[Leica] CV lens recommendations

[jmaddox01 at suddenlink.net (Jack Maddox)]

Henning Wulff wrote:
> At 8:35 AM -0500 3/30/07, Jack Maddox wrote:
>> Daniel Ridings wrote:
>>> Justin Viiret wrote:
>>>
>>>>> From what I am hearing the Nokton needs stopped down to 2.8 and 
>>>>> that most CV glass is subject to flaring.. Super wide angles are 
>>>>> not my cup of tea. I generally use a 35.
>>>>
>>>> Is this true? I've only really used the 40/1.4, but I've never, 
>>>> ever got it to flare. Not even once, and I used to use it without 
>>>> the hood all the time (couldn't get one until about 9 months after 
>>>> I bought the lens) . Perhaps this is only limited some of the CV 
>>>> glass?
>>>
>>> I'm with Justin on this. I have a 21/4 that I have rarely managed to 
>>> get to flare (by shooting straigth into the sun).
>>>
>>> CV glass doesn't flare as much as Leica lenses from the 50's and 
>>> before. Sounds like a rumour if you ask me.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>> Daniel,
>>
>> I am glad to hear that  flare in CV glass may not be an issue. I was 
>> quoting from a review that was dated 2004. If it was true then enough 
>> time has passed to correct the issue. Most of my older Leica glass 
>> flares a good bit. It would be nice to have a lens that one didn't 
>> have to worry excessively about flare.
>>
>> Jack
>
> The CV lenses I have do flare more than the modern equivalents from 
> Leica (in those cases where there are equivalents, but as noted 
> before, their flare levels in most cases are the same or better than 
> those of Leica of the 50's and 60s. However, and this is a big 
> however, the Leica lenses of the 50's and 60's tended to have quite 
> smooth flare, with overall contrast reduction under most 
> circumstances, and the CV lenses while having overall lower flare 
> levels tend to produce more of the harsh flare/reflection spots that 
> can destroy pictures. All anecdotal, but based on some experience.
>
> The 21/4 is not as good as the 21/2.8 aspheric, but it's better than 
> the 21/2.8 non-aspheric in almost every respect. The only strange 
> thing that has come up is that while on film it's not that far off the 
> Aspheric, on the M8 the Aspheric pulls away. The corners from the CV 
> are noticeably poorer. Strangely the 15/4.5, which is not as good on 
> film as the 21/4 (as much as they can be compared), is relatively 
> better on the M8. Unfortunately it's a kludge putting an IR cut filter 
> on it. The 12 works fine, but I haven't yet been able to decently 
> correct shots that were taken with the IR cut filter. I need to find 
> out about the proper correction parameters to use when dealing with 
> the cyan shift. If anyone has discovered a good workflow, I'd be very 
> interested. Meanwhile, I use it without the filter when I want colour.
>
> The 50 Nokton, on the other hand, while having better resolution than 
> the pre-aspheric Summilux over most of the image field at all the 
> wider apertures, has a rendition that is harsher and for most people 
> less pleasing. Flare levels are similar to mid production periods of 
> the Summilux, as far as I've been able to determine. In the end, I 
> didn't like the Nokton that much.
>
Henning,

Thank you very much for the information on the CV glass. I particularly 
find useful the fact that the 21/4 is superior to the 21/2.8 
non-aspheric. If I were to have bought one I more than likely would have 
chosen the faster lens. More than one person has told me they do not 
like the Nokton  for various reasons. I won't be buying it. Some also 
say that the glass flares and other that it doesn't. I tend to believe 
that if it happens to one it could happen to all. From what I am hearing 
the CV lens is not as good as Leica but still a good value for the 
money. I have had recommendations for the 50/2.0 Heliar and the APO 90. 
Over the weekend I will decide which of these two I would like to have.

Jack