p.1 #1 · Voigtlander Color-Skopar 21mm f/4.0 P Pancake on A7
Hi I'm new to the forums here but I've been following the discussions on the unfortunate incompatibilities with the new Sonys and wide-angle range-finder lenses. For some reason there seems to be little discussion on this useful M-mount CV21 f/4. Personally, I like 24mm which is why I kept my TSE-24II, but that lens is gargantuan and I'd like to have the option to work with a smaller system at times. Not a rare perspective obviously. For landscapes, I usually shoot at a lens' best aperture anyway so I don't find the f4 to be a huge issue. In summary, the CV21 f4 is:
-cheap (far cheaper than the f1.8)
-has good quality optics
-is small (tiny in fact)
-compatible with A7
The only deficits I can see are its slow speed and "characterlessness". The latter being rather subjective.
p.1 #3 · Voigtlander Color-Skopar 21mm f/4.0 P Pancake on A7
toshiro wrote:
My CV 25 has quite a lot of smearing on the corners on the A7 so the CV 21 must have even more, and you can't fix that with Cornerfix
just because lens A which is somewhat similar to lens B and A is a really bad, lens B will not automatically be as bad or worse than A.
I tested the copy of a friend and I think that it is okay at f/11. There corners are far from perfect but not too bad either, vignetting will have to be corrected but not nearly as bad as CV15 and the color shift is not too pronounced either. I am thinking about getting one. My Canon FD 2.8/20 has better corners and no of the other issues but if size is the main concern this is a workable solution.
Here is a full resolution jpg with corrections applied and here is also the raw. The lens is obviously decentered but the left corner should allow and assessment.
p.1 #5 · Voigtlander Color-Skopar 21mm f/4.0 P Pancake on A7
It is a decent performer stopped down, but didn't really seem any better, and in fact a little worse, than most of the retrofocus SLR wides I tried. Basically your paying a premium just for its small size.
Something like a Canon FD 20mm will be much cheaper, optically better, only a bit bigger. Although, its just about 10 ounces so its hardly a "beast". Likewise, there are the Olympus 21/3.5 etc smaller still.
The only thing your really getting for $400 with the VC is size, which certainly does have some value.
One lens I never tried but would be curious about if size is a concern is the VC 20mm SL, available in Canon/Nikon mount and quite tiny as well, near M size
p.1 #8 · Voigtlander Color-Skopar 21mm f/4.0 P Pancake on A7
I would really like to see some full resolution samples! The copy I tested was indeed quite a bit worse than my nFD 2.8/20 but still good enough for most of my images.
p.1 #9 · Voigtlander Color-Skopar 21mm f/4.0 P Pancake on A7
xbarcelo wrote:
I agree with uhoh7, but I'm afraid that there must be sample variation, considering the wildly different opinions in this thread.
It is often interesting how variable opinions can be.
I recall Uhoh7 was pretty happy with the VC 35/1.4, unless I'm "misremembering", and that is a lens panned by lots of users.
So its interesting then when we know someone who can accept some issues with RF says that another lens isn't even usable, in their opinion at least, which I'd then take to mean its really, really poor, yet then others say its pretty good
Its like if a kid who eats anything says a meal is gross, you'd think it must be horrible, yet then another kid ask for seconds of the same meal and thinks its darn tasty. Just don't know what to think
p.1 #10 · Voigtlander Color-Skopar 21mm f/4.0 P Pancake on A7
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I would really like to see some full resolution samples! The copy I tested was indeed quite a bit worse than my nFD 2.8/20 but still good enough for most of my images.
Brings us to the question of if you'd ever think the smaller size, and tradeoff in performance is worth about $150-200 more than an excellent condition 20/2.8 FD then ?
Or, if you think the 21/4 brings anything else unique to the table, other than smaller size/smaller adapter, in terms of rendering at larger apertures etc.
In other words, lets say cost isn't an issue, and we don't really care about size either, is there any reason someone would want to pick up a 21/4 VC over a Oly 21/3.5, Canon 20 FD, Nikon 20mm etc
Apr 09, 2014 at 10:16 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · Voigtlander Color-Skopar 21mm f/4.0 P Pancake on A7
If the nFD 20 seems to big, how about an Oly OM 21 f/3.4. That lens is tiny and even with an adapter would only be 59mm long with a 59mm diameter. Yeah, the Voigtlander 21 f/4 would be smaller, but the Oly is still quite small and I think would have a lot better performance without any of the M lens headaches.
p.1 #12 · Voigtlander Color-Skopar 21mm f/4.0 P Pancake on A7
I never used the lens besides a few test shots, one of them is posted above so I can't say anything about the rendering.
The only advantage of that lens I can see is indeed size. It is absolutely tiny. But that might be reason enough for me to get one for longer hikes were I don't want to carry my full set of lenses. I would certainly keep the Canon lens for most of my images were the weight of the camera bag is not that important.
millsart wrote:
Brings us to the question of if you'd ever think the smaller size, and tradeoff in performance is worth about $150-200 more than an excellent condition 20/2.8 FD then ?
Or, if you think the 21/4 brings anything else unique to the table, other than smaller size/smaller adapter, in terms of rendering at larger apertures etc.
In other words, lets say cost isn't an issue, and we don't really care about size either, is there any reason someone would want to pick up a 21/4 VC over a Oly 21/3.5, Canon 20 FD, Nikon 20mm etc
p.1 #13 · Voigtlander Color-Skopar 21mm f/4.0 P Pancake on A7
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I never used the lens besides a few test shots, one of them is posted above so I can't say anything about the rendering.
The only advantage of that lens I can see is indeed size. It is absolutely tiny. But that might be reason enough for me to get one for longer hikes were I don't want to carry my full set of lenses. I would certainly keep the Canon lens for most of my images were the weight of the camera bag is not that important.
The Olympus 3.5/21 and Voigtländer 3.5/20 would still need bigger, heavier adapers. The Canon 2.8/20 is neither huge nor heavy so I would only trade it for another lens if it was much smaller like the CV21.
p.1 #15 · Voigtlander Color-Skopar 21mm f/4.0 P Pancake on A7
first of all, the only person who's posted an actual image here is phillip, and it's a full sized one taken on the a7 so it's easy to judge whether you think that is good enough or not. the rest of the opinions are difficult to attach any kind of context to.
phillip – did you focus that shot at infinity in the center, then stop down and take the picture?
i ask because i've found that optimal performance of most wide angle rangefinder lenses at infinity and f/11 is actually not at infinity focus for most lenses. if you focus to ~3m rather than infinity (wide to ultrawide lenses only) you will typically get better performance across the frame. this is because 1) the exit pupil isn't quite as close to the sensor, 2) it compensates somewhat for the sensor covering induced focus shift, and 3) dof still reaches all the way to infinity.
the sample looks good enough to me to be usable for decent sized prints. focusing a little closer with non-decentered lens might improve performance a bit more.
my price search shows that the cv 21/4, FD 20/2.8, and OM 21/3.5 all are within $50 each other used. the size difference means i would use the cv a lot more than the slr lenses, which i would rarely carry since i don't care much for ultrawide shots. the cv could be in my bag at all times and without me even noticing.
p.1 #16 · Voigtlander Color-Skopar 21mm f/4.0 P Pancake on A7
sebboh wrote:
first of all, the only person who's posted an actual image here is phillip, and it's a full sized one taken on the a7 so it's easy to judge whether you think that is good enough or not. the rest of the opinions are difficult to attach any kind of context to.
phillip – did you focus that shot at infinity in the center, then stop down and take the picture?
Most probably the center but I am not sure, I took the images two months ago.
p.1 #18 · Voigtlander Color-Skopar 21mm f/4.0 P Pancake on A7
xbarcelo wrote:
Ok, here's a photo @f11, I've removed vignetting and equalized exposure. However, there's no special sharpening. It's actually not that bad.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · Voigtlander Color-Skopar 21mm f/4.0 P Pancake on A7
sebboh wrote:
first of all, the only person who's posted an actual image here is phillip, and it's a full sized one taken on the a7 so it's easy to judge whether you think that is good enough or not. the rest of the opinions are difficult to attach any kind of context to.
phillip – did you focus that shot at infinity in the center, then stop down and take the picture?
i ask because i've found that optimal performance of most wide angle rangefinder lenses at infinity and f/11 is actually not at infinity focus for most lenses. if you focus to ~3m rather than infinity (wide to ultrawide lenses only) you will typically get better performance across the frame. this is because 1) the exit pupil isn't quite as close to the sensor, 2) it compensates somewhat for the sensor covering induced focus shift, and 3) dof still reaches all the way to infinity.
the sample looks good enough to me to be usable for decent sized prints. focusing a little closer with non-decentered lens might improve performance a bit more.
my price search shows that the cv 21/4, FD 20/2.8, and OM 21/3.5 all are within $50 each other used. the size difference means i would use the cv a lot more than the slr lenses, which i would rarely carry since i don't care much for ultrawide shots. the cv could be in my bag at all times and without me even noticing.
The size difference between the CVf 21 f/4 and the nFD 20 f/2.8 is quite large. The Oly OM (and several other 21-21 f/3.5-4 SLR lenses including the Pentax M series 20 f/4 and the CV 20 f/3.5 SLII) are about half way in between the size of the two. Here are the specs for these lenses in terms of length (including the relevant adapter) and diameter.
CV 21 f/4 - L 34.8mm D 55mm (weight- 136g plus weight of M to E adapter)
Oly OM 21 f/3.4 - L 59mm D 59mm (weight 180g plus weight of OM to E adapter)
Pentax M 20 f/4 - L 57.5mm D 63mm (weight 150g plus weight of Pentax K to E adapter)
CV 20 f/3.5 SLII - L 59mm D 63mm (weight 205g plus weight of F or EOS to E adapter)
nFD 20 f/2.8 - L 82mm D 76.5mm (weight 315 plus weight of FD to E adapter)
To give some comparisons the CV 21 f/4 with its adapter would be about the size of Nikon 28 f/2.8 E-series lens, or the Fuji X mount 18 f/2, or the Oly m4/3rds 17 f/1.8.
The SLR 20-21 f/3.5-4 each with their own adapter would be about the size of the Nikon 28 f/2 AiS, or the Zeiss CY 28 f/2.8, or the Fuji X mount 14 f/2.8, or the Panny Leica m4/3rds 25 f/1.4, or the Zeiss touit 32 f/1.8
The nfD 20 f/2.8 with its adapter would be about the size of the Nikon 28 f/1.4, the Canon 35 f/1.4, the Zeiss C/Y 100 f/2.8, it would be bigger than the Fuji X mount 56 f/1.2, and about the size of the Oly m4/3rds 12-40 f/2.8 zoom.
So three very different size classes IMO. My own personal preference is that I can deal with the size of something like the Oly OM 21 f/3.5, even with an adapter, not to have to deal with the extra processing demands of fixing colour shift, etc. These are very personal decisions, however. And different people will have very different views of how big is too big and how much extra processing is an annoyance.
