Archive 2015 · A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
p.5 #1A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
I will also note that it seems that CA is a bit worse when stopping down and I have to manually correct it in ACR. Upon correction it's a bit sharper.
Aug 28, 2015 at 08:11 PM
p.5 #2A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
I did some more shots with the 15, pretty much wide open inside and then a couple more stopped down to f8. Frankly I was wrong. There is almost no falloff in sharpness. I am amazed.
The 1st image is iso 2000 with no noise reduction and the second 1600. I didn't try hard to make sure the camera was level, just having some fun with the 15 III.
I really like how the 15 will focus close and with the close focussing mount, I can just about do macro work.
The 1st image is iso 2000 with no noise reduction and the second 1600. I didn't try hard to make sure the camera was level, just having some fun with the 15 III.
I really like how the 15 will focus close and with the close focussing mount, I can just about do macro work.
Aug 28, 2015 at 10:20 PM
p.5 #3A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Guys, none of your photos are at infinity like Fred's....
Aug 29, 2015 at 01:47 AM
p.5 #4A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Zony_user wrote:
Guys, none of your photos are at infinity like Fred's....
How infinity do you want? Is 30 meters infinity on a 15mm focal length? The difference in rotation of the focusing ring from 30 meters to infinity is is barely perceptible and I could not get the corners any better or worse than what I showed.
Guys, none of your photos are at infinity like Fred's....
How infinity do you want? Is 30 meters infinity on a 15mm focal length? The difference in rotation of the focusing ring from 30 meters to infinity is is barely perceptible and I could not get the corners any better or worse than what I showed.
Aug 29, 2015 at 02:06 AM
p.5 #5A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
I keep going back and forth with the decision to purchase the CV15III. I bought the 16-35 and its all packaged up to be returned unused as I changed my mind and thought the CV15 would be a better take everywhere lens. I have the TSE 24 II for more serious landscape stuff so thought the CV15 III would be a nice addition to my a7rii kit. The thing is the 15 is £500 here and the sony 16-35 is £650. This thread has got me slightly worried that the CV15 might not be worth the premium. However everything I have seen so far has been good with the lens. I'm trying to work out if a bit of smearing in the extremes would be an issue for me as a walkaround landscape/Cityscape lens. Thoughts? (I.e please help me decide one way or the other 
)
)Aug 29, 2015 at 03:36 AM
p.5 #6A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Unfortunately there's no such thing as "good enough" when it comes to testing these WA lenses. We're looking to magnify the flaws, so the testing is either done properly or it's worth nada.
Smearing is most pronounced at infinity. So when your subject is across the street it doesn't really tell us anything. We need landscapes that are shot from a hill/mountain, ideally with a distant foreground, and the horizon angled in the corners like Fred's test shots.
Smearing is most pronounced at infinity. So when your subject is across the street it doesn't really tell us anything. We need landscapes that are shot from a hill/mountain, ideally with a distant foreground, and the horizon angled in the corners like Fred's test shots.
Aug 29, 2015 at 03:58 AM
p.5 #7A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
xpfloyd wrote:
I keep going back and forth with the decision to purchase the CV15III. I bought the 16-35 and its all packaged up to be returned unused as I changed my mind and thought the CV15 would be a better take everywhere lens. I have the TSE 24 II for more serious landscape stuff so thought the CV15 III would be a nice addition to my a7rii kit. The thing is the 15 is £500 here and the sony 16-35 is £650.
Where is it £650? The cheapest I've seen is £701 (grey) while the main retailers are quoting £979 after £100 cash back. Which tells you a lot about the egregious margins on photo gear in the UK.
I keep going back and forth with the decision to purchase the CV15III. I bought the 16-35 and its all packaged up to be returned unused as I changed my mind and thought the CV15 would be a better take everywhere lens. I have the TSE 24 II for more serious landscape stuff so thought the CV15 III would be a nice addition to my a7rii kit. The thing is the 15 is £500 here and the sony 16-35 is £650.
Where is it £650? The cheapest I've seen is £701 (grey) while the main retailers are quoting £979 after £100 cash back. Which tells you a lot about the egregious margins on photo gear in the UK.
Aug 29, 2015 at 04:01 AM
p.5 #8A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Sorry I just double checked and it was £675 I paid from ebay seller kacha. (Grey I imagine). I've bought many lenses from that seller with no issues and for this one the return address is in the uk
Aug 29, 2015 at 04:09 AM
p.5 #9A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
xpfloyd wrote:
I keep going back and forth with the decision to purchase the CV15III. I bought the 16-35 and its all packaged up to be returned unused as I changed my mind and thought the CV15 would be a better take everywhere lens. I have the TSE 24 II for more serious landscape stuff so thought the CV15 III would be a nice addition to my a7rii kit. The thing is the 15 is £500 here and the sony 16-35 is £650. This thread has got me slightly worried that the CV15 might not be worth the premium. However everything I...Show more →
I'm sure a lot of us has gone through the same type of dilemma. As been said repeatedly, the UWA/WA options are scarce. Both the FE16-35 and the CV15III have their quirks and optically they are about a B/B+. With IQ being a wash, your decision will be about compromising size/weight and versatility (zoom vs prime). I think you have to ask yourself --- How often do I shoot wider than 24mm? How light do I like to travel?
For example, I shoot 70% of my shots with a 35mm lens (RX1). For walk-around usage, I like to keep my camera gear around 2 kg while keeping it as small as possible. The Leica 90AA stays glued to my A7ii and takes care of the tele-end. For the wide end, I purchased and tested three lenses --- CV15III, CV21/1.8, and Batis 25mm. After 30 minutes of shooting, I knew the Batis was stellar and a keeper. The CV21/1.8 was decent but expendable because of it's weight.The CV15III I was quite happy with, except for the LCA that was hard to fix in PP. The Batis 25 and CV15III seemed like a good combo until I came across a smoking deal on the WATE. I sold both my CV's and now the WATE and 90AA are permanently in my bag. For those times I carry my backpack, I throw in the Batis along with 3-4 more lenses.
What other lenses do you have in your bag? Unless you always carry your TSE 24 II, I personally feel 15mm is too wide for a general purpose wide-angle lens.
I keep going back and forth with the decision to purchase the CV15III. I bought the 16-35 and its all packaged up to be returned unused as I changed my mind and thought the CV15 would be a better take everywhere lens. I have the TSE 24 II for more serious landscape stuff so thought the CV15 III would be a nice addition to my a7rii kit. The thing is the 15 is £500 here and the sony 16-35 is £650. This thread has got me slightly worried that the CV15 might not be worth the premium. However everything I...Show more →
I'm sure a lot of us has gone through the same type of dilemma. As been said repeatedly, the UWA/WA options are scarce. Both the FE16-35 and the CV15III have their quirks and optically they are about a B/B+. With IQ being a wash, your decision will be about compromising size/weight and versatility (zoom vs prime). I think you have to ask yourself --- How often do I shoot wider than 24mm? How light do I like to travel?
For example, I shoot 70% of my shots with a 35mm lens (RX1). For walk-around usage, I like to keep my camera gear around 2 kg while keeping it as small as possible. The Leica 90AA stays glued to my A7ii and takes care of the tele-end. For the wide end, I purchased and tested three lenses --- CV15III, CV21/1.8, and Batis 25mm. After 30 minutes of shooting, I knew the Batis was stellar and a keeper. The CV21/1.8 was decent but expendable because of it's weight.The CV15III I was quite happy with, except for the LCA that was hard to fix in PP. The Batis 25 and CV15III seemed like a good combo until I came across a smoking deal on the WATE. I sold both my CV's and now the WATE and 90AA are permanently in my bag. For those times I carry my backpack, I throw in the Batis along with 3-4 more lenses.
What other lenses do you have in your bag? Unless you always carry your TSE 24 II, I personally feel 15mm is too wide for a general purpose wide-angle lens.
Aug 29, 2015 at 05:13 AM
p.5 #10A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Thanks for the response. I'm mid switch from canon at the moment. My walkaround kit is a7rii, fe28, fe55 and batis 85(when stock arrives). My tse only gets taken if I'm heading out specifically to do landscape shots. I wouldn't carry that everywhere. I sold my canon 16-35 and bought the sony version thinking I could add that to my walkaround kit but decided it was too big for taking everywhere. My thoughts now are that adding the cv15 to my walkaround kit would cover me for my uwa needs and my non planned landscapes. (Think I've talked my self into.it)
Aug 29, 2015 at 06:02 AM
p.5 #11A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Sorry double post
Edited on Aug 29, 2015 at 08:12 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Aug 29, 2015 at 08:12 AM · View previous versions
Aug 29, 2015 at 06:02 AM
p.5 #12A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
jhinkey wrote:
How infinity do you want? Is 30 meters infinity on a 15mm focal length? The difference in rotation of the focusing ring from 30 meters to infinity is is barely perceptible and I could not get the corners any better or worse than what I showed.
The point is to understand the lens field curvature. And "infinity" is "infinity" when you put that lens at infinity and magnify the center; if the center is at its sharpest, then your center is at infinity. Contrary to most would believe, the critical focus plane is very narrow even on a 15. A slanted infinity shot is to ensure that both the corners and center are on the same plane (or at least supposed to be). If you get fuzzy corners from such shot, it's either the lens optical performance is weak or it's because of field curvature.
Non-infinity shots, typical wall-test shots, are prone to alignment. Any left-right skew around the center can give a sense of sharpness (or lack of it). With field curvature, it's even harder to decide. Knowing your lens field curvature is always a good thing so you can compose the picture accordingly if you want balanced near-far sharpness.
Zony_user wrote
Guys, none of your photos are at infinity like Fred's....The point is to understand the lens field curvature. And "infinity" is "infinity" when you put that lens at infinity and magnify the center; if the center is at its sharpest, then your center is at infinity. Contrary to most would believe, the critical focus plane is very narrow even on a 15. A slanted infinity shot is to ensure that both the corners and center are on the same plane (or at least supposed to be). If you get fuzzy corners from such shot, it's either the lens optical performance is weak or it's because of field curvature.
Non-infinity shots, typical wall-test shots, are prone to alignment. Any left-right skew around the center can give a sense of sharpness (or lack of it). With field curvature, it's even harder to decide. Knowing your lens field curvature is always a good thing so you can compose the picture accordingly if you want balanced near-far sharpness.
Aug 29, 2015 at 07:48 AM
p.5 #13A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Zony_user wrote:
Unfortunately there's no such thing as "good enough" when it comes to testing these WA lenses. We're looking to magnify the flaws, so the testing is either done properly or it's worth nada.
Smearing is most pronounced at infinity. So when your subject is across the street it doesn't really tell us anything. We need landscapes that are shot from a hill/mountain, ideally with a distant foreground, and the horizon angled in the corners like Fred's test shots.
Only "test" that really matters is if I'm happy with it. Period.
If a lens provides acceptable results, under my typical usage, and I feel the compromise of size/weight/optics and cost is a good one, then its a good lens.
This should hold true for every single photographer.
There is most certainly "good enough", both with regards to a lens, and as well as a "test" per the individual who bought the lens. Doesn't mean everyone has to feel the same though. Its why some people, myself included, are still happily shooting the 28/2 FE while others bought (or hope to buy soon lol) a Batis 25
We only need to "magnify flaws" to the envelope of our own usage requirements. "Testing" outside our usage needs just to look for a "problem" that otherwise doesn't affect ones own shooting seems quite a silly waste of time.
Bob - I really like this new lens I got. Great quality and I love the compact size/weight
Tom - That's all well and good but lets spend the afternoon "testing" it until we can find some weakness.
Bob (hours later) - Thanks Tom. Without "testing" the lens in a manner I never would of encountered in my typical shooting I wouldn't of known its less than perfect. I'm going to return it and buy something different, probably something bigger and heavier, which will make be less happy, but at least I'll known its a "good" lens.
Unfortunately there's no such thing as "good enough" when it comes to testing these WA lenses. We're looking to magnify the flaws, so the testing is either done properly or it's worth nada.
Smearing is most pronounced at infinity. So when your subject is across the street it doesn't really tell us anything. We need landscapes that are shot from a hill/mountain, ideally with a distant foreground, and the horizon angled in the corners like Fred's test shots.
Only "test" that really matters is if I'm happy with it. Period.
If a lens provides acceptable results, under my typical usage, and I feel the compromise of size/weight/optics and cost is a good one, then its a good lens.
This should hold true for every single photographer.
There is most certainly "good enough", both with regards to a lens, and as well as a "test" per the individual who bought the lens. Doesn't mean everyone has to feel the same though. Its why some people, myself included, are still happily shooting the 28/2 FE while others bought (or hope to buy soon lol) a Batis 25
We only need to "magnify flaws" to the envelope of our own usage requirements. "Testing" outside our usage needs just to look for a "problem" that otherwise doesn't affect ones own shooting seems quite a silly waste of time.
Bob - I really like this new lens I got. Great quality and I love the compact size/weight
Tom - That's all well and good but lets spend the afternoon "testing" it until we can find some weakness.
Bob (hours later) - Thanks Tom. Without "testing" the lens in a manner I never would of encountered in my typical shooting I wouldn't of known its less than perfect. I'm going to return it and buy something different, probably something bigger and heavier, which will make be less happy, but at least I'll known its a "good" lens.
Aug 29, 2015 at 08:40 AM
p.5 #14A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
So your typical use of a UWA lens is to shoot down a city road? And you never shoot landscapes?
Aug 29, 2015 at 09:05 AM
p.5 #15A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
millsart wrote:
Smearing is most pronounced at infinity. So when your subject is across the street it doesn't really tell us anything. We need landscapes that are shot from a hill/mountain, ideally with a distant foreground, and the horizon angled in the corners like Fred's test shots.Only "test" that really matters is if I'm happy with it. Period.
A good test matters if you want to measure performance. A good test is objective, not subjective. If it were not for countless objective tests, we would not have cameras, or civilization.
Your personal happiness is really beside the point, one way or the other. Though, as always, I wish you well. Many people were happy before electricity.
The question of how lens performance varies from platform to platform must be interesting to anyone who loves lenses and respects those who designed them. There are ways to measure this accurately with little extra work.
Being lazy, stepping out the door and making a frame is usually not one of them, though some may live in good place to do so
There's nothing wrong with making a silly personal test shot and deciding you like the lens. When you write an article in the New York Times and claim the same without the homework...well you won't keep your job.
Period
Zony_user wrote
Unfortunately there's no such thing as "good enough" when it comes to testing these WA lenses. We're looking to magnify the flaws, so the testing is either done properly or it's worth nada.Smearing is most pronounced at infinity. So when your subject is across the street it doesn't really tell us anything. We need landscapes that are shot from a hill/mountain, ideally with a distant foreground, and the horizon angled in the corners like Fred's test shots.
A good test matters if you want to measure performance. A good test is objective, not subjective. If it were not for countless objective tests, we would not have cameras, or civilization.
Your personal happiness is really beside the point, one way or the other. Though, as always, I wish you well. Many people were happy before electricity.
The question of how lens performance varies from platform to platform must be interesting to anyone who loves lenses and respects those who designed them. There are ways to measure this accurately with little extra work.
Being lazy, stepping out the door and making a frame is usually not one of them, though some may live in good place to do so
There's nothing wrong with making a silly personal test shot and deciding you like the lens. When you write an article in the New York Times and claim the same without the homework...well you won't keep your job.
Period
Aug 29, 2015 at 10:20 AM
p.5 #16A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Zony_user wrote:
So your typical use of a UWA lens is to shoot down a city road? And you never shoot landscapes?
Why yes. I buy fisheyes and ultra-wide angles and test and test and test and never leave that city block
I do not own the 21/4 nor the 15/4.5-II - I briefly borrowed them from the used case at the local pro shop in downtown Seattle. Unfortunately, for some bizarre reason they won't let me take the lens out into the mountains or down to the seashore to make detailed tests unless I buy them.
Over the years I've tested many many fisheye's and ultra-wides using this very same technique and have not found ANY practical difference in corner performance shooting that building across the street vs. shooting at "infinity" out in the field. For these short focal lengths the field curvature will not change between these two tests. I've tested many WA lenses that have huge field curvature and by that focus distance the lens character just does not change in any practical sense - it is effectively an infinity test for UWA lenses.
Sure if you have a view that allows you to shoot at great distances that's technically the best way to go, but in practicality you will get the same conclusions at the distances that I tested the 21/4, 15/4.5-II, and 15/4.5-III at.
So your typical use of a UWA lens is to shoot down a city road? And you never shoot landscapes?
Why yes. I buy fisheyes and ultra-wide angles and test and test and test and never leave that city block
I do not own the 21/4 nor the 15/4.5-II - I briefly borrowed them from the used case at the local pro shop in downtown Seattle. Unfortunately, for some bizarre reason they won't let me take the lens out into the mountains or down to the seashore to make detailed tests unless I buy them.
Over the years I've tested many many fisheye's and ultra-wides using this very same technique and have not found ANY practical difference in corner performance shooting that building across the street vs. shooting at "infinity" out in the field. For these short focal lengths the field curvature will not change between these two tests. I've tested many WA lenses that have huge field curvature and by that focus distance the lens character just does not change in any practical sense - it is effectively an infinity test for UWA lenses.
Sure if you have a view that allows you to shoot at great distances that's technically the best way to go, but in practicality you will get the same conclusions at the distances that I tested the 21/4, 15/4.5-II, and 15/4.5-III at.
Aug 29, 2015 at 11:26 AM
p.5 #17A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Just extend from what Charlie is saying above, an infinity test wouldn't take a whole afternoon to do. It took me less than 5 minutes to set up and go through the usual aperture range from WO to f/11 (one stop step). The regular wall tests would actually take more time since care must be taken to assure the wall and your camera are parallel.
Here is a list of what I can find after a 5-minute slanted infinity test:
- Field Curvature: any drastic mid-zone resolution dip. Edge/corner dip requires additional step to identify the issue. Complex field curvature due to mis-matched thickness can be identified and compensated for with additional step. I have no problem finding a sweet spot near-far sharpness on any of my lenses in less than 15 minutes. Distance scale is not as reliable in digital age.
- Centering: left-right/top-bottom asymmetry
- Focus shift: you know exactly your point of focus, so any shift would show, even the minor one
- Lens's aberrations: mid-day test with a bright sky would coax out any LoCA, LCA your lens has. Aperture series would show if your LCA would increase as your stop down and what aperture you can get rid of your LoCA. Vignetting/color cast shows up readily with no ambiguity. Coma test can be done with a quick night sky shoot.
- Lens comparison: given the same scene, even with slightly different framing, you can compare lenses without having to shoot them at the same time
Regular infinity test shows optical distortion of the lens as well. However, optical distortion does change drastically with focus distance so more tests should be done if this is important (for architecture).
I can then use the info I get from Imatest (mid- to close-distance) on various sites or other people's pictures to understand the lens capability at these distances.
With this way, lens testing to me is not a chore. I understand the behavior of my lenses rather quickly instead of spending months on end to understand it. Well, for portrait distance, I still have to shoot a lot to understand the bokeh profile, color response, etc.
Here is a list of what I can find after a 5-minute slanted infinity test:
- Field Curvature: any drastic mid-zone resolution dip. Edge/corner dip requires additional step to identify the issue. Complex field curvature due to mis-matched thickness can be identified and compensated for with additional step. I have no problem finding a sweet spot near-far sharpness on any of my lenses in less than 15 minutes. Distance scale is not as reliable in digital age.
- Centering: left-right/top-bottom asymmetry
- Focus shift: you know exactly your point of focus, so any shift would show, even the minor one
- Lens's aberrations: mid-day test with a bright sky would coax out any LoCA, LCA your lens has. Aperture series would show if your LCA would increase as your stop down and what aperture you can get rid of your LoCA. Vignetting/color cast shows up readily with no ambiguity. Coma test can be done with a quick night sky shoot.
- Lens comparison: given the same scene, even with slightly different framing, you can compare lenses without having to shoot them at the same time
Regular infinity test shows optical distortion of the lens as well. However, optical distortion does change drastically with focus distance so more tests should be done if this is important (for architecture).
I can then use the info I get from Imatest (mid- to close-distance) on various sites or other people's pictures to understand the lens capability at these distances.
With this way, lens testing to me is not a chore. I understand the behavior of my lenses rather quickly instead of spending months on end to understand it. Well, for portrait distance, I still have to shoot a lot to understand the bokeh profile, color response, etc.
Aug 29, 2015 at 11:29 AM
p.5 #18A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
I see it as a lens with some compromises. It's affordable, very well built, small and filter friendly (Although I can use my Lee square filters on it).
Some compromises like vignetting, CA and distortion can be dealt with in post (CA not entirely). For my landscape shooting needs, there will be some smearing on the very edges. With some cropping, the issue goes away but I'm being meticulous because I'm testing the lens and will be printing my images. In the real world it may not much of an issue but I thought others considering this lens would like to know about it.
Some compromises like vignetting, CA and distortion can be dealt with in post (CA not entirely). For my landscape shooting needs, there will be some smearing on the very edges. With some cropping, the issue goes away but I'm being meticulous because I'm testing the lens and will be printing my images. In the real world it may not much of an issue but I thought others considering this lens would like to know about it.
Aug 29, 2015 at 11:30 AM
p.5 #19A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
I'll double check mine next week in San Diego on vacation. Plenty of infinity there
Aug 29, 2015 at 11:34 AM
p.5 #20A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
I go out every day, late, for a couple of mile hike cross country. I will see if I can get some good infinity shots. I did some local stuff and am amazed frankly. At the very corner and I mean the very corner, I get a slight smearing but that is at 100% and it is, for me, totally irrelevant as it is such a small, minuscule area.
Aug 29, 2015 at 11:57 AM