New Version Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 IN STOCK & SHIPPING

xayraa33 said:
Odd that the image quality of a Cosina Voigtlander designed and made product tops a legendary optical firm that gave us the famous 5cm f1.4 lens in S and LTM mount and the spectacular 105mm f2.5 lens that came in S LTM and F mount.
Click to expand...

Not really. It all comes down to placement in the market. If they make cheap lenses, then the quality won't be so good.

Perfect example is Sigma. They used to make low end budget lenses back in the 80's, 90's etc.
Now their Art series lenses beat the equivalent Nikons optically, and are almost as good as the vaunted Zeiss Otus lenses for much less money.
Sigma decided to move up market. It's the same as what Cosina is doing with its Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses.
 
Huss said:
Not really. It all comes down to placement in the market. If they make cheap lenses, then the quality won't be so good.

Perfect example is Sigma. They used to make low end budget lenses back in the 80's, 90's etc.
Now their Art series lenses beat the equivalent Nikons optically, and are almost as good as the vaunted Zeiss Otus lenses for much less money.
Sigma decided to move up market. It's the same as what Cosina is doing with its Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am aware of all that, Zeiss have always been top shelf primo lenses even in the DDR made lineup when compared to other DDR made lenses.

I got a fast 200mm lens that I bought for use when I was shooting for my High School's yearbook, sports and stage plays and R'n R band concerts (so long ago that I have a hard time remembering it all) and this Sigma made lens was nothing to write home about. I still am prejudiced against Sigma made optics to this very day.
 
Huss said:
Not really. It all comes down to placement in the market. If they make cheap lenses, then the quality won't be so good.

Perfect example is Sigma. They used to make low end budget lenses back in the 80's, 90's etc.
Now their Art series lenses beat the equivalent Nikons optically, and are almost as good as the vaunted Zeiss Otus lenses for much less money.
Sigma decided to move up market. It's the same as what Cosina is doing with its Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's utter nonsense.
Would Leica have allowed Sigma to make lenses for the Leica R — some nine Sigmas, and two Vario-Elmar-R [!]— if they haven't been very good?
 
radi(c)al_cam said:
Sorry, that's utter nonsense.
Would Leica have allowed Sigma to make lenses for the Leica R — some nine Sigmas, and two Vario-Elmar-R [!]— if they haven't been very good?
Click to expand...


Don't be sorry. The lenses Sigma made for Leica were at a completely different price point and quality level than what Sigma was making for the general public back then.
 
xayraa33 said:
Odd that the image quality of a Cosina Voigtlander designed and made product tops a legendary optical firm....
Click to expand...

Huss said:
Not really. It all comes down to placement in the market. If they make cheap lenses, then the quality won't be so good.

Perfect example is Sigma. They used to make low end budget lenses back in the 80's, 90's etc.
Now their Art series lenses beat the equivalent Nikons optically, and are almost as good as the vaunted Zeiss Otus lenses for much less money.
Sigma decided to move up market. It's the same as what Cosina is doing with its Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses.
Click to expand...

xayraa33 said:
Yes, I am aware of all that...
Click to expand...

Then what do you find odd?
 
Should be a great portrait lens ... and very reasonably priced in my opinion.
 
Huss said:
Then what do you find odd?
Click to expand...

I still find it odd because I still associate third tier lens makers with still making third tier lenses and not out doing the big boys.

It is ingrained perception formed many decades ago when it was truer then it is now.

Cosina was Argus Cosina in the 1970s and not Voigtlander, certainly not Carl Zeiss ... and Sigma was a little better than Asanuma and house brands like Hanimex and Spiratone and maybe an equal of house brand Vivitar pre series 1, nothing more.

It is as simple as that really.
 
xayraa33 said:
I still find it odd because I still associate third tier lens makers with still making third tier lenses and not out doing the big boys.

It is ingrained perception formed many decades ago when it was truer then it is now.
Click to expand...

Ok I get that. In my camera bag here at work I have a D750 with a 50 1.8G, and the Cosina Zeiss 35 f2 lens. The Nikon 50 1.8G feels like a featherweight disposable piece of plastic in comparison to the Cosina lens.
Optically they are both excellent, with the Cosina Zeiss being a knock out lens.
Times have changed.
 
Huss said:
Ok I get that. In my camera bag here at work I have a D750 with a 50 1.8G, and the Cosina Zeiss 35 f2 lens. The Nikon 50 1.8G feels like a featherweight disposable piece of plastic in comparison to the Cosina lens.
Optically they are both excellent, with the Cosina Zeiss being a knock out lens.
Times have changed.
Click to expand...

Zeiss will always have optics makers like Kyocera or Cosina or anyone else make their Zeiss lenses to Zeiss designs, Zeiss specs and Zeiss standards.
 
I found the version II of the 58mm f/1.4 to be so good, especially wide open, that I got rid of my Nikon 50mm lenses. That included the 50mm 1.2 AIS (too much barrel distortion), and a 50mm 1.8 AI. The latter was pretty good, but it has lower contrast wide open compared to the Voigtlander, and the Nikon 1.8 has noticeable barrel distortion when not at infinity. The only Nikon 50mm that I kept was the f/2.8 AIS Micro.

The only thing lacking on version II was the meter coupling prong to mate with my FTN meter on my F. It looks like the new version is the answer to my problem.

As far as quality of construction goes, I see nothing in the version II to indicate that the construction was anything less than first class. It is ALL solid metal and glass. No plastic that I can see.
 
I'll keep this lens in mind. I use a 55mm F3.5 MicroNikkor mostly and have for some reason shied away from fast 50's from Nikon.
 
Huss said:
Don't be sorry. The lenses Sigma made for Leica were at a completely different price point and quality level than what Sigma was making for the general public back then.
Click to expand...

LOL, «the general public» …

So they did it alike the then Eastern bloc economy, you mean?

The question was who will receive an item in the end? An ambassador's family, a distinct party member, or a mere nurse without party book, e.g.?

:D
 
I was disappointed with every Sigma and Tokina lens that I purchase for my Nikons back in the 1980's. Decided to use only Nikon lenses since then for my SLRs. Perhaps it's time to reconsider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top