Fred Miranda wrote:
Here are three reasons the Voigtlander 21/1.4 is better than the Loxia 21 for 'astro':
1) Very low field curvature compared to Loxia 21's moderate field curvature at infinity. (our precious stars)
2) Lower vignetting when both are at f/2.8.
3) Similar coma correction at faster apertures (~f/2.2)
Lens is ordered. Now looking at polarizers. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Was wondering if the lens vignettes to a greater degree with a polarizer on. Breakthrough polarizers are my goto but they do have a chunky thick brass rim I'm afraid may not do well with this lens.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I went through some changes in my kit as well. We are really lacking superb 28mm and 35mm MF E-mount lenses. (Voigtlander or Zeiss).
Strictly for landscapes though, I'm currently shooting CV 15/4.5 III, CV 21/1.4, Loxia 35/2, CV 65/2 and 100-400 GM. I find these 5 lenses do everything I need for any scene.
As far as resolution, my weakest lenses are the CV 15 and Loxia 35 but both have great qualities I appreciate like color rendering, sunstar rendering, flare resistance and low distortion.
I am very happy with my AF kit as well and it's similar to yours: 24/1.4, 50/1.4 ZA, 85/1.4 and 135/1.8 GM lenses. I recently added the Sigma 45/2.8 as a compact and light walk-around lens for the daytime. For low light and when only carrying one small/fast lens, I love the CV 40/1.2 Nokton....Show more →
Fred -- I like your set-up very much.
For a while I felt like the lone voice in the wilderness regarding the Loxia 35. Glad to see you embracing it again, even with its few shortcomings. I love it for the exact reasons you mention. I really enjoyed both the Loxia 21 and 35 among the lenses I took on the Alaska cruise, but I'm sure I'd be very happy with the CV 21/1.4 in place of the Loxia. Not so for the 35!
Just found one of these on B&H for $1009.00 U.S. used. I took it and they shipped to Canada despite the restrictions (maybe because it was used). I'm thinking it's likely a de-centered copy but I guess I'll have to wait and see. 30 day return policy.
I have another one on order through a Canadian Retailer but after shipping and taxes it is $200 more than this B&H used version. Figure it's worth a shot.
Nicely done comparison. I am thinking about these two lenses. I own the Loxia, but I am always drawn to a wide aperture, like the Voigtlander offers.
However, my take on these images is that I prefer the rendering by the Loxia, and I am curious what others think. To me, the Loxia image appears smoother and more integrated visually, which I think is because of smoother, more gradual color transitions. The greater contrast of the Voigtlander seems to reduce the perceived (if not the actual) dynamic range because the color changes occur more quickly as the eye moves over the picture.
chiron wrote:
Nicely done comparison. I am thinking about these two lenses. I own the Loxia, but I am always drawn to a wide aperture, like the Voigtlander offers.
However, my take on these images is that I prefer the rendering by the Loxia, and I am curious what others think. To me, the Loxia image appears smoother and more integrated visually, which I think is because of smoother, more gradual color transitions. The greater contrast of the Voigtlander seems to reduce the perceived (if not the actual) dynamic range because the color changes occur more quickly as the eye moves over the picture.
Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't look like the loxia was part of that comparison. Just the CV21 & Sony 24G. Unless by "these images" you mean the images in this thread.
chiron wrote:
Nicely done comparison. I am thinking about these two lenses. I own the Loxia, but I am always drawn to a wide aperture, like the Voigtlander offers.
However, my take on these images is that I prefer the rendering by the Loxia, and I am curious what others think. To me, the Loxia image appears smoother and more integrated visually, which I think is because of smoother, more gradual color transitions. The greater contrast of the Voigtlander seems to reduce the perceived (if not the actual) dynamic range because the color changes occur more quickly as the eye moves over the picture.
Hardcore wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't look like the loxia was part of that comparison. Just the CV21 & Sony 24G. Unless by "these images" you mean the images in this thread.
Yes, I misread it. It is the Sony 24mm whose rendering I prefer.
Although I haven't had the chance to shoot the two side by side, I've found that after shooting with the Nokton for a few weeks I'm noticing CA / purple fringing far more often than I seemed to with the Loxia 21. Below is a typical example shot with my Nokton. It was stopped down all the way to F8, and manufacturer CA profile was applied as it can't be turned off in CR.
I'm also finding flare a bit more prominent with the Nokton, and shooting against the sun is the main reason I would carry one of these two lenses.So it's back to the Loxia for me, much as I like the flatter FC and distance readout in camera with the Nokton
Nokton 21 @F8 100% 42mp (along the short edge of the frame)
I see the uneven color on the periphery of the frame as well as on my model F3.5. Tokina 20/2 didn't have that problem, but she has a terrible near field at hyperfocal range.
Looks great! Looking forward to the arrival of mine, just bought from Fred, ready for me to get back into Sony. No camera yet, but I'll pick up an A7RIV soon.
