Since I messed up the exposure on the first one (same shutter speed for both GM at F2.5 and Loxia 85 at F 2.4 (which meant the Loxia was slightly over exposed) I figure I should reveal the answers.
Kudos to Fred Miranda who got them all right (only one, I think as not everyone guessed all 5 pics):
First test:
1 GM (No one missed this one that guessed!)
2 CV,
3 Loxia 85
Biggest problem is there all three great lenses so it makes it tough.
Luvwine wrote:
Since I messed up the exposure on the first one (same shutter speed for both GM at F2.5 and Loxia 85 at F 2.4 (which meant the Loxia was slightly over exposed) I figure I should reveal the answers.
Kudos to Fred Miranda who got them all right (only one, I think as not everyone guessed all 5 pics):
First test:
1 GM (No one missed this one that guessed!)
2 CV,
3 Loxia 85
I hope you guys are happy with all the teasing! I just ordered one.
I will compare it to my Loxia 50/2 and Zeiss 85/4 ZM. If it comes close, I will probably sell them for it...
Fred Miranda wrote:
I hope you guys are happy with all the teasing! I just ordered one.
I will compare it to my Loxia 50/2 and Zeiss 85/4 ZM. If it comes close, I will probably sell them for it...
Fred Miranda wrote:
I hope you guys are happy with all the teasing! I just ordered one.
I will compare it to my Loxia 50/2 and Zeiss 85/4 ZM. If it comes close, I will probably sell them for it...
I will be interested to see if you like the rendering for landscape. I find the Voigtlander to be the most neutral/natural lens I have for color along with the other virtues we have been talking about. However, the Loxia and ZM lenses have terrific landscape rendering and whether this could replace them for you for that purpose will be interesting to see. The loxia lenses on vegetation in particular are quite "3d" and on some shots, I see less of that with the Voigtlander. If you like the lens half as much as I do, however, you will be well pleased.
It could be just a little clarity/ contrast boast needed. I'll see what it is once I test it against the Batis 135
Luvwine wrote:
I will be interested to see if you like the rendering for landscape. I find the Voigtlander to be the most neutral/natural lens I have for color along with the other virtues we have been talking about. However, the Loxia and ZM lenses have terrific landscape rendering and whether this could replace them for you for that purpose will be interesting to see. The loxia lenses on vegetation in particular are quite "3d" and on some shots, I see less of that with the Voigtlander. If you like the lens half as much as I do, however, you will be well pleased. ...Show more →
Luvwine wrote:
I will be interested to see if you like the rendering for landscape. I find the Voigtlander to be the most neutral/natural lens I have for color along with the other virtues we have been talking about. However, the Loxia and ZM lenses have terrific landscape rendering and whether this could replace them for you for that purpose will be interesting to see. The loxia lenses on vegetation in particular are quite "3d" and on some shots, I see less of that with the Voigtlander. If you like the lens half as much as I do, however, you will be well pleased. ...Show more →
I should have it on Tuesday and I'm curious to shoot with it.
Jochenb wrote:
When I compare RAW files of both the Voigtlander 65 and Loxia 50 I just see a little more "presence" in the Loxia files. At least on the A7RII. I felt the same way when comparing the FE55 with the Loxia or Canon L lenses with the Zeiss ZE/ZF lenses a few years ago.
It has nothing to do with LR vs C1 (have both). I always make my own profiles, because I think the standard profiles for Sony are horrible.
Still, this Voigtlander clearly has great qualities and I'm certainly interested in it. It seems to be much more useful to me than the 50 Loxia, because of the close focusing, nicer bokeh and almost no CA.
Jannik Peters wrote:
Okay folks.. I have made a small but interesting comparison between my Loxia 85 and my CV65.
- Lenses were electronically decoupled.. So it is just the glass that you see here
- CV is cropped to the size of the Loxia
- both lenses wide open
- same position
- same time
- same light
- the brightness level of the toy is exactely the same (CV -0,25 exposure, Loxia +-0)
- no sharpening applied
- White balance sliders exactely the same
So which one is which?
I think the bottom is the CV65--it looks just a touch more compressed and a tiny tad sharper on the little white dots on the toy, as a macro should. But I prefer the look of the top picture.
chiron wrote:
I think the bottom is the CV65--it looks just a touch more compressed and a tiny tad sharper on the little white dots on the toy, as a macro should. But I prefer the look of the top picture.
Ha! I got it wrong, but I was thinking the Loxia was a 50mm, not the 85mm. Gotta learn to pay attention when I read.
Fred Miranda wrote:
If we are getting tricked by these samples, to me, it just means that all these lenses are marvels and the differential is something other than IQ.
Yes; for years people have been saying "modern lenses are so good that IQ is not a factor in choice".
But it was never true, especially as camera resolution improved.
But now I think it is more or less true for the best lenses. Otuses, L85, B135, CV65, Sigma 135: all lenses where IQ is just not a factor any more. And even if we get 200mp sensors, and will see issues at 1:1, IQ will still not be a factor unless printing to the side of a house and inspecting closely (200mp will be great for doing away with moire though)
At the wide end it's a bit harder, but even there we are getting close to the "IQ not a basis for choice" levels with the best lenses.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Phillip,
I just read your entire review. Nicely done as always!
On bokeh rendering, I see you rated it above average.
Did you test it against the Loxia 50/2 at mid distances?
Thanks
Yes, I think overall bokeh is above average but one good or bad rating doesn't really do it justice. I think closeup bokeh is very smooth, at portrait distances it is still fine but at longer distances it does indeed become a bit harsh. The rather strong cat-eyes and straight aperture blades can also cause issues. Bastian is sending his FE55 over so that I compare both lenses a bit closer in the coming days, bokeh is one of the things I will have a close look.
As far as bokeh a lot of these tests are against a longer lens to start with so a 85 regardless of lens will be slightly better. I think during a 55 1.8 might give us better insight to this since it's only 10 mm longer than the 85 which is 20 mm longer. I think it's worth a test just to get a idea of the other way. Not many 65 to compare too
