ＣＯＳＩＮＡ奨学会（公財）/@36.0268757,138.958018,11z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x601d8af71cae0763:0x2311893421008e2c!8m2!3d36.7473208!4d138.361805!5m1!1e4

https://www.closeuphotography.com/blog/cosina-voigtlander-factory-tour

2) It is the case that that the Cosina CEO, Kobayashi Hirobumi (in the Japanese styling, born 1953) is a fan of Leica LTM cameras. In 1999 (at age 46), he acquired partial rights to the Voigtländer brand name, and started, with limited, low-risk investment, the production of two relatively-simple (mechanically) "snapshot" LTM lenses - the 15mm f/4.5 v.1 and 25mm f/4. Followed shortly by a 12mm f/5.6. No RF coupling, the simple thread mount instead of the more complex M bayonet.

3) Cosina's history has always been "doing thing on the cheap." They were in the third layer of the Japanese optical industry, mostly producing lenses and cameras "brand-engineered" for other companies. Vivitar Series One lenses (1975), the bottom-end Nikon FM10/Olympus OM-2000/Canon T60 SLRs (all based on their own 1980 CT-1 clockwork camera), and a "Vivitar" rangefinder, the 35ES, also marketed as Minolta and Konica versions).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosina_CT-1

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Vivitar_35ES

The cheap CT-1 SLR was also the basis for their first Voigtländer LTM camera, the Bessa-L. All Cosina had to do was to strip out the "SLR bits" (mirror/prism, aperture actuator) and double-up the shutter blades to reduce the odds of inter-blade light leaks, since the shutter was no longer "shaded" by a mirror.

No RF, not even a viewfinder (except those that came with the lenses - which is why C/V has offered so many accessory viewfinders over the years).

https://cameraquest.com/voigtbl.htm

Later followed by an RF-only Bessa-T in M-mount, and then eventually the complete rangefinder "R" cameras in both LTM and M mount (but still based on the CT-1 SLR core). And still avoiding the expense of automatic frameline indexing.

https://cameraquest.com/VCBT.htm

https://cameraquest.com/voigrf.htm

Cheap or not, C/V's optical lens quality speaks for itself, on a "per-design" basis. Some are better than others - the trend has been upward.

............

Personally, I like the rendering of the 1980 Mandler lenses overall. But where those lenses have become "unobtainium," either by price or even just availability, I use a couple of C/V lenses:

35mm Nokton f/1.4 II: a near-replica of the pre-ASPH Mandler 35mm Summilux-M. But with closer 0.7m focusing, and more contrast at f/1.4. It has some flaws, but so did the original - it gets "equivalent" pictures overall.

75mm Nokton f/1.5: not really a replica of anything, although it has the light-gathering ability of the 75mm Summilux. In some settings it is "punchier" or even sharper than the Summilux at f/1.4-5, in other settings it is dreamier (< 1.2m). It is the weight of a 75 Summarit - with twice the lens speed.

[Prosophos]

On 6/29/2021 at 6:03 PM, Prosophos said:

I was thinking this↑ exact same thing recently - I'm glad you started a thread.

Voigtlander's QC is now quite impressive.  All the Voigtlander lenses I've purchased over the last few years have been flawless in their build.  They even get the details right: the aperture ring turning resistance and "clicks" are just right.

Moreover, the new line of f/1.5 and f/2 lenses genuinely strike a great balance between IQ and size:  perfect for rangefinder photography IMHO.

—Peter.

Just to follow up on my statement above, here is an image from each of two new Voigtländer lenses I'm using. 

(Both shot on Tri-X 400.)

(1) Voigtländer 50mm Nokton f/1.5 II:

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!

 

and

(2) Voigtländer Ultron Vintage Line 35mm f/2 Aspherical II,

 

Again, I'm really pleased with the small size, build quality, and performance of these two lenses.  The 35/2 is even smaller than the 40/1.4... perfect for rangefinder photography.

—Peter.

Edited July 4, 2021 by Prosophos

[Rick in CO]

It might also be pointed out that Cosina 's QC was improved after a Zeiss collaboration for Cosina to manufacture the line of ZM lenses (with a couple of exceptions).  I can remember some articles describing the implementation of Zeiss's more stringent QC at the Cosina factory.  The current line of Voigtländer lenses has obviously benefitted from that association.  Although Cosina has recently introduced more advanced lens designs to push the envelope, so to speak,  the overall build quality is essentially equivalent to the ZM lens line.  I value all three lines for their own merits.  Zeiss ZM using traditional design without aspherical elements to achieve surprisingly stellar results, as in the 21 Biogon, 35 Distagon and 85 Sonnar lenses;  Cosina for their ingenuity for new designs (as Adan mentioned above) and further development of older Leica and Zeiss designs at affordable cost;  Leica for setting the benchmark for lens designs and quality of manufacture.  

Having said all of that, I don't agree with the implied assertion that Voigtländer lenses are just as good as Leica's, but that the latter simply charges more for them.  We have gone through this very discussion previously concerning the comparison of the ZM and Leica lines.  There are a number of lenses to choose from for the Leica M camera, if you think a particular lens is wonderful then that is also wonderful.  Just don't assume it's better than anything else on the planet.  It simply nice to have choices.

[Guest]

Are zeiss even bothering with ZM line these days?

[crony]

18 hours ago, Rick in CO said:

It might also be pointed out that Cosina 's QC was improved after a Zeiss collaboration for Cosina to manufacture the line of ZM lenses (with a couple of exceptions).  I can remember some articles describing the implementation of Zeiss's more stringent QC at the Cosina factory.  The current line of Voigtländer lenses has obviously benefitted from that association.  Although Cosina has recently introduced more advanced lens designs to push the envelope, so to speak,  the overall build quality is essentially equivalent to the ZM lens line.  I value all three lines for their own merits.  Zeiss ZM using traditional design without aspherical elements to achieve surprisingly stellar results, as in the 21 Biogon, 35 Distagon and 85 Sonnar lenses;  Cosina for their ingenuity for new designs (as Adan mentioned above) and further development of older Leica and Zeiss designs at affordable cost;  Leica for setting the benchmark for lens designs and quality of manufacture.  

Having said all of that, I don't agree with the implied assertion that Voigtländer lenses are just as good as Leica's, but that the latter simply charges more for them.  We have gone through this very discussion previously concerning the comparison of the ZM and Leica lines.  There are a number of lenses to choose from for the Leica M camera, if you think a particular lens is wonderful then that is also wonderful.  Just don't assume it's better than anything else on the planet.  It simply nice to have choices.

Hi, ZEISS uses aspherical elements in the 1,4/35 Distagon ... :

 

https://www.zeiss.de/consumer-products/fotografie/zm/distagon-1435-zm.html#features

 

(These are of a high precision standard, and do not produce onion rings, (which my VOIGTLÄNDER Nokton 1,2/35 v1 does).)

[Simone_DF]

3 hours ago, crony said:

VOIGTLÄNDER Nokton 1,2/35 v1 does).)

That is an old model and has been superseeded by the 35mm f/1,2 asph III released in 2020 though

[crony]

2 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

That is an old model and has been superseeded by the 35mm f/1,2 asph III released in 2020 though

Sure. - Does the new model produce onion rings, too, or has it been improved ?

[Rick in CO]

5 hours ago, crony said:

Hi, ZEISS uses aspherical elements in the 1,4/35 Distagon ... :

 

https://www.zeiss.de/consumer-products/fotografie/zm/distagon-1435-zm.html#features

 

(These are of a high precision standard, and do not produce onion rings, (which my VOIGTLÄNDER Nokton 1,2/35 v1 does).)

Yes, I should have said "generally" as the Distagon use of aspheric is a first for the ZM line?  Although they do specify "special glass with anomalous partial dispersion" for several of their lenses.  Thanks for the correction!

[Simone_DF]

53 minutes ago, crony said:

Sure. - Does the new model produce onion rings, too, or has it been improved ?

Not sure but I'd expect the lens to be greatly improved. I don't own it. I don't see onion rings here:

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-voigtlander-vm-35mm-1-2-iii/

Maybe you could check the thread on the FM forum, it's filled with images

[fotografr]

I'm not drawing any conclusions from this unscientific comparison. Just showing how a fast Voigtlander records compared to a fast Leica lens. Top image is the 50mm Summilux ASPH shot at f/1.4. Bottom image is the Nokton 75mm shot at f/1.5. 

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!

[pippy]

14 minutes ago, fotografr said:

...Top image is the 50mm Summilux ASPH shot at f/1.4. Bottom image is the Nokton 75mm shot at f/1.5...

Interesting.

Personally I prefer the composition of the 50 shot and the rendering of the 75. It would have been even more interesting to see similar images had you composed the second as you did in the first but fully appreciate there would have been difficulties which would have come into play had this been attempted.

Philip.

[henning]

As a long time Leica rangefinder shooter (59 years) I've owned and used a lot of different equipment. In the 35mm focal length which is probably my favourite, for example, I have at present 2 Leica lenses, 2 Zeiss and 2 Voigtlander. All have their reason for existence, although likely two of them will depart shortly. None is noticeably 'best' overall. The one that is arguably 'best optically', the Zeiss Distagon actually doesn't get nearly as much use as the Leica 35 Summilux ASPH, mostly because the last bit of optical 'best' doesn't usually matter as much as the annoyance of the obstruction of the viewfinder by the Distagon. For the same reason, I'm not interested in the 35 Apo-Lanthar. The new 35 Ultron vII, on the other hand gets lots of use. It doesn't render quite as well as the Summilux, but the size advantage is significant. Voigtlander quality has generally been high, although I've had 3 Voigtlander lenses which have had mechanical issues of the sort that I have never had with Leica products. Optically, they have been a bit more inconsistent and of a bit lower standard than Leica, but it has generally improved over the years (as has Leica's) and many recent Voigtlander products have been arguably 'better' than similarly specced Leica product from previous generations. All that has to be seen against the value proposition, where Voigtlander has been outstanding, and the fact that for almost all pictures, having the right focal length and possibly speed far, far outweighs the last bit of optical quality.

My first Voigtlander lens was the 15/4.5, which I got from probably the first batch and which caused the retirement of my 15mm/8 Hologon, and the 12/5.6 immediately after it was released. Kobayashi-san started producing Voiglander LTM lenses as a 'hobby' since he couldn't find a number of lenses in LTM that he wanted, and after all, he owned one of the largest optical companies is Japan and had just acquired the rights to the Voigtlander brand. After producing 3 or 4 different LTM lenses and seeing how popular they were, he expanded this part of his production from just making things he wanted to also making things that would sell (but his preferences and interests still dictated the direction). I met him a couple of times through a mutual friend, and his passion for the Leica rangefinder and their lenses was obvious. He also had an optical designer who shared his passion. For quite a while he didn't produce any products that directly competed with Leica in specifications, but that seems to have changed in recent years.

He worked with and produced most of the first series of Zeiss ZM lenses, but that was much more a strictly business deal, and when Zeiss lost interest he didn't seem to want to follow up.

Cosina is a very large company, but privately owned so little solid information is available publicly. As has been mentioned, they are third party subcontractors for many other manufacturers. I believe a large part of their production focusses on digital projector optics where they are (or were) the dominant force as well as security optics and other branches of non-photographic optics. Kobayashi-san does not (didn't) care for digital cameras, and only produced the RD-1 because of a good deal from Epson. As I understand it, he broke off the relationship. As Cosina does not produce any appropriate digital bodies suitable for an M mount camera at present, I don't think we can expect any kind of EV based M mount camera from them. As I don't have any direct line of information to them anymore, any further speculation on my part would be pointless.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

Just FYI - the 75 Nokton's "other" character. M10, ISO 200, f/4.0, at about 3m. Full image and then crop.

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!