PEKA62 wrote:
This is easy.
On the first set I'd say the second one is the Loxia, GM is nr one and nr 3 is the CV
On the second set, I say Loxia is the first, then CV.
The second image looks like the CV with a bit less bite and slight smoother rendering.
Since everyone loves a test, I did two quickies today. No flowers I am afraid as I was in a hurry. I used my jeep instead. No cheating by looking at the data:
First one I used three lenses: CV 65 (cropped), GM 85 and Loxia 85. Which is which? Only daylight light balance and identical sharpening. Loxia and CV wide open, GM is at F2.5:
These tests are a lot harder if you haven't spent any time with the lenses in question. I used the Loxia 85 for an hour while I was shooting with someone who owns it and I've been in the same room with GM 85. Hell, even after spending a week with the 65, I'm only slightly more confident in my answers there.
These tests are a lot harder if you haven't spent any time with the lenses in question. I used the Loxia 85 for an hour while I was shooting with someone who owns it and I've been in the same room with GM 85. Hell, even after spending a week with the 65, I'm only slightly more confident in my answers there.
I don't own any of the three lenses, and I must admit that I'm at a loss even trying to guess. So now I wonder, how different are these lenses really? Could I just choose based on focal length, max aperture and AF/MF preference and in any case be confident, I bought a really excellent lens?
bjornthun wrote:
I don't own any of the three lenses, and I must admit that I'm at a loss even trying to guess. So now I wonder, how different are these lenses really? Could I just choose based on focal length, max aperture and AF/MF preference and in any case be confident, I bought a really excellent lens?
To me, that depends on your application. The Loxia 85 and Voigtlander are both sharp,across the frame and useable from wide open even for landscape. There is improvement stopping down, but it is subtle. In the case of the Loxia 50, it is not useless wide open as it can work for portraiture, but to get good across the fame performance, F5.6 is needed. The Voigtlander has the best CA correction but the Loxia 85 is also excellent. The Loxia 50 is not good in that department until well stopped down. Obviously, the Voigtlander has 1:2 macro capability which the others lack. Finally, while these examples don't show it very well, perhaps (lest the game be too easy) there are rendering and color differences that may affect one's preference for landscape or portrait use. Each of these lenses have strengths and weaknesses, but none are bad and all are really variations of good to great in almost all areas. I am excluding the GM 85 from this discussion as It is really a different animal being larger and autofocus but it makes the best portrait lens. Most would not carry it for landscape due to size and weight. Finally, these examples are small (1200 pixels on the long edge). When biewed at 1:1 for large prints, obviously differences are more readily discerned.
bjornthun wrote:
I don't own any of the three lenses, and I must admit that I'm at a loss even trying to guess. So now I wonder, how different are these lenses really? Could I just choose based on focal length, max aperture and AF/MF preference and in any case be confident, I bought a really excellent lens?
I agree with @Luvwine that application should be the determining factor, but otherwise, yeah, I think it comes down to a matter of degrees in performance and your tolerance for different emphasis in correction. All I can think is we're living in a golden age of camera optic design and manufacturing.
Aug 26, 2017 at 11:15 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
1) the GM - the bokeh gives this one away and like Fred I will be shocked if this is not the GM
2) the CV - I am pretty sure this is the CV because of the complete absence of fringing on the white vertical trim of the building.
3) the Loxia - beautiful rendering but just a touch of CA and the bokeh not being quite up to #1 suggests this is the Loxia
The second set stopped down to f/5.6 is much harder. I think but I am not sure they are:
1) the Loxia - it has nice bokeh at this aperture but I see just a touch of harshness as you go to the corners
2) the CV - again the bokeh difference is what I am seeing and it is just a tiny bit smoother in this shot to my eyes so I am saying the CV
I am usually very bad at those teste, but this time I have no excuse, havng experience with all the lenses except the CV
First test: I agree that the first one is the GM. I disagree with the learned Steve Spencer (bad sign!), and believe n°2 is the Loxia and n°3 is the CV.
Second test: n°1 is the Loxia, n°2 is the CV
I go by (a) the rendering, colour differentiation and contrast, and (b) the 3D elements. In both tests, I picked the slightly less saturated, less contasty colours as the CV, giving a different type of 3D.
Overall, that this comparison exists with some of the best FE lenses around shows that the CV is a very welcome addition to the FE landscape IMHO.
In the first jeep test, what some people are seeing as contrast differences between image 2 and 3 looks more like a slight difference in exposure to me. Note the skid plate under the front bumper and tires. It's noticably less dark in image 3 than image 2. It's almost like there's more shadow detail which is why I'm thinking an exposure difference.
In fact, many elements in the third jeep photo are lighter than the second photo. Look at the leaves on the branch over the garage door, the shrub in the background on the right of the jeep. Even the windshield looks brighter on the third jeep which is all highlights.
If the difference between 2 and 3 was contrast the highlights would be brighter and the shadows darker. But I'm seeing everything in image 2 is a bit less exposed leading to the appearance of more contrast and saturation.
Is it possible one lens is alowing slightly more light, resulting in a slight increase in exposure?
I took delivery of the 65/2 early this week but was sick afterwards :-(
Only took a few shots at the backyard today, so far my copy looks centered and it's rendering is more neutral than the Loxias.
One thing I noticed is that at F/2.0 when shooting high color contrast subjects it has a sort of dark outline around the subject. In the following shot, the pink flower's top has a little blackish outline and the left side (and SE) of the flower also has a shorter blackish outline. They are present in raw and jpg. Is this normal?
kaioyang wrote:
I took delivery of the 65/2 early this week but was sick afterwards :-(
Only took a few shots at the backyard today, so far my copy looks centered and it's rendering is more neutral than the Loxias.
One thing I noticed is that at F/2.0 when shooting high color contrast subjects it has a sort of dark outline around the subject. In the following shot, the pink flower's top has a little blackish outline and the left side (and SE) of the flower also has a shorter blackish outline. They are present in raw and jpg. Is this normal?
That looks suspiciously like the side effect of an anti fringing tool! Could it be that files from this have a metadata tag designed to turn on antifringeing in LR and C1?
virtualrain wrote:
In the first jeep test, what some people are seeing as contrast differences between image 2 and 3 looks more like a slight difference in exposure to me. Note the skid plate under the front bumper and tires. It's noticably less dark in image 3 than image 2. It's almost like there's more shadow detail which is why I'm thinking an exposure difference.
In fact, many elements in the third jeep photo are lighter than the second photo. Look at the leaves on the branch over the garage door, the shrub in the background on the right of the jeep. Even the windshield looks brighter on the third jeep which is all highlights.
If the difference between 2 and 3 was contrast the highlights would be brighter and the shadows darker. But I'm seeing everything in image 2 is a bit less exposed leading to the appearance of more contrast and saturation.
Is it possible one lens is alowing slightly more light, resulting in a slight increase in exposure?...Show more →
This may have been my fault. I used manual exposure settings and in the first test all three were slightly different apertures--F2, F2.4, and F2.5. I did change shutter speeds, but this may have resulted in differing exposures given no additional post processing (no exposure changes in post). Sorry about that! Second test with both at F5.6, this should not be an issue.
Since the aperture is mechanical, you could unlock the mount, turn the lens so that you disengage the electrical contacs and try that way. Please be careful, so you don't drop the lens.
Once I get my copy I'll be testing it against the Batis 135 and my very good copy of the Sony 85 1.5. I just want to see if it really could beat my 135. That's s tough challenge for it
bjornthun wrote:
Since the aperture is mechanical, you could unlock the mount, turn the lens so that you disengage the electrical contacs and try that way. Please be careful, so you don't drop the lens.
I'll see if I can put some masking tape on top of the contacts... tomorrow if weather permits.
