HelBen85 wrote:
When I look at Luvwine's pictures, I like the Loxia more.
I like colors and contrasts more.
My thoughts too, but users here are pixel peeping and measurebating. They might tell you that the differences can be made up in post, and they often can, if one wants to jump through the hoops to do that. That wasn't done on Luvwine's comparisons. Fred, and others will often tweak contast/color/vignette/... knobs to get one to match the other. I don't like that done, especially for comparisons. I prefer to see them in their native state with minimal post processing, as Luvwine has done here.
To each his own but the CV is far from a low contrast lens and I bet that few people would be able to pick it out against a Loxia 50 if they have a dozen or so images. Even less so if images are processed.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
To each his own but the CV is far from a low contrast lens and I bet that few people would be able to pick it out against a Loxia 50 if they have a dozen or so images. Even less so if images are processed.
You're probably right, Phillip.
I also think the Voigtländer is an excellent lens. The photographers, who have reported so far, are reliable in my opinion.
But, it is the normal case that most people aren't able to separate the images of two different lenses (maybe of two different 50mm lenses).
Is it not the peculiarity of such forums to discuss nuances? Why not in this case?
This is exactly the reason why I buy Zeiss lenses. I like to think that I can see the differences.
For example: I love the blue and red tones of the Batis lenses and prefer the cool rendering to the warmer rendering of the Loxia lenses (my personal opinion).
However, I prefer the sharpness of the Loxia lenses at smaller apertures and manual Focus for landscapes.
And I love the contrast of all Batis and Loxia lenses.
My Loxia 50mm is bad at open aperture, but superb stopped down.
The Voigtländer is certainly much more constant and better for most cases.
But, the Loxia is smaller, lighter and shows more contrast. Why not mention it?
Also, the out of camera rendering is extremely important to me.
The first look at the raw file in Lightroom or Photoshop always decide how the end result will look later. The less you have to edit a photo, the more natural it looks in the end.
For this reason color profiles in Lightroom are very important. This elegant cool rendering of the Batis lenses can only very few people imitate in postprocessing.
I find the rendering of the Voigtländer somewhat flat in comparison, sorry.
Maybe I'll buy it because of its many other qualities though.
Kind of a odd comment to be honest .not speaking of test images but final output pays the bills. It's all about what you can draw out of your images. If you care about what LR defaults are than your honestly barking up the wrong tree. Adobe profiles imho are not very good. This is why you shoot Raw.
Post process is part of the image chain. I wish more folks would realize this. Not directed at you but I read this all the time how post processing is secondary to the image and it's not.
HelBen85 wrote:
Also, the out of camera rendering is extremely important to me.
The first look at the raw file in Lightroom or Photoshop always decide how the end result will look later. The less you have to edit a photo, the more natural it looks in the end.
For this reason color profiles in Lightroom are very important. This elegant cool rendering of the Batis lenses can only very few people imitate in postprocessing.
I find the rendering of the Voigtländer somewhat flat in comparison, sorry.
Maybe I'll buy it because of its many other qualities though.
Once stopped down to F5.6, the Loxia rendering on landscapes is really good. It may have more native microcontrast/3D and a touch more global contrast SOOC with slightly warmer colors. However, I think the files of the CV are more neutral and malleable in post and without much effort look as good or perhaps better than the Loxia files on landscape at even at F5.6. (At larger apertures, there is no contest, the CV wins). There is certainly no lack of sharpness/resolution, and the files lack any CA. The landscape shots I posted above were all with "daylight" white balance and NO other post processing. It is easy to color correct to have the colors match.
The advantages of the CV 65 are greater over the Loxia at larger apertures than F5.6. I only posted these F5.6 shots because Fred asked about that aperture.
I think this is the real key to this lens is wide open much like the Batis 135. One reason I want it, most lenses stopped down do very well but wide open really in my mind speaks of the optical quality of a lens . Look at our fast 1.4 glass like the 35,50,85 these are outstanding lenses. This looks to be the same
Luvwine wrote:
Once stopped down to F5.6, the Loxia rendering on landscapes is really good. It may have more native microcontrast/3D and a touch more global contrast SOOC with slightly warmer colors. However, I think the files of the CV are more neutral and malleable in post and without much effort look as good or better than the Loxia files on landscape at F5.6. The landscape shots I posted above were all with "daylight" white balance and NO other post processing. It is easy to color correct to have the colors match.
The advantages of the CV 65 are greater over the Loxia at larger apertures than F5.6. I only posted these F5.6 shots because Fred asked about that aperture....Show more →
GMPhotography wrote:
Kind of a odd comment to be honest .not speaking of test images but final output pays the bills. It's all about what you can draw out of your images. If you care about what LR defaults are than your honestly barking up the wrong tree. Adobe profiles imho are not very good. This is why you shoot Raw.
Post process is part of the image chain. I wish more folks would realize this. Not directed at you but I read this all the time how post processing is secondary to the image and it's not.
No, this is why I have simply built a good color profile myself instead of changing to another software
And yes, I think color profiles are quite important for postprocessing
And I do not understand your comment, do you think that it is wrong to address small differences between two lenses in terms of contrast?
I just said that makes sense (and why that make sense for me).
Strange that you disagree.
If it only depends on the postprocessing, why then discussions about pop, 3D and contrast...
Because it's about final output. I don't deliver out of can images ever. These discussions are 90 percent about LR. Hate this software, I think it sucks but that's me but these discussions in a way are meaningless when we speak of default at the end of the day. Now they do show differences between lenses when used with same software and profiles but that all gets changed anyway. Sure I like less work but I'm not buying a lens because of out of can rendering. It's just part of the puzzle because t when I process it and it's my final that's what really counts. I deliver I get check.
Your comment was based solely on out of camera raw in LR. Great for you but that's misleading to final output. Making your own profiles is great but that's what you completely left out in your first comment. I found that odd.
Everyone has different tastes in post processing. I am happy to provide raw files for the purpose of lens evaluation. Just PM with emails and any particular scenes/apertures desired and for the purposes of evaluation I will send raw files of any image I post for comparison. I also posted a lot of pics here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1504525/0
Unfortunately to be honest. I use C1 have for at least 15 years. I think out of can profiles are much better but whatever works for others is there choice.
HelBen85 wrote:
LR and Photoshop use the same Adobe profiles. For best results, I can not do without Photoshop.
pdmphoto wrote:
Fred, and others will often tweak contast/color/vignette/... knobs to get one to match the other. I don't like that done.
I don't do that when comparing lenses. I never touch the contrast/colors or even white/black point sliders. Sharpening is the only change I make and it's the same of all lenses being compared.
However, when posting sample images (not side-by-side comparisons) like Jannik and others did, I see nothing wrong post-processing the images.
Are you one of those purists that never touch your RAW files?
I'm like Fred sharpening a small base, I will fix vignetting when doing corner crop comparisons otherwise full image I do not and exposure. If I cook one I will say so. Not sure where this comes from as most of us say exactly what we are doing. Fred Miranda wrote:
I don't do that when comparing lenses. I never touch the contrast/colors or even white/black point sliders. Sharpening is the only change I make and it's the same of all lenses being compared.
However, when posting sample images (not side-by-side comparisons) like Jannik and others did, I see nothing wrong post-processing the images.
Are you one of those purists that never touch your RAW files?
Just an additional comment. I am not selling my Loxia 50. I love its look for landscape stopped down. I also love the Loxia 85's look. The Voigtlander has a somewhat different look. The Voigtlander is more versatile than either Loxia thanks to F2 aperture, sharp across the frame from wide open, first rate CA correction and macro capability. The Loxia 85mis slightly slower and lacks macro. The Loxia 50 is not sharp till F5.6, lacks macro, and has demonstrably worse CA especially at large apertures. If I were to carry only one of these lenses, it would be the Voigtlander. Knowing myself, I will likely have all three in the bag as the Loxia are great lenses used with an eye to their strengths--for the 50, stopped down landscapes, and for the 85, well, almost everything except macro without tubes.
GMPhotography wrote:
I like the fact its a 65mm lens as it fits between my 35 and 135 very nicely
Agreed. I could see a kit of Sony 12-24, ZM 35/1.4, Voigtlander 65/2, and then Zeiss 100-300. I would then add the Loxia 50, and Loxia 85. If I am willing to carry six lenses, I feel I have everything covered.
For portrait, I would tend to reach for GM 85 and STF 100 first along with my Leica R 180/2.8 apo and possibly the ZM 35 for environmental portrait (I have been unwilling to enter the Sony 35/1.4 lottery).
Dedicated flower/macro: STF 100, CV 65, and maybe a longer telephoto with good magnification--R 280/4 or Zeiss 100-300.
Luvwine wrote:
Just an additional comment. I am not selling my Loxia 50. I love its look for landscape stopped down. I also love the Loxia 85's look. The Voigtlander has a somewhat different look. The Voigtlander is more versatile than either Loxia thanks to F2 aperture, sharp across the frame from wide open, first rate CA correction and macro capability. The Loxia 85mis slightly slower and lacks macro. The Loxia 50 is not sharp till F5.6, lacks macro, and has demonstrably worse CA especially at large apertures. If I were to carry only one of these lenses, it would be the Voigtlander. Knowing myself, I will likely have all three in the bag as the Loxia are great lenses used with an eye to their strengths--for the 50, stopped down landscapes, and for the 85, well, almost everything except macro without tubes....Show more →
I am in much the same boat. I really like the Loxia 50 and 85, but I think I would prefer the Voigtlander 65 to either. I will probably just add the Voigtlander. I would use this some on video. Does it have a de-clickable aperture ring?
I never touch the contrast/colors or even white/black point sliders. Sharpening is the only change I make and it's the same of all lenses being compared.