As a landscape photographer, I’m drawn to the special quality of lenses like the Loxia 35/2 and Voigtlander 40/1.2 Nokton, in respect to color rendering, sunstar definition, flare resistance and of course resolution and contrast at infinity distance.
These lenses also shine at wide apertures for environment portraits and other applications that benefit from a narrow depth of field. The Loxia is a capable lens when stopped down and the 40/1.2 follows similar characteristics although medium apertures satisfy demands for sharpness across the entire field.
How does the Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic E-mount perform in comparison?
Reviews on this lens are scarce and it's fair to say it wasn’t very well received here - in the US market.
The out of focus rendering is a bit rough but some people might appreciate the classic rendering with strong specular highlights' outlining and structural/harsh rendition.
How about using it for landscape photography?
After taking a look at these three lenses side by side under the same lighting conditions, my conclusion might surprise you.
The Loxia 35 and especially the CV 40/1.2 are stronger at wider apertures.
The tiny 35/1.4 competes well at f/5.6 for almost the entire field.
And, the f/8 is sharp across the frame, including the extreme edges.
Still not as good as the other contenders but effective enough despite the "Classic" nomenclature.
Enough talking...Let's see some comparisons at infinity distance.
Here is the full image thumbnail showing the areas demonstrated at 1:1 magnification.
Distance: Infinity
Focus: Center - Best of three @ 12.4x magnification
WB: Daylight for both lenses
All Lenses perfectly centered using my decentering test
Software: Lightroom FM Default Landscape Sharpening. All other settings set to default
PS: Vignetting and distortion NOT corrected
Center resolution comparison between Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic vs Loxia 35/2:
Center @f/2.8: Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic vs Loxia 35/2 - The Voigtlander 35/1.4 is actually ahead here!
Center @f/4: Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic vs Loxia 35/2 - They are now very similar and the Loxia has a bit more micro-contrast
Center @f/5.6: Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic vs Loxia 35/2 - Similar with Loxia slightly ahead
Center @f/8: Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic vs Loxia 35/2 - Both diffract and are pretty much equal at this aperture
Extreme corners comparison between Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic vs Loxia 35/2:
Extreme edge @f/2.8: Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic vs Loxia 35/2 - At the extreme corner, the Loxia is much ahead. Notice, I have a super copy of the Loxia 35/2 as most are mushy at f/2.8 at the very edges. So keep that in mind.
Extreme edge @f/4: Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic vs Loxia 35/2 - Loxia is still killing here
Extreme edge @f/5.6: Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic vs Loxia 35/2 - start to get interesting as only the very edges are not good for the Voigtlander
Extreme edge @f/8: Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic vs Loxia 35/2 - It's a miracle and the Voigtlander improves a lot and gets competitive with the Loxia 35
Extreme corner comparison between Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic vs Voigtlander 40/1.2 Nokton:
Extreme edge @f/2.8: Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic vs Voigtlander 40/1.2 Nokton - Here the 40/1.2 is killing
Extreme edge @f/4: Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic vs Voigtlander 40/1.2 Nokton - 40/1.2 is still killing
Extreme edge @f/5.6: Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic vs Voigtlander 40/1.2 Nokton - The 35/1.4 Classic shows some signs of live. Corners are great but extreme corners not so much
Extreme edge @f/8: Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic vs Voigtlander 40/1.2 Nokton - The Classic improves consideratly and it's now a contender
In my view, all three lenses are great choices for landscape photography when shooting at f/8 or smaller apertures. Before trying the Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic, I wasn't even considering it but now believe it's also a great choice when packing light.
They all have great resolution, contrast, well-defined nice sunstar, great color rendering and flare resistance.
Keep in mind there seem to be some variation with all these lenses but I'm confident the ones presented here are great copies. (Tried numerous copies of the CV 40/1.2 and Loxia 35 and perhaps got lucky with the Classic at first try)
The CV 35/1.4 Classic is the smallest and lightest of the bunch weighing only 259g. In comparison, the Loxia is 332g and the CV 40/1.2 is 410g.
After reviewing these infinity crops, what's your conclusion?
Looks very good to me. I haven't tried my 35/1.4 at infinity - indeed no more than 2m or so from the camera - but my thought was that it's a very good "standard" 35 when stopped down. I don't remember the corners being so smeared at larger apertures; I'll have a look to see whether I have something around f/4-5.6 that's not a tight closeup and see what I find.
Uncle Chip wrote:
Best thing about this comparison is that it has shocked Fred, this and the 21 can make for a super compact set,
Fred, where you want subject separation so the corners don’t matter, how do you think the 35 will hold up for say portraits?
For portraits it’s a matter of taste.
Both have funky rendering at wide “portrait” apertures, so it’s pick your preferred funkiness. (Of course there is an extra stop for the cv). The Loxia has a lovely and not so funky look from f2.8 (don’t know about the cv)
GMPhotography wrote:
If it can’t beat my Loxia at 5.6 I’m staying pat with it. I have the CV 50 1.2 for funky
If f/5.6 across the entire frame, including the extreme corners is a must, the CV 35/1.4 may be out for you. However most Loxias I've tried are only great at the very edges at f/8 or f/9 as well. This copy was actually an exception.
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
I was wondering about those Lox 35 corners. Mine isn't at its best for landscape till f/8 or even a little more.
Yes, I am not sure how this copy is so good Dan. Even at f/2, the corners are sharp! (with some haze)
I've tried at least five copies of this lens and they all needed f/8-10 for the extreme corners.
Uncle Chip wrote:
Best thing about this comparison is that it has shocked Fred, this and the 21 can make for a super compact set,
Fred, where you want subject separation so the corners don’t matter, how do you think the 35 will hold up for say portraits?
The 35/1.4 Classic can definitely be used for environment portraits but keep in mind that OOF rendering is technically atrocious.
Think about everything that most people love about bokeh rendering and this lens goes the opposite direction. It's harsh, structural, double-liney and distracting...
...Having said that, artistically, I think it has its place and love its uniqueness. It's one of the reasons I will be keeping this lens.
My iPhone can never copy that!
Here are sample samples.
Warning: If you are a bokeh purist, leave the room right now!
