p.6 #2 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
Below a quick comparison of the CV 21 vs FE 16-35 GM. RAW Files, center/mid/extreme corner at 3.5 (plus 5.6 extreme corner)
Sharpening at Lightroom default, 200% view
p.6 #3 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
zugzwang2 wrote:
Yes. I use the little Zeiss Tele-Tessar 85/4 not because it is by all measures the best 85mm lens out there but because it represents a sensible compromise between competing claims for the prominence of size, weight, and various image parameters considered according to my needs. The new CV 21/3.5 might be a similarly sensible compromise.
I'm not interested in replacing the Loxia 25 (my favorite lens) with the new 24/1.4 or in supplementing it with the Loxia 21, but on the day I might walk with the little Voigtlander 21 and the Zony 55 instead of the Loxia 25 and the Zeiss 85, depending on what I hope to see. I suppose that sometimes, although the Loxia 21 and 25 together might be a bit much for me, I might slip the 21/3.5 into a pocket to accompany the 25/85 kit that I enjoy. ...Show more →
Exactly, but imo, the ZM 85/4 is not much of a compromise at all for landscapes when comparing it to the Lox 85. I've found that any difference between them is within copy variation specs.
p.6 #4 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
Stevvi wrote:
Below a quick comparison of the CV 21 vs FE 16-35 GM. RAW Files, center/mid/extreme corner at 3.5 (plus 5.6 extreme corner)
Sharpening at Lightroom default, 200% view
Thanks for the test. I will also compare it side by side to the 16-35/2.8 GM today.
p.6 #5 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
Seems like the GM zoom beats it, but it's pretty close. It also does a better job at suppressing purple fringing compared to the CV, but that's probably expected. Pretty impressive, especially considering the price tags.
p.6 #6 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
yes, especially at larger apertures...
jwhatts wrote:
Seems like the GM zoom beats it, but it's pretty close. It also does a better job at suppressing purple fringing compared to the CV, but that's probably expected. Pretty impressive, especially considering the price tags.
p.6 #10 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
MFoucs wrote:
Yup... awaiting both more samples from real use (I use 24mp, not 42 and am not a pixel peeper) and my own copy (on pre-order with B & H, which has a Nov 1 delivery date listed on its page) to see how much that mid-zone dip affects IQ and how much it goes away when stopped down. If mine performs as Fred's does, with mid-frame improving at F5.6 and becoming optimal at F8, it'll be a keeper for me.
Here are some more samples from this week (we had a little better weather on one day so I did some shooting at lunch break) with my A9 and CV 21/3.5 (all are SOOC JPEGs). Most of them were at f5.6, and a couple at f8.
Actually I bought a 2nd copy of the lens from a different shop to compare with my first copy as I think my first copy has a bit weaker top left (extreme) corner compared to top right (it gets pretty good by f8 even on the first copy though). The latest samples were taken with my 2nd copy. The serial numbers of my 1st and 2nd are only 22 apart so I guess there are quite small number of units in distribution (at least in Tokyo) so far.
With my 2nd copy I'm happy with all the extreme corners. The 2nd copy requires a bit of pull-back from hard inifinity for best results most of the time (except possibly if the targets are hundreds of meters away) unlike my first copy which is optimal at hard infinity if the targets are at least >20m away.
I'm not really noticing a mid-field dip on my A9 when shooting city scenes.
p.6 #11 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
jhinkey wrote:
Now for approximately the same images at f/5.6.
Center is excellent, but starts getting mushy somewhat quickly off center.
This looks like sample variation. With my review copy, the extreme corners are not far behind the Loxia 21's @5.6 and pretty similar at f/7.1-8.
I would try another one John.
p.6 #12 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
Fred -
I'm going to try to make some more images today to confirm, but yes, mostly likely a 2nd copy.
This copy is actually worse than my ancient 20/2.8 AIS Nikkor.
p.6 #13 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Actually I bought a 2nd copy of the lens from a different shop to compare with my first copy as I think my first copy has a bit weaker top left (extreme) corner compared to top right ...
... The 2nd copy requires a bit of pull-back from hard inifinity for best results most of the time (except possibly if the targets are hundreds of meters away) unlike my first copy which is optimal at hard infinity if the targets are at least >20m away.
I'm not really noticing a mid-field dip on my A9 when shooting city scenes.
I would be really curious how each of those two copies did on different camera bodies...
p.6 #14 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
Fred, did you find time to compare the CV 21 to the 16-35 GM yourself?
Stephan
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for the test. I will also compare it side by side to the 16-35/2.8 GM today.
Oct 19, 2018 at 04:38 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #15 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
Still really stoked about this one. Not much time to shoot stills, but hopefully tomorrow. Will post some as soon as I have stuff worth posting.
Ended up using the Laowa 15mm for a short video thing today, instead of the CV 21- as originally hoped. Had zero time to plan and exactly 30 minutes to get some footage of a bunch of toddlers running around a cluttered house, so I chose the wider option. Not familiar enough with the CV yet to use it under pressure.
Got me thinking - I totally get why people waffle about using this lens vs others they may have. I frigging LOVE the Laowa. There's nothing like f/2 at that wide a FL to make things pop. But it's an absolute brick of a lens, which makes me leave it on the shelf more often than not. While the 21 @ f/3.5 won't get the crazy blurred background, I still think I'll be using it on the majority of outings. 21 gaps perfectly with 40, and just those 2 can cover my needs for almost everything I shoot, and together *still* weigh less than the Laowa, never mind the bulk.
p.6 #17 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
The weather was pretty nice today though it turned cloudy and rainy towards the evening. I went out with the lens again. Posted 38 more shots here (taken with my A9), all were post-processed: https://plus.google.com/%2BJuhaKannisto/posts/6HhHaHJo3dJ
It's nice that the sun stars are so well defined already from f4.
p.6 #18 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
Juha Kannisto wrote:
The weather was pretty nice today though it turned cloudy and rainy towards the evening. I went out with the lens again. Posted 38 more shots here (taken with my A9), all were post-processed: https://plus.google.com/%2BJuhaKannisto/posts/6HhHaHJo3dJ
It's nice that the sun stars are so well defined already from f4.
Weather is poor today for a direct Lox to CV 21mm comparison.
Thanks for those additional images from the 21/3.5 CV. I can see it at 24MP + AA filter the loss of resolution off center. Perhaps my copy has it much much worse than what it's supposed to be for normal. I need to return it Monday (oh joy . . .)
Hopefully the weather will cooperate and I can take some additional images from my copy and the Lox.
p.6 #19 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
Stevvi wrote:
Fred, did you find time to compare the CV 21 to the 16-35 GM yourself?
Stephan
I've rented a 16-35GM but it was a horribly decentered copy so can't share any crops. The CV 21/3.5 did much better towards the corners while center was pretty equal at f/5.6.
I have some test 16-35GM test shots in my archives and can compare both today. (It won't be with same lighting though)
p.6 #20 · Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color Skopar Review
jhinkey wrote:
Weather is poor today for a direct Lox to CV 21mm comparison.
Thanks for those additional images from the 21/3.5 CV. I can see it at 24MP + AA filter the loss of resolution off center. Perhaps my copy has it much much worse than what it's supposed to be for normal. I need to return it Monday (oh joy . . .)
Hopefully the weather will cooperate and I can take some additional images from my copy and the Lox.
- J
I also see some gradual loss of resolution off center especially when shooting at wider apertures though it looks quite continuous to me and not just affecting midfield but edges as well. I shot a lot of the low light stuff today at f4 and daylight stuff mostly at f6.3 and I usually focused short of hard infinity with my A9, trying to focus on something that was the main subject in or near the central region. This 2nd copy of the lens that I have on my A9 seems to have best infinity focus for central area when the focus distance indicator on camera's viewfinder shows 5m (just before it turns to infinity). I feel like there's some more bite at the center when shooting at f5.6 or f6.3 vs. f8 though best midfield/edges would probably require f8 and I'm still experimenting with different settings.
On my other 2 cameras (A7r and A7II) even this 2nd copy of the lens still requires hard infinity for best results most of the time so my A9 seems to be having ever so slightly shorter registration distance.
