p.27 #3 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
The little CV 21/3.5 is a solid contender for 'most 3D' award for wide angle lenses. What a champ. On sale at the Australian distributor right now (15% off). If color and spatial discrimination matter to you, this one is top tier.
p.27 #6 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
Thanks, Jordan. Some fine shots of the Color-Skopar lens on the (now standard) Sony body shape in your review. No lens looks more at home on these bodies.
Physical characteristics, Color-Skopar and the Loxia 21mm: weight: 230g -vs- 394g; length: 40mm -vs- 72mm; design complexity: 9/8 -vs- 11/9; IBIS 5 axis -vs- 3 axis; MFD: 20cm -vs- 25cm. From reading, a better hood (a CV standard). Perhaps easier mounting/demounting, better ergonomics, finger-friendly knurling, aperture ring placement. Same blade count (10); filter size (52mm); diameter (62-63mm). A half stop slower, offset partly by the shorter MFD.
While the Loxia 21mm is going to please technical aficionados more for its more pure pursuit of edge-to-edge sharpness and high contrast, the CV is my choice over that established reference lens for Sony WAs because of the Color-Skopar's superior sense of volume, stronger color separation and more pleasant tone depiction, and more apparent spatial object rendering - all major factors that work together in full DOF images to lead to our favourite friend - three dimensional imagery.
When you let the CAD get ahead of the photographic end criteria (mine are listed above), you get a kind of hermetic purity which is bought partially at the expense of these (less obvious, and 'discretionary') pictorial criteria. It can be argued many makers are letting lens design orthodoxy drive image presentation, whereas Cosina are working for a better balance between the two sides: the heart as well as the head.
Zeiss managers said recently they had to 'redirect' their designers, instructing them to make better rounded cine lenses (their most important commercial optics), with less emphasis on sharpness (which almost all modern lenses have enough of). If given their head, the design staff simply saw their task as perpetually making stronger, sharper lenses.
No non-photographer viewer of your images ever said: 'great, but they fail because those corners are 5% less sharp than they need to be!' They are busy taking in the whole picture, to assess the value of the picture's content. At 21mm, full images live or die with the foreground; volume is not everything, but it's almost everything - and every one of Jordan's images shows it, as do so many in this thread.
p.27 #7 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
Has somebody compared the Voigtländer 21/3.5 FE to the Leica Super-Elmar-M 21/3.4?
I very much like the images here by @hasenbein and @jhinkey . The CV 21/3.5 looks very good in challenging lighting conditions, and it handles them very well.
p.27 #8 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
Frankly, Philip... Jordan's last photos are just run-of-the-mill hiking photos. I don't see how they would show any special qualities of lens or photographer (except demoing the sunstars).
p.27 #17 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
vdo1 wrote:
Well if you want the center of attraction/distraction in your photo to be the sunstar(s), they could as well have rainbows in them, couldn’t they?
I honestly think they look neat and they're inexpensive, so why not!?
The main reason to get rid of the Tokina lens is the cause of bad my copy. Soft on one side. This was especially evident with the transition to R2. The price we have cv 21 not yet adequate. And Yes, the aperture on Tokina I don't need. For two years of use on astrophoto was only a couple of times. But I would be useful expressed rays cv21.
