Sharp, contrasty; no vignetting, flare or distortion.

a little heavy.

Absolutely no problems with mine (2 lenses). Clearly there were QC issues with the early lenses.

Similar Products Used:

Summicron 50/2, Hexanon 50/2, Elmar 50/2.8 .....

Size and design.

Quality control/Resolution and vignetting

Shockingly average performance. Good contrast, but otherwise pretty weak, especially at widest apertures. My first was no good, and had to be replaced. The second is not technically "defective", so I am stuck with a bad decision. Live and learn.

Customer Service

Non existent from the factory as far as I can tell.

Similar Products Used:

Contax,Leica,Nikon,canon.

Seems solidly constructed and well-finished. Quick focusing lever, if you happen to like it (I don't). Nice 10-blade iris with click-stops at half-stop intervals.

So-so optical performance for the price and spec. Focusing lever (if like me you don't happen to like it).

I would have to agree with the last reviewer. I have been using the 50/2.5 Color Skopar on a Bessa R2 for several months, and I also find its optical performance a bit disappointing. It's not exactly bad - I have had some quite pleasing results from it, but it's not sharp enough to consistently give 10x8 prints which I find satisfactory. 5x7's are OK as long as you don't look too closely. In lens-swapping comparisons I reckon its performance is virtually indistinguishable from a 30-year-old Jupiter-8 (Russian Sonnar copy) which I bought with a Zorki-4 body for a total outlay of 20 GBP. Sharpness, contrast and colour rendition are comparable, and in choosing which of a pair of prints subjectively has the better overall pictorial rendition, there's nothing in it. If there's anything to choose at all, half the time I pick one lens, half the other. So you might as well buy a Jupiter-8 and save a bag of money. It's down to expectations, I suppose. I expected nothing from the Jupiter, but it's a perfectly usable lens, so I am happy. I expected the Skopar to be a bit better than that, with up-to-date materials and computations, so I am disappointed. If you are tempted by this lens, and you are a bit picky, my advice, for what it's worth, would be to bite the bullet and shell out for a Summicron, which easily meets all expectations, however demanding. It only weighs a few grams more (in black finish) and optically it's superior in every way. It really is worth the extra.

Customer Service

Not Needed.

Similar Products Used:

Various Russian rangefinder lenses, Leica 50/2 Summicron M.

Build quality and small size. Easy to focus.

Poor optical quality for a $325 lens.

Small, heavy for its size, and well built. The optics are a bit disappointing, with pincushion distortion that one would not expect on a 50mm lens. Not terribly sharp compared to the competition.

Customer Service

Not needed

Similar Products Used:

50/1.5 Nokton, 50/3.5 Heliar, 50/2 Hexanon, 50/2 Summicron.

Size, quick to focus, lens cap fits over the hood, price compared to competition.

Haven't found any yet.

I can't tell you that this lens is sharper than X lens. I've never used it on a tripod, and probably never will--that's not what rangefinder cameras are for. I can tell you that it handles beautifully. It focuses from infinity to its closest in a 45-degree turn. The Leica-style focus tab is just the right size and shape, and it's in the right place. I'm tempted to gush about the way this lens handles; It's the nicest 50 I've ever owned, and I've owned a bunch. The lens is small, but not light. It's twice as heavy as my Voigtländer 35 Compact, due to the 50's brass mount instead of aluminum. It has that "quality feel" that is difficult to objectify, but obvious when you pick it up. If Leica had any sense --as much as I love their cameras, I often wonder-- They would rebrand this lens and sell it for three times as much.

Customer Service

Unknown. I've heard both good and bad from other Voigtländer users.

Similar Products Used:

50 and 35 Summicrons, Voigtländer wide angles