A quick scan of the Voigtlander 21/1.4 and Voigtlander 21/3.5 threads indicate to me the 1.4 IQ is much superior. Colors are full bodied and contrast equalling the best of Zeiss.
sandycrane wrote:
A quick scan of the Voigtlander 21/1.4 and Voigtlander 21/3.5 threads indicate to me the 1.4 IQ is much superior. Colors are full bodied and contrast equalling the best of Zeiss.
Well outside a faster lens it has better corners than the 3.5. Color and rendering are very close. Bokeh will obviously be different but really both sweet lenses
Few more. Was hoping to get out and shoot some northern lights this past week but it has been cloudy. Hopefully will be able to get out this coming week. Did some star shots the other night and it looks very promising wide open besides the heavy vignetting which I usually add in post anyways.
<edit> added some fire photos from this evening of the new fire pit area
This was actually @ F2.0
F1.4
Oct 06, 2019 at 05:40 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I don't think there is a grey importer for CV lenses, and as far I have seen CVP has the lowest prices - even lower then british importer robertwhite at the moment(although cvp doesn't seem to have much of CV lenses in stock?), but last couple of years robertwhite had 10% off CV lenses in december, maybe worth to wait?
If you do manage to find a cheaper alternative please do share with the rest of us... :-)
Cheers, A.
Sinasina wrote:
I have only one question, is there a retailer in Europe that sells this cheaper than CVP? (gray market is ok too, if its reliable like E-Inf)
I love my old Zeiss 21mm f2.8 ZF that I used to use on my Nikon and then on the a7rii with adapter. Quite a few times I've gone to order the Voigtlander 21/1.4 lens, but stopped off to view my old Zeiss 21mm files. Every time I am blown away by the IQ of the older lens.
So, does anyone have experience with both the Zeiss 21/2.8 ZF or ZE and the Voigtlander 21/1.4? What are your impressions of the upgrade. Does the overall IQ ( sharpness, contrast, micro contrast, and color/ saturation) of the Voigtlander match the Zeiss?
I am not usually one to complain about a lens' size, but the Zeiss on an adapter is both humongous and unwieldy. It hogs the space of 2-3 primes in my camera bag. I would love a smaller 21, but it would really bug me if I had to compromise IQ. For me 1.4 would be fun to have, but is not that important.
For reference: I do have the Voigtlander 40/1.2 and find IQ to be every bit as good as any of my Zeiss ZF lenses. So comparisons between the 40 ans 21 Voigts would be of interest to me, particularly in color and contrast.
I had the ZE version of the Zeiss 21/2.8 and got rid of it due to moustache distortion, terrible vignetting and huge size, staying with my Canon 24 TSE II on Canon and into my Sony ownership.
Since then, I've owned and loved the Loxia 21, and still do. Soooooo much better on all fronts than the ZE 21/2.8! Little distortion and not complex to correct, much less vignetting (I seldom use the lens profile), wonderful size/weight and beautiful sunstars.
I have had no inclination to purchase the CV 21/1.4 (or the f/3.5 version). But if you want a fast wide angle in manual focus, that may be the right lens for you, but not the Zeiss ZE/ZF version with adapter.
sandycrane wrote:
I love my old Zeiss 21mm f2.8 ZF that I used to use on my Nikon and then on the a7rii with adapter. Quite a few times I've gone to order the Voigtlander 21/1.4 lens, but stopped off to view my old Zeiss 21mm files. Every time I am blown away by the IQ of the older lens.
So, does anyone have experience with both the Zeiss 21/2.8 ZF or ZE and the Voigtlander 21/1.4? What are your impressions of the upgrade. Does the overall IQ ( sharpness, contrast, micro contrast, and color/ saturation) of the Voigtlander match the Zeiss?
I am not usually one to complain about a lens' size, but the Zeiss on an adapter is both humongous and unwieldy. It hogs the space of 2-3 primes in my camera bag. I would love a smaller 21, but it would really bug me if I had to compromise IQ. For me 1.4 would be fun to have, but is not that important....Show more →
I used to own the Zeiss 21mm F2.8 on Canon. It was an amazing lens and I don't have direct comparisons with that lens but my gut tells me that this new voigtlander is sharper both in the center and extreme borders than the older zeiss @ F2.8. The contrast is about the same. Both lenses have that special micro contrast that makes images pop. The added bonus of being 2 stops faster is something that is really special with this lens. To add, @ F1.4 the lens is amazingly sharp and contrasty despite having some pretty heavy vignetting.
Flare is much better on the CV 21mm as well.
IMO, the voigtlander is better than the Zeiss at everything.
Neither distortion or vignetting are that big a deal to me, being easily corrected in PP with little, if any, consequence. As far as sharpness goes, I have no complaint with the Zeiss. In fact, if it were a reasonable size I wouldn't consider replacing it. Primary for me is the biting contrast and full bodied colors that the Cosina lenses provide.
I wonder, Hardcore, if you would take a look at some of your old Zeiss 21 images to reboot your impressions. I am certainly not doubting you, but sometimes as we move along our frame of reference drifts, although your photos of the dogs and backgrounds are fantastic!
I looked back and the images from the Zeiss are great! The unfair comparison would be to try and compare the images captured on my 5d classic vs those on my Z6 which is infinitely better when it comes to dynamic range.
You really can't go wrong keeping your older lens if you are enjoying it. If size is an issue though, I'm not sure how much of a gain you will get going with the CV 21mm. It's still a relatively hefty lens minus the flared front element portion compared to the Zeiss.
The CV 21mm F3.5 has the size advantage for sure but I have no experience with it and heard it suffers a bit in optical quality.
Sandy, the various Zeiss 21s (made for SLR, DSLR, ZM, G) and the two modern CV 21s (1.4-3.5) are all rather different despite these two makers being intimately intertwined during the digital era. All found favour with the user community then and now, and certainly all are sharp enough.
Which is the best choice will depend on how you feel each might suit your preferences and sense of aesthetics - a matching of lens character to imaging needs. I find this a more profitable avenue than comparisons of the regular review aberration pageant, and it's a very individual (connoisseur's) choice.
'..it suffers a bit in optical quality.' Maybe, and this may prove the point, as my needs in a 21mm revolve around three dimensionality, superb colour balance/saturation/separation and using Sony's base dynamic range to full effect for nature photography. It's also a very easy lens to post process on a consistent basis, which is a measure of success in these factors. The last 5% of 'sharpness' bothers me not at all even if it is, in fact, true.
But we are all different in how we perceive the world. The big thing in photography is understanding what you personally want and need, and how to 'read images' to see what delivers them and what does not.
Voigtländer 21/3.5 snapshot - optical quality example
Hardcore wrote:
I looked back and the images from the Zeiss are great! The unfair comparison would be to try and compare the images captured on my 5d classic vs those on my Z6 which is infinitely better when it comes to dynamic range.
Now you've done it. The old Canon 5Dc happens to be one of my favorite cameras!
Such beautiful rendering, colors and the last 2 have a nice pop to them! Lovely.
