Archive 2015 · A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
p.2 #1A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
jhinkey wrote:
I just did a quick and dirty test of the 21/4VM, 15/4.5-II, and my 15/4.5-III for sharpness and ghosting/flare on my A7RII. I will report back later on today. At first glance the -III of the 15mm is clearly superior to the -II for flare/ghosting and the 21/4VM did better than I thought it would.
I love the III on the A7rII
I just did a quick and dirty test of the 21/4VM, 15/4.5-II, and my 15/4.5-III for sharpness and ghosting/flare on my A7RII. I will report back later on today. At first glance the -III of the 15mm is clearly superior to the -II for flare/ghosting and the 21/4VM did better than I thought it would.
I love the III on the A7rII
Aug 25, 2015 at 04:22 PM
p.2 #2A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
If anyone has more samples of the v3 please post. I'm debating between this and the 16-35. Thanks.
Chris
Chris
Aug 25, 2015 at 07:09 PM
p.2 #3A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
ebookman wrote:
I have owned both the Voigtlander Super Heliar 15mm f/4.5 Ver II and the Voigtlander Color Skopar 21mm f/4 Leica mount lenses since my first NEX 5N. This is my history.
Nex 5N -excellent
Nex 6 - excellent
Nex 7 - fair
A7S - poor
A7R - worse than poor (aurora borealis)
A7R with Kolari Modification - I didn't think it could get worse but it did!
Surprise!
A7RII - excellent
These lenses were on my "must sell" shelf. I had read so much negative information regarding Leica wide angle lenses on the A7RII that I was not even going to put them on the camera but about...Show more →
thanks - was thinking about throwing out the a7r and the whole lot over not being able to use rangefinder lens. Maybe just the non rangefinder lens and the 35/2.8, voigt 15 v2 and 24-70 might do for hiking.
two questions:
1) when you adjusted the picture in lightroom - it was not adjusted with a colour profile? What does it look like without adjustment, if adjusted.
2) are these focussed at or near infinity - the problem exists near infinity much more than close
Edited on Aug 25, 2015 at 07:56 PM · View previous versions
I have owned both the Voigtlander Super Heliar 15mm f/4.5 Ver II and the Voigtlander Color Skopar 21mm f/4 Leica mount lenses since my first NEX 5N. This is my history.
Nex 5N -excellent
Nex 6 - excellent
Nex 7 - fair
A7S - poor
A7R - worse than poor (aurora borealis)
A7R with Kolari Modification - I didn't think it could get worse but it did!
Surprise!
A7RII - excellent
These lenses were on my "must sell" shelf. I had read so much negative information regarding Leica wide angle lenses on the A7RII that I was not even going to put them on the camera but about...Show more →
thanks - was thinking about throwing out the a7r and the whole lot over not being able to use rangefinder lens. Maybe just the non rangefinder lens and the 35/2.8, voigt 15 v2 and 24-70 might do for hiking.
two questions:
1) when you adjusted the picture in lightroom - it was not adjusted with a colour profile? What does it look like without adjustment, if adjusted.
2) are these focussed at or near infinity - the problem exists near infinity much more than close
Edited on Aug 25, 2015 at 07:56 PM · View previous versions
Aug 25, 2015 at 07:50 PM
p.2 #4A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Here is a review I did on the 15
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/55316-voigtlander-15mm-version-iii-sony-a7ii-test.html
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/55316-voigtlander-15mm-version-iii-sony-a7ii-test.html
Aug 25, 2015 at 07:55 PM
p.2 #5A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Thinking of getting this and the 28 f/2 instead of the 16-35 f4 (the pair is cheaper and lighter than the 16-35). Thoughts?
Aug 25, 2015 at 08:08 PM
p.2 #7A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
joychris wrote:
If anyone has more samples of the v3 please post. I'm debating between this and the 16-35. Thanks.
Chris
Here's a few but there are images scattered throughout the FE images thread with version III of this lens.
If anyone has more samples of the v3 please post. I'm debating between this and the 16-35. Thanks.
Chris
Here's a few but there are images scattered throughout the FE images thread with version III of this lens.
Aug 25, 2015 at 08:25 PM
p.2 #8A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
GMPhotography wrote:
Here is a review I did on the 15
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/55316-voigtlander-15mm-version-iii-sony-a7ii-test.html
My preliminary findings are consistent with this review. The 15/4.5-III is one of the more outstanding lenses that I've ever tested on full frame. Not quite as good as my 16/3.5 AI Nikkor, but close in regards to sharpness, flare, and ghosting. It has a some CA, but it's taken care of quite well in ACR. It does have some sensor reflections, but they are not bad and likely the same as my D800 (or very similar).
The -II is really pretty darned good. Yes there is some residual un-sharpness in the corners, but it's really only visible at 100% viewing - not bad for a 42.5MP sensor. It does not have the flare and ghosting resistance of the -III though and that's what really sets it down from the -III. It's sensor reflections are worse than the -III
The 21/4 VM is really quite good. Totally usable for sure on the A7RII. It has better ghosting/flare resistance than the 15/4.5-II, but the sensor reflections are the worse of these three lenses with a very noticeable sensor reflection.
Pictures later.
Here is a review I did on the 15
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/55316-voigtlander-15mm-version-iii-sony-a7ii-test.html
My preliminary findings are consistent with this review. The 15/4.5-III is one of the more outstanding lenses that I've ever tested on full frame. Not quite as good as my 16/3.5 AI Nikkor, but close in regards to sharpness, flare, and ghosting. It has a some CA, but it's taken care of quite well in ACR. It does have some sensor reflections, but they are not bad and likely the same as my D800 (or very similar).
The -II is really pretty darned good. Yes there is some residual un-sharpness in the corners, but it's really only visible at 100% viewing - not bad for a 42.5MP sensor. It does not have the flare and ghosting resistance of the -III though and that's what really sets it down from the -III. It's sensor reflections are worse than the -III
The 21/4 VM is really quite good. Totally usable for sure on the A7RII. It has better ghosting/flare resistance than the 15/4.5-II, but the sensor reflections are the worse of these three lenses with a very noticeable sensor reflection.
Pictures later.
Aug 25, 2015 at 08:35 PM
p.2 #9A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
What adapter are you using. Sure it's not reflections from that. I have not run into it . I'm using the Metabones adapter
Aug 25, 2015 at 09:22 PM
p.2 #10A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
jhinkey wrote:
The 21/4 VM is really quite good. Totally usable for sure on the A7RII.
Sry, I don't believe it. Not personal, but if the 35/2.5 is terrible as has been reported, it's very hard to believe the 21 has good performance.
But I'm happy to be mistaken. A good infinity landscape with distant details across the frame is really the only way to tell.
The "test shots" which began this thread are no measure of lens performance with the issues these sensors have. Again no offense, always appreciate ebookman. Foreground is way too close. Please take the time to get up on a hill over something and be sure the foreground is at least 50 meters (more is better) away with complex detail.
Please take the time to do it right, and I will be the first to cheer if it's true.
Here is my test of the CV 21/4 on the Kolari A7i at f/8:
a7M_CV21_8 by unoh7, on Flickr
Note it's also easy to find the full size
Obviously the lens is suspect in this case, though I'd need to adjust the focus for comparison. I would like to see it do better in a similar shot on the r2.
Here the same lens at F/11, and it's better for sure. But look close across the frame. It's a mess of crazy focus dips, especially evident on the right edge, mid-frame in the treeline.
a7M_CV21_11 by unoh7, on Flickr
This thread is like all the early claims about the A7S, and how it could shoot all the M glass fine. In the end we know the truth, but plenty of folks bought the camera thinking the early claims were true. But eventually the "test shooters" shot enough that the weirdness was impossible to ignore. But they had fallen under the spell of a close corner and distant center.
Edited on Aug 25, 2015 at 11:19 PM · View previous versions
The 21/4 VM is really quite good. Totally usable for sure on the A7RII.
Sry, I don't believe it. Not personal, but if the 35/2.5 is terrible as has been reported, it's very hard to believe the 21 has good performance.
But I'm happy to be mistaken. A good infinity landscape with distant details across the frame is really the only way to tell.
The "test shots" which began this thread are no measure of lens performance with the issues these sensors have. Again no offense, always appreciate ebookman. Foreground is way too close. Please take the time to get up on a hill over something and be sure the foreground is at least 50 meters (more is better) away with complex detail.
Please take the time to do it right, and I will be the first to cheer if it's true.
Here is my test of the CV 21/4 on the Kolari A7i at f/8:
a7M_CV21_8 by unoh7, on Flickr
Note it's also easy to find the full size
Obviously the lens is suspect in this case, though I'd need to adjust the focus for comparison. I would like to see it do better in a similar shot on the r2. Here the same lens at F/11, and it's better for sure. But look close across the frame. It's a mess of crazy focus dips, especially evident on the right edge, mid-frame in the treeline.
a7M_CV21_11 by unoh7, on Flickr
This thread is like all the early claims about the A7S, and how it could shoot all the M glass fine. In the end we know the truth, but plenty of folks bought the camera thinking the early claims were true. But eventually the "test shooters" shot enough that the weirdness was impossible to ignore. But they had fallen under the spell of a close corner and distant center.
Edited on Aug 25, 2015 at 11:19 PM · View previous versions
Aug 25, 2015 at 10:43 PM
p.2 #11A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
uhoh7 wrote:
Sry, I don't believe it. Not personal, but if the 35/2.5 is terrible as has been reported, it's very hard to believe the 21 has good performance.
But I'm happy to be mistaken. A good infinity landscape with distant details across the frame is really the only way to tell.
The "test shots" which began this thread are no measure of lens performance with the issues these sensors have. Again no offense, always appreciate ebookman. Foreground is way too close. Please take the time to get up on a hill over something and be sure the foreground is at least 50 meters...Show more →
This lens has a curving inward (the camera side) field curvature, which is pretty strange IMO. And if this is at f/8 on a modded A7, this lens is actually worse than the Biogon G 21
. Is it sharp at all on your M9?
jhinkey wrote
The 21/4 VM is really quite good. Totally usable for sure on the A7RII.But I'm happy to be mistaken. A good infinity landscape with distant details across the frame is really the only way to tell.
The "test shots" which began this thread are no measure of lens performance with the issues these sensors have. Again no offense, always appreciate ebookman. Foreground is way too close. Please take the time to get up on a hill over something and be sure the foreground is at least 50 meters...Show more →
This lens has a curving inward (the camera side) field curvature, which is pretty strange IMO. And if this is at f/8 on a modded A7, this lens is actually worse than the Biogon G 21
. Is it sharp at all on your M9?Aug 25, 2015 at 11:15 PM
p.2 #12A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
hiepphotog wrote:
Sry, I don't believe it. Not personal, but if the 35/2.5 is terrible as has been reported, it's very hard to believe the 21 has good performance.
But I'm happy to be mistaken. A good infinity landscape with distant details across the frame is really the only way to tell.
The "test shots" which began this thread are no measure of lens performance with the issues these sensors have. Again no offense, always appreciate ebookman. Foreground is way too close. Please take the time to get up on a hill over something and be sure the foreground is at least 50 meters (more is better) away with complex detail.
Please take the time to do it right, and I will be the first to cheer if it's true.
Here is my test of the CV 21/4 on the Kolari A7i at f/8:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7298/16487485735_691bb711cf_b.jpg
a7M_CV21_8 by unoh7, on Flickr
Note it's also easy to find the full size Obviously the lens is suspect in this case, though I'd need to adjust the focus for comparison. I would like to see it do better in a similar shot on the r2.This lens has a curving inward (the camera side) field curvature, which is pretty strange IMO. And if this is at f/8 on a modded A7, this lens is actually worse than the Biogon G 21 . Is it sharp at all on your M9?
Well, Rico makes his copy, best of four or five he's tried, look decent on the M. It's a good lens on film, but on the M9 more of a gateway. Many are decentered, and mine may be also. Obviously only the best samples count. Bad performance in a single shot is only cause for suspicion, it takes many from different copies to really confirm.
But a single great shot in a nice long and detailed frame something like this view, and you know a good copy will perform if you can figure the focus formula.
Here by contrast, is the SEM 21 at f/4 on the same camera, A7.mod:
a7m_sem21_f/4 by unoh7, on Flickr
This single shot says: SEM 21 is good to go on the A7.mod To me anyway 
Of course it's still even better on the M9 etc. I would be astonished if the A7r2 can do something like this with any copy of the CV 21/4, at any aperture.
But that's a nice feeling: so please; astonish me!
uhoh7 wrote
jhinkey wrote
The 21/4 VM is really quite good. Totally usable for sure on the A7RII.But I'm happy to be mistaken. A good infinity landscape with distant details across the frame is really the only way to tell.
The "test shots" which began this thread are no measure of lens performance with the issues these sensors have. Again no offense, always appreciate ebookman. Foreground is way too close. Please take the time to get up on a hill over something and be sure the foreground is at least 50 meters (more is better) away with complex detail.
Please take the time to do it right, and I will be the first to cheer if it's true.
Here is my test of the CV 21/4 on the Kolari A7i at f/8:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7298/16487485735_691bb711cf_b.jpg
a7M_CV21_8 by unoh7, on Flickr
Note it's also easy to find the full size
Obviously the lens is suspect in this case, though I'd need to adjust the focus for comparison. I would like to see it do better in a similar shot on the r2.. Is it sharp at all on your M9?Well, Rico makes his copy, best of four or five he's tried, look decent on the M. It's a good lens on film, but on the M9 more of a gateway. Many are decentered, and mine may be also. Obviously only the best samples count. Bad performance in a single shot is only cause for suspicion, it takes many from different copies to really confirm.
But a single great shot in a nice long and detailed frame something like this view, and you know a good copy will perform if you can figure the focus formula.
Here by contrast, is the SEM 21 at f/4 on the same camera, A7.mod:
a7m_sem21_f/4 by unoh7, on Flickr
This single shot says: SEM 21 is good to go on the A7.mod
To me anyway Of course it's still even better on the M9 etc. I would be astonished if the A7r2 can do something like this with any copy of the CV 21/4, at any aperture.But that's a nice feeling: so please; astonish me!
Aug 25, 2015 at 11:24 PM
p.2 #13A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
hiepphotog wrote:
uhoh7 wrote
jhinkey wrote
The 21/4 VM is really quite good. Totally usable for sure on the A7RII.But I'm happy to be mistaken. A good infinity landscape with distant details across the frame is really the only way to tell.
The "test shots" which began this thread are no measure of lens performance with the issues these sensors have. Again no offense, always appreciate ebookman. Foreground is way too close. Please take the time to get up on a hill over something and be sure the foreground is at least 50 meters (more is better) away with complex detail.
Please take the time to do it right, and I will be the first to cheer if it's true.
Here is my test of the CV 21/4 on the Kolari A7i at f/8:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7298/16487485735_691bb711cf_b.jpg
a7M_CV21_8 by unoh7, on Flickr
Note it's also easy to find the full size
Obviously the lens is suspect in this case, though I'd need to adjust the focus for comparison. I would like to see it do better in a similar shot on the r2.. Is it sharp at all on your M9?Right, so its ideal for church interiors then.. 😊
But thats about it😯
Gerry
Aug 26, 2015 at 12:38 AM
p.2 #14A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
GMPhotography wrote:
What adapter are you using. Sure it's not reflections from that. I have not run into it . I'm using the Metabones adapter
No, it's not the adapter - these M to Sony E adapter are so thin and the rear elements of these lenses are so close to the sensor the light doesn't have a chance to bounce off anything.
Pictures later.
What adapter are you using. Sure it's not reflections from that. I have not run into it . I'm using the Metabones adapter
No, it's not the adapter - these M to Sony E adapter are so thin and the rear elements of these lenses are so close to the sensor the light doesn't have a chance to bounce off anything.
Pictures later.
Aug 26, 2015 at 10:17 AM
p.2 #15A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
uhoh7 wrote:
Sry, I don't believe it. Not personal, but if the 35/2.5 is terrible as has been reported, it's very hard to believe the 21 has good performance.
But I'm happy to be mistaken. A good infinity landscape with distant details across the frame is really the only way to tell.
The "test shots" which began this thread are no measure of lens performance with the issues these sensors have. Again no offense, always appreciate ebookman. Foreground is way too close. Please take the time to get up on a hill over something and be sure the foreground is at least 50 meters...Show more →
Thanks for the images - is there a way to NOT have to sign in to download your images from Flickr? It wants me to join or sign in with yahoo . . .
jhinkey wrote
The 21/4 VM is really quite good. Totally usable for sure on the A7RII.But I'm happy to be mistaken. A good infinity landscape with distant details across the frame is really the only way to tell.
The "test shots" which began this thread are no measure of lens performance with the issues these sensors have. Again no offense, always appreciate ebookman. Foreground is way too close. Please take the time to get up on a hill over something and be sure the foreground is at least 50 meters...Show more →
Thanks for the images - is there a way to NOT have to sign in to download your images from Flickr? It wants me to join or sign in with yahoo . . .
Aug 26, 2015 at 10:19 AM
p.2 #16A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
rji2goleez wrote:
ChrisHere's a few but there are images scattered throughout the FE images thread with version III of this lens.
Thanks, I'll dig through the thread. This looks better than my 10-18 in ASP-c mode, especially in the corners.
joychris wrote
If anyone has more samples of the v3 please post. I'm debating between this and the 16-35. Thanks.Chris
Thanks, I'll dig through the thread. This looks better than my 10-18 in ASP-c mode, especially in the corners.
Aug 26, 2015 at 10:54 AM
p.2 #17A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
I ordered a 15. I look forward. This should do it for my manual focus M type of lenses. I am happy with the Summicron ASPH 35 even with some loss in the corners and the 50 and 90 Summicron non ASPH do a fine job. It is finally like having an SLR for my M lenses, which to me is exciting. My 135 Tele Elmar is also extremely sharp on the A7RII.
Aug 26, 2015 at 03:48 PM
p.2 #18A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
jamato8 wrote:
I ordered a 15. I look forward. This should do it for my manual focus M type of lenses. I am happy with the Summicron ASPH 35 even with some loss in the corners and the 50 and 90 Summicron non ASPH do a fine job. It is finally like having an SLR for my M lenses, which to me is exciting. My 135 Tele Elmar is also extremely sharp on the A7RII.
I assume you ordered the -III version of the 15/4.5? Unless size/weight is paramount it's the way to go at 15mm for a VM lens.
I ordered a 15. I look forward. This should do it for my manual focus M type of lenses. I am happy with the Summicron ASPH 35 even with some loss in the corners and the 50 and 90 Summicron non ASPH do a fine job. It is finally like having an SLR for my M lenses, which to me is exciting. My 135 Tele Elmar is also extremely sharp on the A7RII.
I assume you ordered the -III version of the 15/4.5? Unless size/weight is paramount it's the way to go at 15mm for a VM lens.
Aug 26, 2015 at 04:04 PM
p.2 #19A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
jhinkey wrote:
I assume you ordered the -III version of the 15/4.5? Unless size/weight is paramount it's the way to go at 15mm for a VM lens.
Yep, the III. I have read up on it with the help of what everyone here posts.
jamato8 wrote
I ordered a 15. I look forward. This should do it for my manual focus M type of lenses. I am happy with the Summicron ASPH 35 even with some loss in the corners and the 50 and 90 Summicron non ASPH do a fine job. It is finally like having an SLR for my M lenses, which to me is exciting. My 135 Tele Elmar is also extremely sharp on the A7RII.Yep, the III. I have read up on it with the help of what everyone here posts.
Aug 26, 2015 at 05:08 PM
p.2 #20A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
You'll love it. Mine goes in the corner of the bag it's that small.
Aug 26, 2015 at 08:55 PM