Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Voigtlander Lenses and Images

Voigtlander Lenses and Images Post threads showing images from Cosina Voigtlander Leica mount lenses here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Advice for a Voigtlander 35/1.7 LTM & Haze
Old 04-18-2019   #1
Teemō
Registered User
 
Teemō is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 32
Lightbulb Advice for a Voigtlander 35/1.7 LTM & Haze

I'm looking for one of these to pair with my black Bessa R. Currently I only have a Super Rokkor 5cm F1.8, but was considering the Ultron for something wider and more importantly, more modern.
The dilemma is, I want at least the original box if not all the original papers inside, and if I can't have all that then I at least wanted one in top condition with the hood and caps.

The black lenses are only painted/lacquered, which seems not to be very durable at all - less so than the very old Rokkor, while the silver lens is anodised. Does the silver lens really look terrible on a black Bessa? I'll be travelling overseas soon so it is fairly important that my gear doesn't instantly draw attention to me as if I were an unregistered photojournalist in a precarious region. I don't have any silver lenses, new or old, so I really have no idea what it's going to look like!

The Minolta lens with a vented hood only just touches the 50mm framelines and the Ultron is even wider, so I will at least lose the whole corner with the hood attached, won't I? Is it bothersome? Was a vented hood that also allows to attach larger filters made for the Ultron? I often put a polariser on the front of the hood so I can see the effect through the viewfinder.

I realise I am a bit priced out with trying to get one of these in the condition that I want one (must be a keeper of a lens, hey?), but once I get it I don't plan on selling it. I've checked all of the places I know and there's none in black that are in good condition and reasonably priced.
There is a complete silver kit but the lens has haze in it. I have experiencing disassembling and cleaning lenses.
This lens has 2 cemented doublets, and I believe each side of the lens comes out as a optical block around the aperture. Does anyone know if the haze is only forming on the lens surfaces adjacent to the aperture (in which case I can clean them), or also within the optical blocks (which may or may not be sealed) or even worse, between the cemented elements?
Obviously this depends on a case by case basis but the haze overall looks quite mild however I can only judge this by one image through the front and another through the back. It looks okay to me but will probably have a big impact on backlit images.

Lastly, are there any alternative lenses I should consider under US$500? The near-zero distortion was a fairly important factor, as well as the low-light capability.

Thanks for any help!
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-19-2019   #2
Benjamin Marks
Registered User
 
Benjamin Marks is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,665
1) forget the box - it won't make your pictures better.
2) why should you care what we think of the aesthetics of your camera? Just go shoot it.
3) Stay away from a lens with haze unless it is deeply, deeply, discounted. Like "price of a full CLA" discounted. Who knows what other issues it has?
4) Ebay has lots of C/V 35 1.7's in LTM that cost less than US $500.
5) Look at Canon screw mount lenses, if you are looking for an alternative to C/V.
__________________
Benjamin’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-19-2019   #3
Teemō
Registered User
 
Teemō is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks View Post
1) forget the box - it won't make your pictures better.
2) why should you care what we think of the aesthetics of your camera? Just go shoot it.
3) Stay away from a lens with haze unless it is deeply, deeply, discounted. Like "price of a full CLA" discounted. Who knows what other issues it has?
4) Ebay has lots of C/V 35 1.7's in LTM that cost less than US $500.
5) Look at Canon screw mount lenses, if you are looking for an alternative to C/V.
Thanks for your reply. The box is purely a collecting/storage thing and usually indicates that a lens hasn't been used much.

As for the colour/finish, I'm actually concerned that the silver lens will draw a lot of unwanted attention - overseas, in certain places where I will be going, the police are very happy to 'mistake' tourists for foreign journalists due to domestic tensions. Assuming some people here shoot street photography, they may know whether or not it draws attention in practice. Personally, although the black will match, I'd rather have the silver model because the black paint clearly isn't very durable...

Sold prices are $300-400 but after GSP and tax, it's about another $100. Can you believe I could only find one of these listed nationally for sale? - And they want way more for it than the market rate.
I will check out the Canons too.

The lens with haze is deeply discounted. The haze issue has been discussed here before and at least one member cleaned it themselves, but again it could be anywhere within the lens, so I will ask the seller for some more details. The lens is a bit soft, with moderate contrast wide open anyway, isn't it?

It seems that there is no exact serial number range that is affected by the haze, which means it could happen to any lens given the right environmental conditions. Therefore I'm probably worrying too much about it!
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-19-2019   #4
Benjamin Marks
Registered User
 
Benjamin Marks is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teemō View Post
As for the colour/finish, I'm actually concerned that the silver lens will draw a lot of unwanted attention - overseas, in certain places where I will be going, the police are very happy to 'mistake' tourists for foreign journalists due to domestic tensions. Assuming some people here shoot street photography, they may know whether or not it draws attention in practice. Personally, although the black will match, I'd rather have the silver model because the black paint clearly isn't very durable...
I don't have a sense of how reasonable a fear this is. Knowing nothing about the country you plan to visit, there are plenty of places where carrying any "tech" openly marks you as an outsider. "Black" is not "invisible" and the notion that silver rather than black being what gets you noticed by the police seems like "magical thinking" to me. If stealth is your concern, take a smartphone. But you have to do what makes you feel safe. Alternatives would be spray paint or black duct tape on a silver lens, but there are a million good reasons why that is not a good idea.

My own sense from shooting in US urban areas is that your demeanor makes as much of a difference as anything else. But this is all theory, and hardly worth the electrons I am using to write it. I think you need to ask yourself why you want to photograph in places where it appears to put you at physical risk. There are plenty of good answers to that question, but I think once you are honest with yourself about your goals, then the other answers to your questions will fall into place.

I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions about a box being included in the sale. I think boxes mostly matter to collectors, who are really not interested in photographing with the lens per se. They are interested in the lens' qualities as an object in a market of other collectable objects. Same can be true of collectors of comic books, baseball cards, or firearms for that matter. If you are planning on owning the lens for a long time, as your original posts suggests, then really the primary concern is the quality of the glass.

I wouldn't characterize the CV 35/1.7 lens as "a bit soft". I'd characterize it as modern and clinically sharp. I'll post some quick shots in a minute to show you what I mean.
__________________
Benjamin’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-19-2019   #5
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,598
If it is very sensitive people, restricted, controlled areas you'll be out just by looking to specific direction and trying to advance.
All of those black on black talks are always nothing but self-delusion.
Oh, I'm invisible.
No, you are not.

Nobody knows about fog removal from those lenses. We had thread about to many listings of this particular lens with fog, but I can't recall anyone fixing it.

Get black Color Skopar. First,very first version. This is photojournalism lens. It has focus tab. And it is small. By the time you will focus Ultron, I would already take the picture with complete confidence.
This is the difference between tab and no tab lens. I get rid of this Ultron lens, because it is not suitable for photojournalism. Fogged or not.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-19-2019   #6
CharlesDAMorgan
Registered User
 
CharlesDAMorgan is online now
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: South East UK
Posts: 1,122
My Nikon F90X came with immaculate box and manual. It had been used almost daily by a professional photographer.

I have no view on your other constraints, but if the answer is to buy a lens with haze to use for photos, you're asking the wrong questions.
__________________
De-gassing progress:

Leica M2, Nikon D700, Bronica RF645, Leica CL, Summicron 40mm, Rolleicord Va, Hasselblad 500 CM Zeiss Planar, Leica 50mm Summicron V3 - all gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-19-2019   #7
Benjamin Marks
Registered User
 
Benjamin Marks is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,665
Here's a test shot made a moment ago with the CV 35/1.7 wide open on an Olympus OM-D E-M1II on a tripod with an adapter and the anti-shake turned off (to be precise, the LTM lens has an LTM-M adapter, and then it is affixed to the camera with a M- u4/3 adapter):



And here's a crop showing the center of the test target.



In contrast, here's a Zeiss 35/2 Biogon @ f:2:



and here's a similar Biogon crop:



Now here's a 35 Summicron Asph at f:2:



and the corresponding Summicron crop:



What does this tell us? Well, what I see in the above images is that 1) the C/V lens and the Biogon have similar degrees of chromatic aberration wide open (to my eye, the C/V looks a little sharper than the Zeiss, but draw your own conclusions), 2) both are perfectly sharp enough to use wide open for any practical application involving street photography, and 3) the Summicron is a step ahead of both the C/V and the Zeiss in sharpness wide open, as it should be costing 10x or 3x the price of the other two lenses. FWIW, I think C/V was putting together the Zeiss lenses for them on contract. In fact. I would argue that the whole reason to own a Summicron Asph, which is a lens of astonishing capability, is the tiny advantage that you see illustrated in the pictures above. 90% of the cost is in that last 10% of quality, and it has been ever thus.

Bottom line: the C/V 35/1.7 is plenty sharp for your intended purposes, and anyone trying to sell you one of these with the story that it is "soft" either has a bad copy of the lens (they do exist), or is selling damaged goods. BTW, I have had my CV 35/1.7 since new (over 10 years ago) and there is no evidence of haze. Don't know where the box is, though.

[Edit: many, many lenses show a bit of chromatic aberration when used wide open. Stopping down a stop or two reduces this -- that is one of the reasons that stopping down a lens increases apparent sharpness (it is really a contrast gain, but it reads as higher resolution in the finished print). The reason that this doesn't usually matter is that a) photographers who care about CA for landscape/still life are typically using a tripod and smaller apertures, and b) street photographers are rarely shooting with their lenses wide open unless light levels are really low, and in that case the focus is on getting a shot at all. ]
__________________
Benjamin’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-19-2019   #8
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,598
It doesn't tell match if ff lens is on x2 cropper. Diffrent DOF.
And mft has no RF. MDF and WO shows focus shift with many lenses.
You could get it in focus, WO, but closed down it will shift.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-19-2019   #9
Benjamin Marks
Registered User
 
Benjamin Marks is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
It doesn't tell match if ff lens is on x2 cropper. Diffrent DOF.
And mft has no RF. MDF and WO shows focus shift with many lenses.
You could get it in focus, WO, but closed down it will shift.
LOL. Really? Well it shows something, which is more than we had before in this discussion. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, Ko. DOF and crop discussions on the Internet are like discussions on religion. Useless, really.

Sigh: you can't really talk about DOF unless you are also talking about final print size and viewing distance. In this case, the question was NOT about DOF, if was about whether the C/V lens was "soft" -- perhaps the above shows you that it is, or not. Draw your own conclusions. The point was to give the OP some data points, as he currently owns NO 35mm lens for his Bessa. Because of the lens mount, and the lens-to-flange distance, the Bessa has even fewer choices available to its owners than a Leica M. So cut the kid a break.
__________________
Benjamin’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-19-2019   #10
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,516
I agree here fully with Benjamin. His test supports what I have been thinking for ten or more years. The Ultron 35mm f/1.7 is a great lens.


Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-19-2019   #11
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks View Post
LOL. Really? Well it shows something, which is more than we had before in this discussion. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, Ko. DOF and crop discussions on the Internet are like discussions on religion. Useless, really.

Sigh: you can't really talk about DOF unless you are also talking about final print size and viewing distance. In this case, the question was NOT about DOF, if was about whether the C/V lens was "soft" -- perhaps the above shows you that it is, or not. Draw your own conclusions. The point was to give the OP some data points, as he currently owns NO 35mm lens for his Bessa. Because of the lens mount, and the lens-to-flange distance, the Bessa has even fewer choices available to its owners than a Leica M. So cut the kid a break.
Cropper will never show FF lens corners. You understand it or it is not given to you, yet.
Here is next to none modern lens which isn't sharp in the center. In fact my 35 2.8 LTM lens from fifties is just as sharp in the center on digital.

All of FSU RF lenses I have seen on x2 cropper like yours are excellent.
But any FF lens on x2 cropper just sucks.

I'm not sure if you are film user at all. Sorry, can't recall film pictures by yours.
If lens has no damaged optics it will perform well on film. Especially for your limited concern and gear capabilities, which is center of FF lens only.

Here is two versions of CV CS 35 2.5 in LTM. Canon 35 f1.8, f2 and f2.8 and Summaron 35 3.5. Those are not rare lenses in LTM.

Ultron 35 1.7 LTM is not only prone to haze, it also has flaw in lens block attachment to the focus part. After some use it starts to wobble. Fixable, but flaw.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-19-2019   #12
Takkun
Ian M.
 
Takkun's Avatar
 
Takkun is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sunny South Seattle
Posts: 794


Not my image, but I don't think a chrome lens on black body looks bad at all. Honestly, if anything, i think it makes it look more 'vintage' and therefore less "I am a professional journalist"—from a distance, definitely looks like a film or P&S. Not to mention it looks less stealthy, if you're trying to avoid that appearance--who would use a big silver lens if they're trying to be super discreet? I don't know where you're traveling to, so I won't say you're overthinking it. You might have bigger issues to deal with there.

Echoing comments on the box and paint quality. I buy everything used, and a box and papers show some level of care for the product, but not worth seeking out. The paint on the black version does indeed flake, and bad. Bought mine used with some very slight brassing, and looked like it'd been in a war zone within a month.

Never had a haze issue with mine, but did have the wobble. Mine specifically got progressively worse until it was unusable, and then had some sort of intensely frustrating decentering/loose element issue. Still have it sitting around until I find someone willing to work on it.

Yet before that, optically, stellar little lens. Yes, it is a little softer in corners wide-open, but not noticeably or unpleasantly so. Bokeh is great, and while you don't have much of a choice on a LTM body, why I chose it over the 35/1.4.
__________________
Ian M., Seattle
Current bag contents: Just a Fuji GX680iii. Nothing else will fit.

--
my infrequently updated blog
Finally on Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2019   #13
Teemō
Registered User
 
Teemō is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks View Post
I don't have a sense of how reasonable a fear this is. Knowing nothing about the country you plan to visit, there are plenty of places where carrying any "tech" openly marks you as an outsider. "Black" is not "invisible" and the notion that silver rather than black being what gets you noticed by the police seems like "magical thinking" to me. If stealth is your concern, take a smartphone. But you have to do what makes you feel safe. Alternatives would be spray paint or black duct tape on a silver lens, but there are a million good reasons why that is not a good idea.

My own sense from shooting in US urban areas is that your demeanor makes as much of a difference as anything else. But this is all theory, and hardly worth the electrons I am using to write it. I think you need to ask yourself why you want to photograph in places where it appears to put you at physical risk. There are plenty of good answers to that question, but I think once you are honest with yourself about your goals, then the other answers to your questions will fall into place.

I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions about a box being included in the sale. I think boxes mostly matter to collectors, who are really not interested in photographing with the lens per se. They are interested in the lens' qualities as an object in a market of other collectable objects. Same can be true of collectors of comic books, baseball cards, or firearms for that matter. If you are planning on owning the lens for a long time, as your original posts suggests, then really the primary concern is the quality of the glass.

I wouldn't characterize the CV 35/1.7 lens as "a bit soft". I'd characterize it as modern and clinically sharp. I'll post some quick shots in a minute to show you what I mean.
Good advice, thank you! Possibly I am better described as a hoarder than a collector in that case.

The images you posted are quite useful, since I also happen to own m4/3 for a digital camera. All 3 are clearly good lenses, and CA is very easy to correct in post, hence why distortion and sharpness were main concerns. I have a Minolta MC 35/1.8 for SLR and I'd say it's like the Zeiss and Voigtlander together when wide open. Details are very much there, just with low overall contrast and bleeding edges. And, nearly no distortion and high performance when focused down to 0.3m, which is unusual for a lens without floating elements. I would probably have just taken it instead but the aperture is stuffed in it.

With vintage lenses, I have noticed that many seem to have a lot more CA on a digital camera than they do when shot on film - perhaps that is due both to the sensor stack of digital and the low contrast of negative film, perhaps not really challenging the lens in the same way. In general it is hard to say that there were many bad lenses made in the days of film cameras while many get a bad rep. when shot on the Sony A7 series. My understanding is that this LTM Ultron was designed for film, where as the M-Ultron was redesigned to consider the digital sensor stack and actually performs more closely to the Leica Asph.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2019   #14
Teemō
Registered User
 
Teemō is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
If it is very sensitive people, restricted, controlled areas you'll be out just by looking to specific direction and trying to advance.
All of those black on black talks are always nothing but self-delusion.
Oh, I'm invisible.
No, you are not.

Nobody knows about fog removal from those lenses. We had thread about to many listings of this particular lens with fog, but I can't recall anyone fixing it.

Get black Color Skopar. First,very first version. This is photojournalism lens. It has focus tab. And it is small. By the time you will focus Ultron, I would already take the picture with complete confidence.
This is the difference between tab and no tab lens. I get rid of this Ultron lens, because it is not suitable for photojournalism. Fogged or not.
You make a good point, and there is a lot of security surveillance and police patrolling streets so I think, being a foreigner, I will stick out like a sore thumb regardless of what I'm doing. To be clear, I'm not a photojournalist and do not intend to be, but naturally there is some element of 'documentary' when you are a tourist in a new and unusual place. I have considered that it is possibly best just to not take photos at all there, outside of guided tours, although I will be living with locals - they are probably going to copy my entire catalogue upon departure. I will be using film and probably just my phone, so it may be possible to post the film out undeveloped but I will have to investigate the logistics of that further.

There are plenty of Skopars available. Do you know if they have much distortion? I am guessing sharpness is good into the corners wide open too?
Does either lens have any focus shift when stopped down compared to wide open?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesDAMorgan View Post
My Nikon F90X came with immaculate box and manual. It had been used almost daily by a professional photographer.

I have no view on your other constraints, but if the answer is to buy a lens with haze to use for photos, you're asking the wrong questions.
I'm only considering it because it is highly discounted and otherwise in excellent condition. I am sure if I cannot clean it myself (if the blocks are locked together with cement) than an optical technician probably could get them apart.

The seller has described it as haze but it's so faint it is barely seen in photos with the elements backlit (he showed me photos taken through the front and the back). In my experience with old lenses, haze due to helical or aperture grease does not penetrate into these types of sealed blocks in normal use. I noticed that hazy lenses definitely have no problem selling to someone, eventually. According to the person here who has cleaned their lens, it is just condensation: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...d.php?t=160595
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2019   #15
Teemō
Registered User
 
Teemō is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takkun View Post
-clipped-

Not my image, but I don't think a chrome lens on black body looks bad at all. Honestly, if anything, i think it makes it look more 'vintage' and therefore less "I am a professional journalist"—from a distance, definitely looks like a film or P&S. Not to mention it looks less stealthy, if you're trying to avoid that appearance--who would use a big silver lens if they're trying to be super discreet? I don't know where you're traveling to, so I won't say you're overthinking it. You might have bigger issues to deal with there.

Echoing comments on the box and paint quality. I buy everything used, and a box and papers show some level of care for the product, but not worth seeking out. The paint on the black version does indeed flake, and bad. Bought mine used with some very slight brassing, and looked like it'd been in a war zone within a month.

Never had a haze issue with mine, but did have the wobble. Mine specifically got progressively worse until it was unusable, and then had some sort of intensely frustrating decentering/loose element issue. Still have it sitting around until I find someone willing to work on it.

Yet before that, optically, stellar little lens. Yes, it is a little softer in corners wide-open, but not noticeably or unpleasantly so. Bokeh is great, and while you don't have much of a choice on a LTM body, why I chose it over the 35/1.4.
The reverse-psychology approach is interesting for sure. Definitely, I think I will probably be approached sometimes just because I'm obviously 'not from around there', and probably taking photos will be the last thing on my mind then. I won't say it looks terrible with the silver lens but that black hood does help to cover it up. These cheap vented hoods are a godsend, I've wondered how they make them so cheaply!

The wobble I'm aware of - possibly can get better fitting screws or tap a new hole, or just glue the threads down.

Do you have a photo of the brassing now on your Ultron? Just curious...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2019   #16
presspass
filmshooter
 
presspass is online now
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,233
Repeating what was said earlier - consider a Canon f2.0. It is a much smaller lens and you give up a minimal maximum opening. The only problem with the Canon is the lens hood. I don't think Canon made one for this lens, but I have been using a Fuji 40mm diameter hood and it seems to work well. The rendering is more modern than my other LTM lenses but not obnoxiously so. They, too, can have haze. Neither lens has a focus tab, if that's important to you. The CV 35 2.5 gets rave reviews.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2019   #17
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teemō View Post
....

There are plenty of Skopars available. Do you know if they have much distortion? I am guessing sharpness is good into the corners wide open too?
Does either lens have any focus shift when stopped down compared to wide open?
....[/url]

I can't recall distortion to be something bugging me within years I used all three different versions of this lens. Same about focus shift. Can't recall any.
It was sharp like any other normal lens. No corners smearing.

Nine pages of images from this lens, many are taking with film.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?
t=97500&page=1

Hundred of mine with Color Skopar 35 2.5. All on film. Some of them with it on R.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_...%20Skopar%2035

This one should be wide open. It was getting dark and it was crappy Polypan F 50.


Bessa R and Color Skopar 35 2.5 P. Focus on fire pit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teemō View Post
... I am sure if I cannot clean it myself (if the blocks are locked together with cement) than an optical technician probably could get them apart.
....
Absolutely. For more than half of the price you paid for this lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2019   #18
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by presspass View Post
Repeating what was said earlier - consider a Canon f2.0. It is a much smaller lens and you give up a minimal maximum opening. The only problem with the Canon is the lens hood. I don't think Canon made one for this lens, but I have been using a Fuji 40mm diameter hood and it seems to work well. The rendering is more modern than my other LTM lenses but not obnoxiously so. They, too, can have haze. Neither lens has a focus tab, if that's important to you. The CV 35 2.5 gets rave reviews.
Get 40 to 40.5 adapter and filter on it. No hood needed.

This is what Tom A told about this lens:

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...2&postcount=15

You must have very special version of Canon f2.0. They are tabless lenses.



https://www.photo.net/discuss/thread...rsions.253748/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2019   #19
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,690
If there is haze between cemented elements, no you will not have them separated by anyone. First, I strongly suspect the cement in modern CV lenses is not balsam but new UV cured cement. Essentially permanent. Second, if the cement is separable there are few who can or will attempt the repair in a RF lens. The last person I know of in the US has retired. The few less well known techs likely stick to older LF lenses that are easier to work with, collimate, and with balsam cement. If you happen to find someone competent who will work on cemented elements in the CV 35/1.7, they will cost at least 1.5 times the value of the lens.
Just saying.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2019   #20
presspass
filmshooter
 
presspass is online now
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,233
I apparently was not clear when I said tab less lens in reference to the Canon. I meant to say it does not have a tab.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2019   #21
Teemō
Registered User
 
Teemō is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by presspass View Post
Repeating what was said earlier - consider a Canon f2.0. It is a much smaller lens and you give up a minimal maximum opening. The only problem with the Canon is the lens hood. I don't think Canon made one for this lens, but I have been using a Fuji 40mm diameter hood and it seems to work well. The rendering is more modern than my other LTM lenses but not obnoxiously so. They, too, can have haze. Neither lens has a focus tab, if that's important to you. The CV 35 2.5 gets rave reviews.
I will keep it in mind as an option! Unless it uses an odd pitch on the thread, a hood shouldn't be a problem to buy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
I can't recall distortion to be something bugging me within years I used all three different versions of this lens. Same about focus shift. Can't recall any.
It was sharp like any other normal lens. No corners smearing.

Nine pages of images from this lens, many are taking with film.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?
t=97500&page=1

Hundred of mine with Color Skopar 35 2.5. All on film. Some of them with it on R.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_...%20Skopar%2035

This one should be wide open. It was getting dark and it was crappy Polypan F 50.

-clipped-
Bessa R and Color Skopar 35 2.5 P. Focus on fire pit.
Looks sharp right into the corners to me. It may be the ticket, we'll see! No viewfinder blockage would be superb. Do you have the 'P' or 'C' version?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rfaspen View Post
If there is haze between cemented elements, no you will not have them separated by anyone. First, I strongly suspect the cement in modern CV lenses is not balsam but new UV cured cement. Essentially permanent. Second, if the cement is separable there are few who can or will attempt the repair in a RF lens. The last person I know of in the US has retired. The few less well known techs likely stick to older LF lenses that are easier to work with, collimate, and with balsam cement. If you happen to find someone competent who will work on cemented elements in the CV 35/1.7, they will cost at least 1.5 times the value of the lens.
Just saying.
They can be separated. There are a few services in Asia which do this specifically for vintage lenses. I don't know about cost, I'll get a quote, but so far at least one business doesn't appear to have dealt with any 35/1.7's in over 5 years of business, but plenty of 50/1.1 Noktons and 75/90mm CV's. I can't find any reference to the 35/1.7 having cement issues but it appears fairly common in their other lenses. I am seeing quite a few 35/2.5's with similar mild haze. I'm thinking it's condensation due to humid storage conditions. I don't think that would occur between a doublet that doesn't have cement issues, but it could still be between individual elements of the optical block (despite that they are sealed).
The way I see (hope) it is, the haze has got a good chance of only being on the surfaces directly adjacent to the aperture - they are most exposed to penetration throughout the rest of the lens. Because of the number of CV lenses with haze or cement issues, I'm not exactly full of confidence that the issue won't just develop in the future, if the conditions are right.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2019   #22
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,516
The best thing you can do when your Cosina Voigtländer lens needs repair, is asking Stephen Gandy what to do.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2019   #23
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teemō View Post

Looks sharp right into the corners to me. It may be the ticket, we'll see! No viewfinder blockage would be superb. Do you have the 'P' or 'C' version?
I went through all three versions. I found Classic to be less prone for aperture ring shift (due to close distance to focus ring) and not flaring.
It also not limited by 0.9m as P.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2019   #24
Teemō
Registered User
 
Teemō is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
The best thing you can do when your Cosina Voigtländer lens needs repair, is asking Stephen Gandy what to do.

Erik.
Unfortunately he doesn't take gear from outside the US, and I'm not sure the lens cleaning service on his website covers the internals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
I went through all three versions. I found Classic to be less prone for aperture ring shift (due to close distance to focus ring) and not flaring.
It also not limited by 0.9m as P.
Good to know. And are there any optical differences/changes for each version of this lens?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2019   #25
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,598
Optically they are the same.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2019   #26
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teemō View Post
Unfortunately he doesn't take gear from outside the US, and I'm not sure the lens cleaning service on his website covers the internals.


You can bring your lens to a dealer connected to Ring Foto, the German importer, or send it directly to them. Benno-Strauß-Straße 39, 90763 Fürth, Duitsland⋅ Phone +49 911 65850. First call them, very nice people.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2019   #27
Teemō
Registered User
 
Teemō is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
Optically they are the same.
Cheers!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
You can bring your lens to a dealer connected to Ring Foto, the German importer, or send it directly to them. Benno-Strauß-Straße 39, 90763 Fürth, Duitsland⋅ Phone +49 911 65850. First call them, very nice people.

Erik.
So they are still servicing discontinued lenses, or will they send it somewhere else?

The tech I spoke to has experience with all types of lenses, and receives a lot of Voigtlanders, including the 35. All of them are showing separation in the cemented groups to varying degrees. He suggested it is better to buy a discounted lens with the problems and fix them, as the exact cause of the separation is unknown - probably high humidity as a lot of them from Japan come with Haze. It often occurs as a very fine mist - so usually it is not total separation as seen in older lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-22-2019   #28
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teemō View Post
They can be separated. There are a few services in Asia which do this specifically for vintage lenses. I don't know about cost, I'll get a quote, but so far at least one business doesn't appear to have dealt with any 35/1.7's in over 5 years of business, but plenty of 50/1.1 Noktons and 75/90mm CV's. I can't find any reference to the 35/1.7 having cement issues but it appears fairly common in their other lenses. I am seeing quite a few 35/2.5's with similar mild haze. I'm thinking it's condensation due to humid storage conditions. I don't think that would occur between a doublet that doesn't have cement issues, but it could still be between individual elements of the optical block (despite that they are sealed).
The way I see (hope) it is, the haze has got a good chance of only being on the surfaces directly adjacent to the aperture - they are most exposed to penetration throughout the rest of the lens. Because of the number of CV lenses with haze or cement issues, I'm not exactly full of confidence that the issue won't just develop in the future, if the conditions are right.
This is very surprising. I had conversations about seperation and cements with John Van Stelton (Focal Point) in the U.S. before he retired. John was the last "great" lens repair shop on this continent. Yes, SK Grimes are good too, but are reluctant to work on lenses of interest to me... except for my LF lenses.

Most modern lenses with UV cemented groups require substantial effort and nasty chemicals to separate. Older lenses that used balsam can be separated more easily, and then it becomes a matter of how practical the access will be (e.g., the Leica 90/2.8 elmarit v1). According to John, the effort and time required to repair a lens requiring separation of UV cemented elements can lead to a cost greater than the lens, sometimes much greater. He seemed to suggest it is most practical for lenses that are rare or special. And that's considering the separation part, lens disassembly, cleaning, reassembly, collimation can be difficult too -- especially modern zoom lenses, but luckily we're talking lovely little RF lenses here

I suppose I would like to know more about the shops you mentioned. I have lenses with separation issues that I would like to repair, but not spend a fortune in doing so. I repair most of my own balsam-cemented issues, but not the others. Methylene chloride was just banned from consumer use in the U.S. and it was banned in the E.U. (and U.K. now) a while ago. In any case, if cost is reasonable at the shops you mentioned, shipping to/from Asia is not a barrier.

Oddly enough, I seem to have a small can of Methylene chloride in my shop. Can't remember why I have it. Better hold on to it because I can't get more. According to the press release I read, the reason for banning consumer sale of MeCL2 is due to the high number of people using the product in a non-ventilated space -- exactly what the instructions on the label tell you NOT to do -- Usually in all caps.
Are we being saved from ourselves? Or thwarting natural selection?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-22-2019   #29
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teemō View Post
Cheers!



So they are still servicing discontinued lenses, or will they send it somewhere else?
They still service them or they send them to the factory in Japan. It then will take a few months, but they do it. But why do you ask this here? Just call them.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-22-2019   #30
Takkun
Ian M.
 
Takkun's Avatar
 
Takkun is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sunny South Seattle
Posts: 794
Teemō—
I dug out my Ultron as I’m planning to take it to a local repairer this week and get to the bottom of whatever’s ailing it. They did a number on my M5 but had good luck with vintage lenses so far.



Not as bad as I remember, but he grassing happened very quickly. I don’t mind it at all. The hood, which is floating around somewhere, fared a bit worse.

I’d share some samples but I don’t have a coded adapter (for identification shooting digital) nor keep detailed records of my images, so I couldn’t tell you which were which, but the internet being what it is, there’s plenty of info out there.
__________________
Ian M., Seattle
Current bag contents: Just a Fuji GX680iii. Nothing else will fit.

--
my infrequently updated blog
Finally on Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2019   #31
Teemō
Registered User
 
Teemō is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
They still service them or they send them to the factory in Japan. It then will take a few months, but they do it. But why do you ask this here? Just call them.

Erik.
Saves the international credit, and most companies will not repair such products due to lack of parts. Voigtlander.de states the authorised repairer is ffs-service.de but in other countries, it seems as though the equipment is sent back to Japan by the local distributor, and not actually repaired or even properly looked at by Cosina - with very, very long wait times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Takkun View Post
Teemō—
I dug out my Ultron as I’m planning to take it to a local repairer this week and get to the bottom of whatever’s ailing it. They did a number on my M5 but had good luck with vintage lenses so far.

-clip-

Not as bad as I remember, but the brassing happened very quickly. I don’t mind it at all. The hood, which is floating around somewhere, fared a bit worse.

I’d share some samples but I don’t have a coded adapter (for identification shooting digital) nor keep detailed records of my images, so I couldn’t tell you which were which, but the internet being what it is, there’s plenty of info out there.
It looks better than the random flaking seen on some lenses. I guess that was Cosina's intention with the not-so durable paint - to give the lens more classic appeal. I really liked the black though, it seems to give the engravings a kind of 'depth' about them.
Of course pretty much everything you can read on this lens indicates that it's perfect (for the money).
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2019   #32
Teemō
Registered User
 
Teemō is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfaspen View Post
This is very surprising. I had conversations about seperation and cements with John Van Stelton (Focal Point) in the U.S. before he retired. John was the last "great" lens repair shop on this continent. Yes, SK Grimes are good too, but are reluctant to work on lenses of interest to me... except for my LF lenses.

Most modern lenses with UV cemented groups require substantial effort and nasty chemicals to separate. Older lenses that used balsam can be separated more easily, and then it becomes a matter of how practical the access will be (e.g., the Leica 90/2.8 elmarit v1). According to John, the effort and time required to repair a lens requiring separation of UV cemented elements can lead to a cost greater than the lens, sometimes much greater. He seemed to suggest it is most practical for lenses that are rare or special. And that's considering the separation part, lens disassembly, cleaning, reassembly, collimation can be difficult too -- especially modern zoom lenses, but luckily we're talking lovely little RF lenses here

I suppose I would like to know more about the shops you mentioned. I have lenses with separation issues that I would like to repair, but not spend a fortune in doing so. I repair most of my own balsam-cemented issues, but not the others. Methylene chloride was just banned from consumer use in the U.S. and it was banned in the E.U. (and U.K. now) a while ago. In any case, if cost is reasonable at the shops you mentioned, shipping to/from Asia is not a barrier.

Oddly enough, I seem to have a small can of Methylene chloride in my shop. Can't remember why I have it. Better hold on to it because I can't get more. According to the press release I read, the reason for banning consumer sale of MeCL2 is due to the high number of people using the product in a non-ventilated space -- exactly what the instructions on the label tell you NOT to do -- Usually in all caps.
Are we being saved from ourselves? Or thwarting natural selection?
It's interesting that you mention Focal Point, I had the website bookmarked for some time. I've just tried it again but it goes to a Chinese website now... he's retired.
The service I found is "老鏡回春記專業鏡頭維修服務 Old Manual Focus Lens Repair & CLA" in Taiwan. Although this probably isn't the price for every lens, I was quoted US$150 for 1 cemented group, and US$270 for 2 groups in the Voigtlander. To me that seems quite reasonable, especially if you own an expensive or rare lens.
I have no idea if Cosina use UV-cement or something else, and not sure what this service uses, but they offer a 2-year warranty.
It seems Cosina might had resolved the cement issue since their M-mount lenses, at least.

While it seems like many Voigtlander LTM lenses suffer from the issue, there is a bit of confirmation bias since lenses with haze are more likely to be sold again than lenses without haze.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2019   #33
maddoc
... likes film.
 
maddoc's Avatar
 
maddoc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 名古屋
Age: 54
Posts: 7,315
I just recently bought a copy for a reasonable price at Yahoo! Auction in Japan. The seller described the lens as "slightly" hazy and from his photos I could not really see haze so I assumed it wouldn`t be to bad. When the lens had arrived I immediately checked for haze, barely visible under normal conditions but was really surprised when shining with a flash light through the lens, it appeared almost milky opaque. I tested the lens with film and it behaved OK except under strong back light conditions.


Last week I sent the lens to Cosina, Japan and got a reply on Monday telling me that 1) there are no spare-parts for that lens anymore and b) that kind of "haze" could not be cleaned. I was told that they would not even attempt to do so and send it right back to me.


I am wondering now what kind of haze that is, which cannot be cleaned and requires exchange of a lens element?





__________________
- Gabor

flickr
pBase
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2019   #34
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is online now
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 975
As I posted in another thread about my luckless hunt for a haze-free 35 1.7 Ultron, a repair person told me he suspected it to be a problem with the optical cement used. That would certainly explain why cosina do not want to tackle the repair. I have disassembled my 28 1.9 Ultron which suffers from a little bit of haze as well and it might well be in a cemented group there as well, but additionally I found some haze on some surfaces. The 90 3.5 has already gained an online reputation of getting hazy, and I believe I've read this about the rare "Rollei" labeled ltm Sonnar 40 2.8 as well. I don't understand it because Cosina had been manufacturing lenses for a while when they started making ltm lenses, but apparently Cosina had some issues in the first series of ltm lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2019   #35
TenEleven
Registered User
 
TenEleven's Avatar
 
TenEleven is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 52
I guess I'll chime in with similar experiences here. I've wanted a fast well corrected 35 LTM for quite some while now, but they are either absurdly expensive or like the ultrons I've seen have haze and/or other condition issues. A shame, really, the 35/1.7 seems like an ace lens otherwise.
__________________
Manuel
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2019   #36
maddoc
... likes film.
 
maddoc's Avatar
 
maddoc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 名古屋
Age: 54
Posts: 7,315
This reminds of a CV 75/2.5 that I had to return one month earlier because it showed exactly the same kind of opaque haze somewhere inside the lens. I wasn`t aware that so many different lenses of the older design were effected.



Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
As I posted in another thread about my luckless hunt for a haze-free 35 1.7 Ultron, a repair person told me he suspected it to be a problem with the optical cement used. That would certainly explain why cosina do not want to tackle the repair. I have disassembled my 28 1.9 Ultron which suffers from a little bit of haze as well and it might well be in a cemented group there as well, but additionally I found some haze on some surfaces. The 90 3.5 has already gained an online reputation of getting hazy, and I believe I've read this about the rare "Rollei" labeled ltm Sonnar 40 2.8 as well. I don't understand it because Cosina had been manufacturing lenses for a while when they started making ltm lenses, but apparently Cosina had some issues in the first series of ltm lenses.
__________________
- Gabor

flickr
pBase
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2019   #37
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 5,332
I will chime in with my two yen as well. I have had bad luck multiple times with hazy older LTM (and M-mount) CV lenses. After some disassembly in each case, I confirmed the haze was in between cemented elements and unrepairable (well, beyond my capabilities anyway), so it was the optical cement that was the culprit. Its a very common problem with the Ricoh LTM 21mm and 28mm lenses too.
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2019   #38
Gregm61
Registered User
 
Gregm61 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 476
It's one thing when you see these issues in a Leica lens from the 1950's through the 70's, but a lens less than 15-20 years old seems a little absurd. Hopefully, whatever the issue was, they're doing things differently today in producing the M mount line of lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2019   #39
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 5,332
Just a personal observation from the lenses I've handled and used, but I think Voigtlander build quality improved by leaps and bounds when Cosina started manufacturing Zeiss lenses (despite there being some teething problems with the Zeiss lenses as well). The build quality of the latest Voigtlander lenses from Cosina is excellent IMO.
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2019   #40
maddoc
... likes film.
 
maddoc's Avatar
 
maddoc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 名古屋
Age: 54
Posts: 7,315
The 50/2.5 in LTM also seems to be very OK, at least my copy of the lens for sure is.
__________________
- Gabor

flickr
pBase
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:07.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.