aly324 wrote:
My biggest misgiving was with the colors it gave on the A7R. It consistently lacked the subtle tonal gradations of the Summilux. Most colors were dull and washed out, seeming to have a gray veil over them, but then some particular colors came across unnaturally bright, almost neon-like
I find it unusual too, but it's completely consistent with my experience with (3 or 4 copies of) this lens, and also to a lesser extent the Voigtlander 40/1.4. Tonal subtleties are flattened out, and colors tend to be either neon hot (as in this photo) or washed out.
Compare this to the Summilux-R (shot raw and developed in LR using the "zeroed" profile).
Some people may love Voigtlander colors, and I don't doubt some rigorous post processing would change them. But the "native" color response (on A7R) really defined this lens for me, much more so than its OOF rendition (smooth and designed to suit contemporary taste) or sharpness (okay stopped down) and other more commonly discussed optical characteristics. It's a pity because otherwise it's overall a great lens and value.
Sensor no doubt plays a role too. Images taken with it on Leica M bodies seem quite different (and better) to me.
The crabs and a few of the portraits look quite sharp. The shallow DOF is doing a good job of isolating the subject and the OOF backgrounds look very nice.
I suspect the issue is being able to focus wide open
Tariq Gibran wrote:
So if the 35/1.2 Voigt was used stopped down (F4 - 5.6, maybe F8?) as a landscape lens, it offers better corner to corner sharpness than the ZF.2 35/1.4. That's interesting.
Maybe, but that's only the extreme corners. The ZF 35/1.4 is a very special lens that actually doesn't improve very much in the corners upon stopping down. It also gives A LOT of fringing at f/1.4-2, but on the other hand the bokeh is just fantastic and there is very little LoCa.
The Voigtländer gets sharper the closer you focus, which also corresponds to the softness of the bokeh that gets "better" at close distance. It's a reporters wide angle portrait lens and it's bitingly sharp at f/2. The Zeiss is more allround, but extremely bulky and heavy. As with many other Zeiss lenses, the Distagon 35/1.4 has the ability to isolate the subject from the background even at up to ~5 meters distance. The Nokton is kind of useless for that.
Color wise, the Zeiss is clearly better. However, it's got one of the more subtle color renderings in the Zeiss line of lenses. Not "weak", but definitely not saturated.
I'd say the ZE/ZF Distagon 35/2 is the best allround choice if you don't mind the size of it. It's good at all distances and gives fairly nice bokeh. 3D rendering is among the best of any lens I've ever tried. Drawbacks are massive vignetting and quite a bit of barrel distortion. Also resolution for landscape work could be better, even if acutance is top notch.
Those results don't look right to me. I've put around 45,000 shots on my Voigtlander 35 1.2, and when it's in spec, it is very sharp. There is sharper glass out there, but in my experience it hangs with the best DSLR glass, and any mid-level rangefinder glass.
Two things to note:
1. I'm shooting all Leica, so that may have to do with the sharpness difference.
2. These are very easy to knock out of spec. Apparently the internals are somewhat fragile, so they can go out of alignment easily. Mine is in the repair shop at least twice a year. Because of this (and ONLY because of this), I'm looking at selling mine for the Zeiss or Leica equivalent.
Makten wrote:
Maybe, but that's only the extreme corners. The ZF 35/1.4 is a very special lens that actually doesn't improve very much in the corners upon stopping down. It also gives A LOT of fringing at f/1.4-2, but on the other hand the bokeh is just fantastic and there is very little LoCa.
The Voigtländer gets sharper the closer you focus, which also corresponds to the softness of the bokeh that gets "better" at close distance. It's a reporters wide angle portrait lens and it's bitingly sharp at f/2. The Zeiss is more allround, but extremely bulky and heavy. As with many other Zeiss lenses, the Distagon 35/1.4 has the ability to isolate the subject from the background even at up to ~5 meters distance. The Nokton is kind of useless for that.
Color wise, the Zeiss is clearly better. However, it's got one of the more subtle color renderings in the Zeiss line of lenses. Not "weak", but definitely not saturated.
I'd say the ZE/ZF Distagon 35/2 is the best allround choice if you don't mind the size of it. It's good at all distances and gives fairly nice bokeh. 3D rendering is among the best of any lens I've ever tried. Drawbacks are massive vignetting and quite a bit of barrel distortion. Also resolution for landscape work could be better, even if acutance is top notch....Show more →
Thanks. I was not so impressed (maybe I expected too much) with the ZF 35/2 when I owned it as it suffered some fairly bad CA and softness at the borders/ corners, even stopped down at F8. As such - for my use (corner to corner infinity landscape) - it was no better than the other 35's I have owned. As far as micro contrast and color though, it was good (though I actually found the ZF 25/2.8 better in that respect). The Z* 35/1.4 would never work for me as a general purpose lens given your description as I do need sharp borders/ corners at distance for some work. Since the Voigtlander 35/1.2 seems to offer that stopped down, I actually view it as a better all around lens (and I find it's bokeh and subject isolation very nice at close distances/ wide aperture).
mikethevilla wrote:
Those results don't look right to me. I've put around 45,000 shots on my Voigtlander 35 1.2, and when it's in spec, it is very sharp. There is sharper glass out there, but in my experience it hangs with the best DSLR glass, and any mid-level rangefinder glass.
Two things to note:
1. I'm shooting all Leica, so that may have to do with the sharpness difference.
2. These are very easy to knock out of spec. Apparently the internals are somewhat fragile, so they can go out of alignment easily. Mine is in the repair shop at least twice a year. Because of this (and ONLY because of this), I'm looking at selling mine for the Zeiss or Leica equivalent.
These look great, though I suspect a lot of PP's of color/ contrast. Is this the original version or the current, version II? Interesting about the internal's getting knocked out of spec very easily. That's the first I have heard this.
morris wrote:
I suspect the issue is being able to focus wide open
Morris
Yes the shots on the first page (especially the first one) are out of focus. My CV35 II is sharp at 1.2 when I nail the focus. Mine does back focus an inch or so, but I have now adjusted my shooting technique knowing that.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
These look great, though I suspect a lot of PP's of color/ contrast. Is this the original version or the current, version II? Interesting about the internal's getting knocked out of spec very easily. That's the first I have heard this.
True, they are pretty processed and polished, as they're my delivered client images. I'll see if I can dig up the raws. Mine is the version II.
I was told about the fragile internals by my repair guy, who specializes in rangefinder lenses. He said that once you get inside the lens, there's a noticeable difference between Voigtlander, Zeiss, and Leica build quality. Probably not much of an issue for most people, but it makes a big difference to people like me who are rough on their gear.
mikethevilla wrote:
True, they are pretty processed and polished, as they're my delivered client images. I'll see if I can dig up the raws. Mine is the version II.
I was told about the fragile internals by my repair guy, who specializes in rangefinder lenses. He said that once you get inside the lens, there's a noticeable difference between Voigtlander, Zeiss, and Leica build quality. Probably not much of an issue for most people, but it makes a big difference to people like me who are rough on their gear.
Thanks. Great info to have.
Leica have been known to use some fairly poor build quality in the past btw. Some vintages of the famous version iV Summicron 35 M had some issues for instance...
Leica have been known to use some fairly poor build quality in the past btw. Some vintages of the famous version iV Summicron 35 M had some issues for instance...
mikethevilla wrote:
Those results don't look right to me. I've put around 45,000 shots on my Voigtlander 35 1.2, and when it's in spec, it is very sharp. There is sharper glass out there, but in my experience it hangs with the best DSLR glass, and any mid-level rangefinder glass.
Two things to note:
1. I'm shooting all Leica, so that may have to do with the sharpness difference.
2. These are very easy to knock out of spec. Apparently the internals are somewhat fragile, so they can go out of alignment easily. Mine is in the repair shop at least twice a year. Because of this (and ONLY because of this), I'm looking at selling mine for the Zeiss or Leica equivalent. ...Show more →
Hi Mike, thank you for sharing great images. Do you find that Voigtlander lenses render colors differently than Leica and Zeiss?
aly324 wrote:
Hi Mike, thank you for sharing great images. Do you find that Voigtlander lenses render colors differently than Leica and Zeiss?
Yes, although not I think that Leica and Voigtlander are a bit closer color-wise, with Zeiss being noticeably bolder and cooler.
Microcontrast is more where I notice the difference. The new Voigtlander stuff has plenty of detail and contrast, but when put side-by-side with Zeiss it falls a bit flat. The contrast and "pop" of Zeiss is noticeable, but I can come close to replicating it (to my eyes) with enough post work. The Leica lenses have a very fine micro contrast that really brings a lot of depth and subtlety to an image.
After 3 years of shooting professionally with Leica (digital) and mostly Voigtlander lenses, I'm in the process of saving for the newer APO-type Leica glass. Make of that what you will.
mikethevilla wrote:
Yes, although not I think that Leica and Voigtlander are a bit closer color-wise, with Zeiss being noticeably bolder and cooler.
Microcontrast is more where I notice the difference. The new Voigtlander stuff has plenty of detail and contrast, but when put side-by-side with Zeiss it falls a bit flat. The contrast and "pop" of Zeiss is noticeable, but I can come close to replicating it (to my eyes) with enough post work. The Leica lenses have a very fine micro contrast that really brings a lot of depth and subtlety to an image.
After 3 years of shooting professionally with Leica (digital) and mostly Voigtlander lenses, I'm in the process of saving for the newer APO-type Leica glass. Make of that what you will....Show more →
More Leica APOs... I would save for that as well, but it would be lovely if they APO'ed those Luxes instead of Crons. Looking forward to seeing the Nocti APO though, one hell of lens to pay.
And very lovely images btw. I don't think anyone would pass the CV 35/1.2 if they base on their decisions on your pictures. I personally found the construction of the CV 35/1.2 is sub-par compared to even the cheap SLR manual lens.
