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!
Which CV 35 2.5
- Thread starter soboyle
- Start date
Bébèrt
Member
Here you can find the coding for this Skopar
http://whimster-photography.com/leica_m_lens_codes/index.html
http://whimster-photography.com/leica_m_lens_codes/index.html
Bébèrt
Member
Some info on this lens here:
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtlen.htm
If you count the extra LTM adaptor, the price is about the same. Altough I haven't got this lens, I would go for the smaller pancake type.
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtlen.htm
If you count the extra LTM adaptor, the price is about the same. Altough I haven't got this lens, I would go for the smaller pancake type.
Braeside
New member
I have the classic version with the Voigtlander LTM to M adaptor ring. The ring is easily hand coded and as it is recessed it does not rub off.
One word of caution, there are sample varitions with this lens, the first copy I got was quite poor. The replacement is excellent.
I also bought the optional LH hood which obscures a bit of the VF but does help reduce flare compared to the almost useless ring that is supplied with the lens which only serves to mount the lens cap.
One word of caution, there are sample varitions with this lens, the first copy I got was quite poor. The replacement is excellent.
I also bought the optional LH hood which obscures a bit of the VF but does help reduce flare compared to the almost useless ring that is supplied with the lens which only serves to mount the lens cap.
Braeside
New member
Braeside
New member
Some photos taken of the misty weather with the classic Skopar at the weekend. [Processed to change colour balance quite a bit.]
View attachment 25321
View attachment 25320
View attachment 25322
View attachment 25319
View attachment 25321
View attachment 25320
View attachment 25322
View attachment 25319
as you might be aware, you can also get the "coding kit", which I'm assuming would work with the M mount version, but be aware that the pen marks will eventually wear off. No big deal, you just have to re do it every so often.
http://www.popflash.com/index.php?p=product&id=4352&parent=0
http://www.popflash.com/index.php?p=product&id=4352&parent=0
M
Mango
Guest
You can get a coding kit for $5 (paypal, shipped). It works perfectly on all my lenses.
http://bophoto.typepad.com/bophoto/2009/01/m8-coder-simple-manual-handcoding-of-m-lenses.html
http://bophoto.typepad.com/bophoto/2009/01/m8-coder-simple-manual-handcoding-of-m-lenses.html
W
wilsonlaidlaw
Guest
To give the other side of the picture, I have a horrible 35/2.5 Skopar classic. It back focuses and even if you focus bracket, it is as soft as putty with very low contrast. I recently put it on my M4 when it went for its first service (not bad after 40 years), just so that it would have a lens on it for anything that needed checking with a lens. Kelvin, who does my camera servicing, said what a poor lens it was and said just out of interest, he had tried to improve it for me. He commented further that it was a pretty crudely made thing and it is not really possible to move the lens cell relative to the RF cam, so no real progress possible. I did not pay a lot for it second hand, so I am not too worried.
My record with CV lenses has been poor. I have bought three and have yet to get a decent one. My best record has been with Zeiss lenses, where I have bought three and got three great ones. My Leica record is somewhere in the middle. However, normally Leica lenses are correctable, if they are not good. My only failure has been a recent 11826 50mm Summicron, where the back focus ran from nil at infinity to dramatic at 2 meters. The two lens guys I took it to, went "arghhh - take it back to the seller", which I did.
Wilson
My record with CV lenses has been poor. I have bought three and have yet to get a decent one. My best record has been with Zeiss lenses, where I have bought three and got three great ones. My Leica record is somewhere in the middle. However, normally Leica lenses are correctable, if they are not good. My only failure has been a recent 11826 50mm Summicron, where the back focus ran from nil at infinity to dramatic at 2 meters. The two lens guys I took it to, went "arghhh - take it back to the seller", which I did.
Wilson
Braeside
New member
It is a bit of a lottery with CV lenses certainly, the first CV35/2.5 Skopar Classic I had was very bad on the left side, so was replaced by the retailer with a copy that is fine as far as IQ goes, however the infinity stop was not correct, though the RF agreed. I just shimmed the lensmount with foil and that fixed that.
The ebay bought CV 75/2.5 Heliar screwmount also had a problem with front focus, I had to lap the RF coupling ring on the lens to correct that. IQ is very nice on that copy too.
I think I can accept this given the price compared to Zeiss and Leica, but it would be nicer if CV's QC was a little better.
The ebay bought CV 75/2.5 Heliar screwmount also had a problem with front focus, I had to lap the RF coupling ring on the lens to correct that. IQ is very nice on that copy too.
I think I can accept this given the price compared to Zeiss and Leica, but it would be nicer if CV's QC was a little better.
W
wilsonlaidlaw
Guest
David,
Out of interest, how did you lap the RF cam to equalise the amount removed for all distances. I might give this a go on my 35/2.5, as there is little to lose. Otherwise it is just a paperweight. It is never going to be much good for digital but it might be OK for use on my M4.
Wilson
Braeside
New member
Hi Wilson,
On the CV75/2.5 the end of the RF coupling tube is not angled to any great degree (if at all), and I only had to take the smallest bit off, just really the thickness of the black paint on the end of the tube.
I took advice of a friend who recommended starting with 600 grit wet and dry paper glued onto a really flat surface, I used a piece of old kitchen laminate, but glass plate would do. Then I wet the paper and carefully rubbed the end of the RF tube in a figure of eight motion a couple of times. I then cleaned the end of the tube and refitted to camera, tested and found I had reduced the RF error by about half already.
I repeated this with finer grade of wet and dry (1200 grit) again just a couple of gentle figure of eight turns. Checked again and very close to perfect.
Finally I used a bit of "Brasso" metal polish on the back of a piece of wet and dry stuck down to do the final bit. Cleaned all up and checked again, it seems almost perfect, perhaps a fraction short of where it should be, but I am stopping there as I do not want to go to far, as there is no way to easily lengthen the tube!
Braeside
New member
Wilson I note that your copy of CV35 BACK focuses in that case you need to lengthen the RF tube?
W
wilsonlaidlaw
Guest
Agreed David. I was going to put a shim under the mount and then do the fine adjustment by lapping the RF cam. I also have a John Milich mount which is .01 mm thicker than the Voigtlander one. I don't think the RF cam slope is quite right as well. The back focus is worse at infinity than at 2 meters.
I had the same recently but the other way round on an otherwise mint 11826 current model coded 50mm Summicron I had bought. It was spot on focus at infinity albeit with the RF cam needing a small amount of adjustment, as the images had not quite reached coincidence (on the Summicron, the RF cam tube can be adjusted relative to the optical cell). By 2 meters, the lens was back focusing by between 75 and 85 mm on scale and even worse on RF. My usual lens guy said he had never seen anything like it on an external focusing Leica lens. He also spoke to one of the top Leica lens people in the UK, who said that it was unlikely that a lens behaving like this could ever be got right and I should ask for a refund, which I did and got.
Wilson
Braeside
New member
Hi Wilson,
I am not sure that would work - because adding thickness to the lens mount will only shift the scale focus of the lens and the offset between the RF and the actual focus will remain the same. If the lens is back focussing then the RF cam needs to be made longer with respect to the optical cell.
Think I have got that right.