rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.6 #8 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII | |
hiepphotog wrote:
Personally, if you are going to mod your A7R, why bother with the Ultron if you're after sharpness? WO, it's so personal that it's hard to say which is better. Heck, if anything, the CV 35/1.2 would be among the top as well.
rscheffler wrote:
I'm not sure I follow. The Ultron is a very good lens and stopped down just a bit is IMO impressive across the frame (on Leica M). I haven't compared it directly against the ZM 35/1.4 but would be surprised if there is much sharpness difference.
I think rendering character would be the bigger differentiator.
As for the 35/1.2... I don't believe it's as good as either. It suffers from greater field curvature than either the Distagon or Ultron. Perhaps by happenstance, that field curvature is counteracted on unmodded Sonys by the thick cover glass, making it one of the better performing RF 35s. Mod the camera and it will be a worse performer. If I recall my tests of it on the M9/M240, it needed to be stopped down a bit (~f/5.6) to bring up the edges and corners and never really had the bite one would expect of of a ZM lens. IMO, the Ultron has better bite than the 1.2.
Yeah, it's going to come down to personal preferences.
Bottom line for me is I'm happy with the Ultron as an all purpose lens for ~$650 US imported. The ZM is possibly nicer in respect to some Zeissy rendering characteristics as noted by Philippe, but for me, not worth spending nearly 3x more.
...Show more →
hiepphotog wrote:
Well, I mean if one is after sharpness, the ZM 35/1.4 should be the top of that list.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It certainly would be interesting to see a side by side comparison of the Ultron to the ZM 35/1.4 on a Leica M or Sony A7x Mod body. I have not seen that yet. Unless you have, I'm not sure how statements like this can be made about the ZM's superiority. I have seen enough from the better Voigtlanders to know that one should not discount them, particularly with regard to sharpness, before trying.
hiepphotog wrote:
Tariq, I can't think of a single CV M-mount that is sharper than a Zeiss/Leica equivalent (give or take less than a stop in max aperture). They are very good no doubt, but top of the heap in term of sharpness, I don't think so. CV is often after a certain characteristic, but not absolute sharpness.
On the other hand, both 50 APO and the D 35 have been tested to show the highest shapress in the M system (Imatest and the like). My own shooting with these two seems to bear that out at infinity as well.
My feeling about Voigtlander lenses was very much like this until the 35/1.2, which was decent. Then came the 21/1.8, which I owned alongside the 21 Lux. Technically, the CV is the better lens, for sharpness consistency, but I kept the Lux for its character, as Guy alluded to. But IMO, the 21/1.8 was a big step forward for the Voigtlander brand. It was a fast lens that held its own against slower lenses that should outperform it. IMO, the new 35/1.7 is another leap forward in performance, to the point where I no longer feel there is a technical compromise paid for using it instead of Zeiss or Leica. Ergonomic compromises, yes..
Guy, I came to the conclusion a few years into my Leica ownership that there was reason to own multiple lenses of the same focal lenghts... Modern lenses for sheer technical performance, modern fast lenses for their character, and vintage lenses for their imperfect rendering... Problem is I can never carry all of that around at the same time. Would totally defeat the size savings.
Tariq - I have both the CV 40/1.4 and the new Ultron. On Leica M, without doubt, the Ultron dramatically outperforms the 40. However, the quirk of the 40 is that it massive field curvature seen on Leica is mostly neutralized on unmodified Sony. There are also rendering differences, with the 40 being more imperfect (greater character).
|
