**This is an incomplete review. I plan on adding more sample images and final thoughts in the near future.**

Updated August 2024

Introduction

The announcement of the Voigtlander 50/2.2 Color-Skopar didn’t initially grab my attention. The M-mount 50mm f/2 space is already crowded with superb lenses. I used to own the Voigtlander 50/2 APO which achieves incredible image quality while remaining reasonably compact and affordable. I then transitioned to the Zeiss 50/2 Planar when I stumbled upon a like-new copy for $400. That lens still provides excellent image quality and is delightfully small and light.

But despite already having an essentially perfect 50mm lens, I slowly became tempted to buy the new Voigtlander 50/2.2 for two reasons. First, it focuses down to 0.5m, which I find highly useful on my M10-R. Second, I love small lenses and the 50/2.2 is even smaller and lighter than the Zeiss Planar. For only $600 new I decided to give it a shot.

In this review I’ll be comparing the 50/2.2 to the 50/2 Planar as I suspect a lot of people will be deciding between these two, including myself. And since the Planar is optically almost identical to the Leica 50 Summicron non-APO, it will serve as a comparison to that lens by proxy.

Build quality and mechanics

Size and handling

If the size category for the Zeiss 50 Planar is “compact,” then the category for the Voigtlander 50/2.2 is “adorable.” Only a few other M mount lenses are this size or smaller, and no other mainstream 50mm lenses are this small. The 50/2.2 balances very nicely on my M10-R; in fact, it adds almost no noticeable weight to the camera. The focusing tab is a joy to use and the aperture ring is perfectly placed.

Viewfinder blockage

An additional perk of this lens’s tiny size is there is no viewfinder blockage except for about 1% of the frame at 0.7m with the hood attached.

Minimum focus distance

Dealing with a 0.7m minimum focusing distance is a frequent frustration for me with M lenses, especially since I like to take pictures of food. When used on cameras with liveview, the Voigtlander 50/2.2’s 0.5m minimum distance significantly increases the maximum reproduction ratio:

A lot of people complain about the lack of haptic feedback when focusing closer than 0.7m, but I haven’t found this to be much of a problem. It’s easy to tell when the rangefinder is no longer coupled, because the rangefinder patch will no longer be moving as you turn the focus ring.

Having this high of a magnification at my fingertips has been really convenient for food photography, which I previously could only do by attaching a close-up filter.

Light transmission

If there’s any reason to choose the Zeiss Planar over the Voigtlander, it might be the slight difference in f-stop. I wanted to see the true difference in light transmission so here’s a side-by-side of both lenses wide open with the same ISO and shutter speed:

The Zeiss looks about 1/3 stop brighter than the Voigtlander, and there’s noticeably more background blur. It’s not a huge difference but could tip the scales for those who find f/2 to already be on the slower side for their use cases.

Image quality

Distortion:
The Voigtlander has minimal pincushion distortion that I will likely never feel the need to correct in Lightroom.

Vignetting:
I normally don’t do formal vignetting tests unless it’s unusually strong, which is definitely the case here:

Analysis: The Voigtlander has a strong vignette at f/2 that needs to be corrected in post, whereas the Zeiss’s vignetting has never been noticeable to me. Using a 50mm lens profile on my M10-R doesn’t sufficiently correct the Voigtlander’s vignetting; in fact the difference is barely noticeable.

Thanks to Fred Miranda’s review we know that the Voigtlander’s optical vignetting is actually not worse than other 50mm lenses (meaning the bokeh circles are relatively full in the periphery). Commenters have also been noticing that vignetting is well controlled on film. I suspect what’s going on here is the Voigtlander’s strong vignetting may be due to steep ray angles on the sensor, an issue that more typically affects wide angle lenses. Notice how much further back the rear element is on the Voigtlander compared to the Zeiss Planar:

Ultimately, all this means is that I’ll be using a Lightroom preset to correct vignetting with the Voigtlander 50/2.2, which only adds a single click to my workflow. I wouldn’t consider it a significant downside versus the Zeiss.

Bokeh:

Longitudinal chromatic aberration:

Lateral chromatic aberration:
No significant lateral CA with either the Voigtlander or Zeiss.

Sharpness, infinity:

Analysis: Both lenses deliver plenty of sharpness for me even on the 40MP M10-R sensor, but extreme pixel-peeping reveals that the Voigtlander is just a tad sharper in all zones wide-open.

Sharpness and focus shift, 1.2m:

Analysis: At closer distances, the Zeiss has more noticeable spherical aberration in the center, which unfortunately causes some focus shift when stopped down to f/2.8-f/4. Meanwhile the Voigtlander is tack-sharp in the center at f/2.2 and is completely free of focus shift. In the mid-frame and corners, both lenses perform similarly well and are plenty sharp for my use cases.

Sharpness and focus shift, 0.7m:

Analysis: Similar to at 1.2m, both lenses are sharp wide-open but the Voigtlander is a tad sharper and free of focus shift, whereas the Zeiss’s focus shift is noticeable.

Sharpness, 0.5m:

Analysis: I would not hesitate to use the Voigtlander wide-open even at 0.5m.

Summary and recommendations

I will post final thoughts after using the Voigtlander more. I am leaning toward keeping the Voigtlander and selling my Planar, but I want to get more experience with the rendering/bokeh at f/2.2.

Good
Image quality
Build quality
Size and handling
Price
0.5m MFD

Bad
Slightly slower than the 50mm f/2 alternatives
Vignetting when used on digital

Buy here

Making this website is my hobby and hosting it costs $200/year. If you decide to buy this lens and want me to get paid a commission, please complete your purchase using one of these links. Alternatively, you can buy something from my accessories page or buy me a coffee!

Other alternatives (not recommended)

Voigtlander 50mm f/3.5 Heliar
This lens offers optical perfection with a fairly limited f/3.5 aperture in a tiny but odd-looking package. For a similar price you can just get the Voigtlander 50/2.2, so I’m not sure who this lens is for.

Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar
Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 Heliar
These lenses use vintage optical designs and should only be used by those who intentionally want soft, dreamy images with lots of aberrations. They also have very strong focus shift, which makes them a pain to use on rangefinders.

Additional reading

Review by Fred Miranda

More sample photos