Much Ado About A Filigree: Camera Gear Form Vs. Function.
For starters what the heck is a filigree. It is what the Voigtlander website calls this little focus lever dealie.
Ok, let me back up and share a bit of what I learned while searching for a fast-ish wide-ish Voigtlander lens. Why Voigtlander? I am glad I imagined that you asked. After a mixed bag of Artisan lenses I really liked…
…I pivoted to a nice little Voigtlander family.
Why another wide lens when I like the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 21mm f/4 VM P?
I found I had a bit of a focal length gap between 21mm and 40mm.
So, I decided to go with Voigtlander. Between 21mm and 40mm, 28mm seems to make the most sense. I could go with a fast aperture option, like the Voigtlander Nokton 28mm f/1.5 Vintage Aspherical Type II VM. But that brought two things I did not want.
- Larger size.
- More expensive.
So, I could go the other way with the smaller and moderately fast Voigtlander 28mm f/2.8 Color-Skopar Type I Aspherical. They even offered two aesthetic variations, an older vintage style model and a more modern fit. Nice. But Voigtlander had another lens up its sleeve.
A bit of a Goldilocks lens for me.
- Not as expensive as the f/1.5 but less expensive than the f/2.8.
- Smaller than the f/1.5 but not that much larger than the f/2.8.
- And most obviously not as fast as the f/1.5 but faster than the f/2.8.
But which version?
Like the other two 28mm lenses, Voigtlander made several versions. Three to be specific… Wait.. Four now that I think about it. There is also an earlier non-ASPH version.
This one was largely dismissed for three reasons.
- Reviews indicate that it is less sharp than the newer version.
- A bit larger than the newer version.
- For reasons I cannot sort out, it is just as expensive as the newer version on the used market.
Larger and less sharp foot the same dollar=no.
Now onto the three variations of the newer ASPH model. There is a Type I with the aforementioned filigree focus dealie.
It is also unique for having the bling-ier knurled silver trim around the middle.
There are also two versions of the Type II, which both have a focus tab like my 21mm f/4. One in all silver and one in black and silver.
Smaller than the earlier non-ASPH variant while being sharper=yes. But which one?
They all have the same inner workings so this is where the form vs. function thing in the title comes in. Most reviews I watched and read had no love for the Type I. One even labeled the filigree a farm animal appendage. I am an 8 year old humor wise so I laughed, but wow. Tell us how you really feel. Similarly, the extra bit of Type I silver bling caught some flack in other reviews as well. While not that bothered by either, I was a bit cautious and bought what was labeled as a black Type II variant from KEH. Unlike MPB, who displays pictures of the actual gear you are purchasing, KEH puts up a representative image. Does not happen often, but I have gotten the wrong product before due to mislabeling.
Once received a M42 mount Jupiter 9 when it was labeled as an M39 mount. Good for everyone I happened to have both camera mounts in my possession so I soldiered on with my Zenit E.
Other times the difference was a bit more problematic like the time I ordered a Pentax AF lens but received the manual focus version. A nice lens, but that one went back… Where was I? Right…. The lens I received.
Expecting a black Type II with a focus tab I received a Type I with a filigree focus lever.
And you know what… I do not care. I am reminded of the whining that went on in a few posts about ZEISS putting a focus… um… hump?.. bump?..
…on its 50mm f/2 ZM…
…instead of a focus tab. The horror. I did not care at all. Focus ring, tab, hump, filigree… whatever. The filigree is fine. And as for the extra bit of silver trim?
I do not care about that either. Am I saying that I am glad they sent me the “wrong” lens. Not really. I am saying I do not care one way or the other. Now that I have it, I would be fine no matter which variant I received as long as it has the same innards. Which it does.
There was also talk of which would look best on an all black or a black and silver camera. Welp… That does not matter to me either. Looks fine on black and silver.
Looks fine on my, Darth Vader your camera is ready, Hexar RF.
Would another variant “look better”… Who cares?
But I will tell you something that I now realize. I now think I know another reason why I pivoted away from the just fine Artisan lenses. And they are just fine. I stand by that… But I like these Voigtlander lenses better. In retrospect, if I am honest with myself I had fallen prey to another weakness. An aperture spec per buck obsession. f/1.1, f/1.25, and f/1.5 aperture for less. Where do I sign? But with some distance from those lenses, I have to admit that I would not go back. They served their purpose and filled a gap allowing me access to many lenses in a system known for eye watering lens prices. But my priorities have now shifted.
- I prize sharpness and issue free IQ over pure aperture specs.
- My 50mm f/1.1 and 75mm f/1.25 were great fun but I now prefer the more sober results obtained with the 40mm f/1.2 and 75mm f/1.8.
- With a fast upstart lens comes girth.
- On paper I loved the TTArisan 21mm f/1.5. But in practice, its size was an issue. The same goes for the 7Artisans 28mm f/1.4. Great lenses for the spec and price but I prefer the 21mm f/4 and 28mm f/2.
- Better build.
- While not cheap or flimsy by any stretch the Voigtlander lenses are built better.
- Calibration.
- A perk noted for 7Artisans lenses and TTArtisan lenses is that you can adjust them. The truth of the matter is that it is a necessity, not a perk. I had to adjust nearly every Artisan lens I have owned. This was not the case with the Leica, ZEISS, and Voigtlander lenses I have owned. Whether many years old or fairly new they just focused properly.
Add in the fact that most of these Voigtlander lenses cost me little more on the used market than newer upstarts and I am well pleased.
Ok. That Artisan detour handled back to the task at hand.
Form vs. Function.
More and more I only concern myself with what gear can do, rather than how it looks. Or how “cool” I think I may look while using it. That is a hopeless endeavor by the way. I am not sure where it started exactly but the first time it became an obvious inner discussion was when I was obsessed with having a medium format digital camera and lens. Specifically a Fujfilm GFX 50R and their 80mm f/1.7. Came close a number of times. But in the end I could not answer one simple question to my satisfaction.
Why?
When a reasonable answer escaped me I had to admit that it was one thing. I wanted to say these words:
I have a modern medium format digital camera.
One experience proved this to be a fallacy. For my purposes. A bridal session where I could not tell the difference between a high end full frame lens and a medium format digital camera.
By extension I can also admit I wanted to be seen with a Fujifilm GFX 50R. Not proud of it. But it is true. But in the end I chose function over form.
And I have no regrets. What does that have to do with this topic. Quite a bit actually.
I like rangefinders. A lot.
But that did not mean I needed the latest and greatest gear. Unlike mainstream gear there are few advantages to choosing newer gear over older. They are all manual focus. They are all sold on the fact that there is a consistency to the experience regardless of manufacture date. So instead of newer M I went with an older model. Why Leica when Pixii offers a full frame alternative? No brand nonsense here either. The Pixii lacks a shutter and a back screen while being more expensive than used Leicas.
The film side was a bit easier. Unlike digital M cameras plenty of other companies joined in the analog M mount jamboree. In the end I chose the Hexar RF pictured above. A fraction of the price. It meets my every functional need. So a rangefinder experience based on what Leica started without a Leica lens or camera. Function over form.
Now I bring it back to the lens in question here.
As stated earlier I am more concerned with what it does than what it looks like.
Function over form.
A while ago I started selling off cameras that I took more photos of than with. While a pretty camera or lens does give a bit of a dopamine hit it should not be my top priority.
Welp. That is all I have got.
A whole post inspired by a filigree.
Happy capturing.
-ELW
Eric L. Woods 
4 Replies to “Much Ado About A Filigree: Camera Gear Form Vs. Function.”
Comments are closed.