p.2 #1 · Official - Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 for m43
Jman13 wrote:
Quote: "From reviews I've seen the 25/0.95 is excellent. Great center sharpness wide open (though with soft corners), and sharpening up in the corners when stopping down. At f/4, it is really sharp across the frame."
That is not correct; the reviewers all have measured the performance at short distances only where it worked (I sold mine shortly after getting it). There are a lot of user samples showing weak borders and corners no matter what aperture setting used as soon as the shooting distance is longer than say about 5m.
Quote: "It has a little dreamy look wide open, but with high resolution."
That is also false. The resolution wide open is on the low side, pretty much equivalent to what you get from the CV35/1.2 used with an APS-C sensor (at equivalent settings). The 35/1.2 is however sharp all over when stopped down.
The 25/0.95 is very sharp in the center area when stopped down, excellent.
I hope this new f/0.95 (or f/1 or whatever it may in real world use) is great but there is no way to predict anything judging from the earlier super fast CV lenses.
p.2 #2 · Official - Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 for m43
Jonas B wrote: Jman13 wrote:
That is not correct; the reviewers all have measured the performance at short distances only where it worked (I sold mine shortly after getting it). There are a lot of user samples showing weak borders and corners no matter what aperture setting used as soon as the shooting distance is longer than say about 5m.
That is also false. The resolution wide open is on the low side, pretty much equivalent to what you get from the CV35/1.2 used with an APS-C sensor (at equivalent settings). The 35/1.2 is however sharp all over when stopped down.
The 25/0.95 is very sharp in the center area when stopped down, excellent.
I hope this new f/0.95 (or f/1 or whatever it may in real world use) is great but there is no way to predict anything judging from the earlier super fast CV lenses....Show more →
I would say that the CV35/1.2 is rather high resolution wise wide open for a fast lens. Not as sharp as a f/4 macro wide open, but apples, oranges etc?
p.2 #5 · Official - Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 for m43
ulrikft2 wrote:
Quote: "I would say that the CV35/1.2 is rather high resolution wise wide open for a fast lens. Not as sharp as a f/4 macro wide open, but apples, oranges etc?"
Haha. I think you spend too much time with politicians.
For the record, if anyone is a fast reader and get the idea I was thinking about an f/4 macro lens; I was not. Sure, the resolution is high if you say so. It depends on what you compare to.
p.2 #6 · Official - Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 for m43
CV president announced a few months ago NEX is their priority.
Will see what they might come up with.
To me the only reason to go m43 would be size. I can't think of anything else.
So a large manual lens for m43 doesn't make sense to me.
I kind of like lenses like the new Oly 12 and 45, small AF lenses, good quality.
That is not gonna happen for NEX.
If I want a small 3 lens package with AF, I would consider the new OMD
if the image quality is good enough.
p.2 #7 · Official - Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 for m43
Photozone shows the 25/0.95 to have 2123 LW/PH in the center wide open, which is just barely below the 'excellent' threshold they use on the tested camera ('excellent' is 2200, so they rate that as 'very good'.) By f/1.4, it crosses to the 'excellent' category in the center at 2279 LW/PH.
Not bad for such an extreme aperture.
I personally am not super concerned about landscape use on a lens like this....if I were just going out for stopped down use I'd use a smaller, lighter, slower lens...even the Panny Kit zoom 14-45 is really sharp for landscape use. A lens like this would be used from f/0.95-f/2.8 in my opinion, for environmental portraiture and the like. But of course, everyone will use a lens for different things. I'm excited to see what the optics are like in this thing.
p.2 #8 · Official - Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 for m43
Jman13 wrote:
"Photozone shows the 25/0.95 to have 2123 LW/PH in the center wide open, which is just barely below the 'excellent' threshold they use on the tested camera ('excellent' is 2200, so they rate that as 'very good'.) By f/1.4, it crosses to the 'excellent' category in the center at 2279 LW/PH.
Not bad for such an extreme aperture.
I personally am not super concerned about landscape use on a lens like this....if I were just going out for stopped down use I'd use a smaller, lighter, slower lens...even the Panny Kit zoom 14-45 is really sharp for landscape use. A lens like this would be used from f/0.95-f/2.8 in my opinion, for environmental portraiture and the like. But of course, everyone will use a lens for different things. I'm excited to see what the optics are like in this thing."...Show more →
In Photozone and Lenstip we trust. Maybe it's me only wanting my normal to be able of depicting, say, a building as well as a face? But OK, for anyone liking the idea of carrying two normals the CV 25/0.95 certainly would be one of them.
Most people paying the money for the CV25/0.95 want it to be super, just as it is for most expensive lenses. In real life the Panasonic 25/1.4 is a better choice for most users.
Both of us have hopes for the 17mm. I wanted to point out that a thought experiment comparing it to anything earlier from Cosina is a bad idea.
p.2 #9 · Official - Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 for m43
I agree with you there...which is why I own the 25/1.4. I'm just pointing out that the main reason for carrying a lens this huge (comparatively) is not for landscape or architecture.
And you are likely right that we won't be able to compare them...
p.2 #10 · Official - Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 for m43
snowboarder wrote:
CV president announced a few months ago NEX is their priority.
Will see what they might come up with.
To me the only reason to go m43 would be size. I can't think of anything else.
So a large manual lens for m43 doesn't make sense to me.
I kind of like lenses like the new Oly 12 and 45, small AF lenses, good quality.
That is not gonna happen for NEX.
If I want a small 3 lens package with AF, I would consider the new OMD
if the image quality is good enough.
agreed.
the actual image circle difference between 4/3 and aps-c is not that big, so i'm not sure how much bigger the lens would have to be (and i'm to lazy to calculate it), but it's already pretty big and getting a focal length that people like for both formats in one lens is difficult. i would think NEX would be more of a priority for voigtlander just because it is an easier market – the sony OEM lenses are kinda weak and few and far between, plus there is a comparatively large chunk of manual focus users of the system. µ4/3 on the other hand already has a bunch of very good autofocus lenses and even fast ones making this a tougher sell i would think.
p.2 #12 · Official - Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 for m43
Jonas B wrote:
Haha. I think you spend too much time with politicians.
For the record, if anyone is a fast reader and get the idea I was thinking about an f/4 macro lens; I was not. Sure, the resolution is high if you say so. It depends on what you compare to.
Well, I work with them daily, what can I say .. :P
p.2 #14 · Official - Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 for m43
FlyPenFly wrote:
35mm f2 for $1500 with questionable performance seems steep.
if someone is after shallow dof then no it doesnt make sense to me either...
You're better off keeping your m4:3 kit and getting a 5D classic+ Rokinon 35/1.4 on the side and do the shallow dof thingo properly (for less money)
Or better yet dig up a Norita 66 with the kit 80mm f2 + any flatbed scanner and really go nuts with dof
One could argue that f0.95 still gives you the shutter speed of f0.95 regardless of dof, but seriously what are you going to do with it, with the OMD giving you 5 stops of IBIS already for static subjects, and it's not like anyone can possibly MF in low light on moving subjects with such shallow dof.
So unless you're so locked up to the m4:3 system that you absolutely dont want to use anything else but your m4:3 camera I dont see any use for this lens either... except for being the first to review it on the internet of course
p.2 #16 · Official - Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 for m43
The Leica 25/1.4 is an incredible lens...best all-around normal lens I've ever used. The Olympus 45/1.8 is easily as good, and in pure performance, it's actually a little better. It is razor sharp wide open and has really nice bokeh. These two lenses plus the Olympus 12/2 make for one heck of a trinity of primes.
p.2 #17 · Official - Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 for m43
Jman13 wrote:
The Leica 25/1.4 is an incredible lens...best all-around normal lens I've ever used. The Olympus 45/1.8 is easily as good, and in pure performance, it's actually a little better. It is razor sharp wide open and has really nice bokeh. These two lenses plus the Olympus 12/2 make for one heck of a trinity of primes.
Lenses like that makes me partially jealous of the m43-bunch
The 25/1.4 is somehow matched by the 24/1.8 zeiss/sony, but with 1.5 crop that is a 35, not a 50. The 45/1.8 is similarly matched by a 50/1.8 which is a 75, not a 90..
the 12/2 is the hardest one, the 16/2.8 isn't stellar, just ok.
