Normally people are quite enthusiastic about the quality of the Voigtlander lenses. I am interested in the 50mm 2.5 Skopar. I have not seen much entusiasm for this lens on the web. I have seen a good deal of entusiasm for the 35mm 2.5 Skopar.

Does any APUG members have any substantial experience with this lens to share? I am looking for an inexpensive compact 50mm to use on a rangefinder camera. If it was not for the expense I would buy a new 50mm 2.8 Elmar.

I find a lot of people spend the extra bucks and head with the 50 Nokton, I too am curious with the 50 f2.5 Skopar, I love my 35 f2.5 a lot on my M3.
Bill

Dear Claire,

I have one and it's excellent; my wife and I often use it in place of the 50/1.5 because it's smaller, lighter and takes 39mm filters instead of 52mm. It's beautifully finished and very easy to use, like an old Leica lens. It's true that it's not brilliant at f/2.5 but even f/2.8 transforms it to a superb lens and at f/5.6 there's not much need for anything else.

Put it this way: it'll be going with us to Portugal in a few days, along with my 35/1.4 pre-aspheric Summilux and new 75/2 Summicron and Frances's 28/1.9 Ultron and 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar. As Frances says, "I was never much for standard lenses until I got that, and now, well, it's my standard lens..."

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Thank you. For some reason this lens get mediocre reviews at various websights.

Dear Claire,

If you were nearer, I'd lend it to you. I don't think you'd be disappointed.

Cheers,

Bart Applecroaker
(Well, people here seem to love their 'handles')

A used 50 f2.5 Skopar is tempting as my Collapsable Summicron that came with my M3 is flare prone at the worst moments.

Bill

Normally people are quite enthusiastic about the quality of the Voigtlander lenses. I am interested in the 50mm 2.5 Skopar. I have not seen much entusiasm for this lens on the web.

Claire, A friend of me owns it, and I would agree to all what Roger said. Maybe one should add that the lens got a bit pincushion distortion, what gets visible if you got a straight line in the frame parallel and close to the edge. Tho it is much less distortion than my J8 shows I personally would not take it if architectural photography would be my passion. For all other purposes it is surely a top performer, crystal clear and super precise, a bit of the Industar type, 3d midformat look sometimes, and it is worth much more than the handful of bucks you pay for it . Also the quality feel is top.

Best,
Bertram

I suspect the lack of widespread enthusiasm is because of the speed, or rather the lack thereof. There are a lot of good choices in 50/2 screw mount, so I have never felt the need for the 50/2.5.

I suspect the lack of widespread enthusiasm is because of the speed, or rather the lack thereof. There are a lot of good choices in 50/2 screw mount, so I have never felt the need for the 50/2.5.

I'm sure you're right but I prefer it to most of the old f/2 lenses I have owned, including many by (dare I say it) Leitz. And it's so compact and ergonomic!

Cheers,

R.

I'm sure you're right but I prefer it to most of the old f/2 lenses I have owned, including many by (dare I say it) Leitz. And it's so compact and ergonomic!

Cheers,

R.

I don't doubt that, but I happen to have lucked into a very good Jupiter 8 for $8. When I am shooting it is not readily obvious from the prints that I have switched from the 35/2.5 Skopar to the Jupiter 8. So my next Voigtlander lens will probably be either the 21 or the 25.