The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Voigtlander Help Please

R

richie15

Guest
I have a GF1 and my lens line up is the Pana 7-14 (Landscape), 20 (Low Light and walkaround) and 14-45 (walkaround and landscape) all which are keepers. I also have the Voigtlander 75mm which I love (portrait and long length).

A few months ago I owned a 35mm Ultron 1.7 and found this a but soft at f4 and below and having search the internet I concluded that if I am comparing lenses of 35mm and below with Panasonic lenses then the Panasonic lenses would probably be better so I will keep my Panasonic line up. Interestingly the 7-14 is the one I am struggling to come to grips with.

I like my 75mm so much I have been exploring the idea of either a 40mm (1.4), 50mm (1.5) or the 50mm (1.1). The BOKEH on the 50mm 1.1 is stunning but it is a really expensive portrait lens and I wonder if owners use their lens for anything else?

To sum up I wonder how much difference there is between the 50mm 1.1 and 1.5 or am I better off given my lens line up with the 40mm. Of course the alternative is the 45mm Pana/Leica????

Any suggestions or help welcome.
 

Jonathon Delacour

Subscriber Member
I have a GF1 and my lens line up is the Pana 7-14 (Landscape), 20 (Low Light and walkaround) and 14-45 (walkaround and landscape) all which are keepers. I also have the Voigtlander 75mm which I love (portrait and long length).

A few months ago I owned a 35mm Ultron 1.7 and found this a but soft at f4 and below and having search the internet I concluded that if I am comparing lenses of 35mm and below with Panasonic lenses then the Panasonic lenses would probably be better so I will keep my Panasonic line up. Interestingly the 7-14 is the one I am struggling to come to grips with.

I like my 75mm so much I have been exploring the idea of either a 40mm (1.4), 50mm (1.5) or the 50mm (1.1). The BOKEH on the 50mm 1.1 is stunning but it is a really expensive portrait lens and I wonder if owners use their lens for anything else?

To sum up I wonder how much difference there is between the 50mm 1.1 and 1.5 or am I better off given my lens line up with the 40mm. Of course the alternative is the 45mm Pana/Leica????

Any suggestions or help welcome.
The rule that "at 35mm and below, Panasonic native lenses are better than legacy lenses" only applies to Leica M and screw mount lenses, because of their short register. SLR lenses with focal lengths 35mm and under -- I have experience with Pen F, Minolta MC/MD, Hexanon AR, and Contax/Yashica lenses -- can provide superb results on m4/3 cameras. Even if you have to buy another adapter or two, you'll save money if you're willing to consider alternatives to the Leica mount.

If the relatively small size of Leica M and screw lenses is important, then you might want to investigate Pen F lenses. I sold my Voigtlander Nokton 40/1.4 not long after I bought a Pen F 40/1.4. This may not apply to your usage but I also regard the 0.7 meter minimum focusing distance of the M-mount lenses as a significant disadvantage.
 
Last edited:
R

richie15

Guest
The rule that "at 35mm and below, Panasonic native lenses are better than legacy lenses" only applies to Leica M and screw mount lenses, because of their short register. SLR lenses with focal lengths 35mm and under -- I have experience with Pen F, Minolta MC/MD, Hexanon AR, Contax G, and Contax/Yashica lenses -- can provide superb results on m4/3 cameras. Even if you have to buy another adapter or two, you'll save money if you're willing to consider alternatives to the Leica mount.

If the relatively small size of Leica M and screw lenses is important, then you might want to investigate Pen F lenses. I sold my Voigtlander Nokton 40/1.4 not long after I bought a Pen F 40/1.4. This may not apply to your usage but I also regard the 0.7 meter minimum focusing distance of the M-mount lenses as a significant disadvantage.
Thanks for your reply, I think I may be a bit Voigtlander blinkered at the minute. Given your experiences could you recommend any alternatives. Not that worried about the minimum focus distance as I was thinking of getting a Canon FD 50mm f3.5 macro to cover that.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Have a look at OM Zuiko lenses. I use a 50mm f/2.0 Macro for portraits, and it's incredibly sharp, even wide open. If you can live with a slower lens, the 50mm f/3.5 Macro is equally sharp, much cheaper and much smaller. I actually consider buying that in addition for the smaller size.

Other OM Zuiko lenses that I use are the 35mm f/2.0, 100mm f/2.8 (a darling of a lens, but best used at f/4.0 or 5.6) and the 200mm f/5.0. The really good ones (besides the 50 macros) are the 90mm f/2.0 macro and 100mm f/2.0, but they are horribly expensive. The wides are nice too, but since they aren't wide on m43, a Panasonic or Digital Zuiko will mostly fo a better job for an equal amount of money.
 

simonclivehughes

Active member
Richie,

I have and use the CV 50 f1.5, the 75 f2.5 and the 90 f3.5 on my G-series bodies and love them all. The 50 f1.5, draws beautifully and has lovely bokeh. Personally, I tend to use the 75 more for portraits than the 50, but that's more the working distance than anything.

I haven't tried the 50 f1.1 but I did have both the 35 1.7 and the 1.2 and the difference in size and weight is considerable, something that you might want to take into consideration.

Hope that helps,
 

Jonas

Active member
(...) The really good ones (besides the 50 macros) are the 90mm f/2.0 macro and 100mm f/2.0, but they are horribly expensive.
Ah..oh. I have a 90/2 for sale and it isn't horrible expensive at all. It is some money involved but you get more than you pay for!

The OM50/2 is really excellent and while optically different to the ZD 50/2 it produces similar results, just so much better for manual focusing and critical checking of focus and DOF. But, as you say, with the adapter it becomes a bit large.

Cheers,

/Jonas
 

Jonas

Active member
Richie,

I have and use the CV 50 f1.5, the 75 f2.5 and the 90 f3.5 on my G-series bodies and love them all. The 50 f1.5, draws beautifully and has lovely bokeh. Personally, I tend to use the 75 more for portraits than the 50, but that's more the working distance than anything.

I haven't tried the 50 f1.1 but I did have both the 35 1.7 and the 1.2 and the difference in size and weight is considerable, something that you might want to take into consideration.

Hope that helps,
I second most of all this. I sold my CV50/1.5 a day when I was more confused than usual. That was a bad move. I also love the CV75/2.5 which is a lens hard to beat in that FL. The 35mm lenses... well, I sold both, it is a facal length not really to my taste. But that is personal.

I haven't tried the 50/1.1 as it is about a lot of money and I have other lenses in that FL which are fun and good enough.

Generally I like lenses that are versatile. The 50/1.5 is "sharper" than the 40/1.4. There isn't a lot difference between them when it comes to the bokeh; they can both be a bit edgy sometimes but mostly works fine. Maybe a little advantage to the 50mm.

I would check out images taken with the 50/1.5.

my cents,

/Jonas
 
V

Vivek

Guest
The "perfect" ones, as Jonathon mentioned, are the pen F lenses.

I would definitely stay away from buying Leica M-mount lenses for the m/43rds.
 

Jonas

Active member
Mmm. There may be. But it is not a given. Do you have some suggestions for the OP? I would like to learn about a 50mm c-mount lens being better, or at least a real good value, compared to the CV50/1.5.
 

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
Mmm. There may be. But it is not a given. Do you have some suggestions for the OP? I would like to learn about a 50mm c-mount lens being better, or at least a real good value, compared to the CV50/1.5.
Or the Canon fd 50/1.4 Cheap and a terrific lens. I do have the VC Nokton 50/1.5 too. Nice, may be a bit sharper, but more expensive and I prefer the bokeh of the Canon fd, which is just a tad faster.

Michiel
 
D

dazedproductions

Guest
I was all for getting a voigtlander as they are nicely priced and some of my first cameras were voigtlander rangefinders. The 40mm has somewhat busy bokeh though and the 50mm is quite large. I ended up going with the zeiss 50 f1.5 instead which is nice and compact and has nice bokeh IMO (but its somewhat more expensive). Size was important to me (I already have nikon f1.4 35/50mm lenses but they are larger than I wanted)
 
R

richie15

Guest
Or the Canon fd 50/1.4 Cheap and a terrific lens. I do have the VC Nokton 50/1.5 too. Nice, may be a bit sharper, but more expensive and I prefer the bokeh of the Canon fd, which is just a tad faster.

Michiel
I am going to explore this option as I have heard this as well. Yesterday I picked up the Canon 50mm f3.5 macro and will start with this and if I am impressed will try and track down a Canon 50mm f1.4, either way the cost of both of these lenses is going to be less than a CV 50mm 1.5 and def less than a 1.1.
 
R

rachp

Guest
I have a gh-1 now and had an ep-1 before. I have several voigtlanders - 50/1.1 and in nikon mount sl lenses I have 90/3.5, 180/4 and 75/2.5. I love all of my voigtlanders on the gh-1 but I don't think I would want to use the 50/1.1 on a smaller 4/3 body. I don't mind the size of the nikon mount sl lenses - they are very light and a good fit. I also love that I can use the sl lenses. on my nikon body.

I am a big fan of voigtlander - they are a great value. If you can get around the mfd on the 50/1.1 then go for it!! It is a real WOW lens! Just look for a used one in the low $800s.

I also have slII voigtlanders in Nikon mount - 20/3.5 and 40/2.
 
Last edited:
J

jedperkins

Guest
I have the Voigtlander 40mm f/2.0 SLII in the Pentax K mount. It is a pancake, so it is not too long even with the PK to mft adapter. I like it very much, the pictures are sharp even wide open.
 

paparazzi666

New member
I have a GF1 and my lens line up is the Pana 7-14 (Landscape), 20 (Low Light and walkaround) and 14-45 (walkaround and landscape) all which are keepers. I also have the Voigtlander 75mm which I love (portrait and long length).

A few months ago I owned a 35mm Ultron 1.7 and found this a but soft at f4 and below and having search the internet I concluded that if I am comparing lenses of 35mm and below with Panasonic lenses then the Panasonic lenses would probably be better so I will keep my Panasonic line up. Interestingly the 7-14 is the one I am struggling to come to grips with.

I like my 75mm so much I have been exploring the idea of either a 40mm (1.4), 50mm (1.5) or the 50mm (1.1). The BOKEH on the 50mm 1.1 is stunning but it is a really expensive portrait lens and I wonder if owners use their lens for anything else?

To sum up I wonder how much difference there is between the 50mm 1.1 and 1.5 or am I better off given my lens line up with the 40mm. Of course the alternative is the 45mm Pana/Leica????

Any suggestions or help welcome.
The faster, the better. Having said that, i use the 85mm f1.2 and the 85mm f1.8 on a canon 5d and I sold the f1.2 lens because it ws just too heavy and the final results was not a world of difference in oof areas.

on the m43 however, the difference between 1.1 lens and 1.5 lens is not too many grams, both are still quite light and the price difference is in hundreds and not thousands.

i would go for the 1.1 lens.
 
Top