Hardcore wrote:
This lens does so well with flare, I find it really doesn't benefit much from a lens hood.
Maybe I will get a cheapo 62mm UV filter from Amazon and break the glass, just use the ring as a "hood". I remember Guy did that but not sure for which lens.
Petegh wrote:
Fred, do you still have the shots taken at f2.8 and f4 on your computer - I'd be interested to see what happens to the mid-field field curvature on the A7rIV?
Fred, I mean this from the perspective that you have to compare apples with apples: it doesn't matter what the A7rIV does to the perceived field curvature of the Voigt 21mm f1.4 at f1.4 and f2, when you are comparing it to the Loxia 21mm, as that is a F2.8 lens: so the relevant comparison is Voigt at 2.8 and Loxia at 2.8.
This also does raise an interesting issue going forward for us still shooting 42Mpix: if changing bodies changes your recommendations, then that's something us shooting mark II or III cameras will have to take into consideration in your future reviews...
HelBen85 wrote:
Nice pictures, thanks for showing.
@Hardcore@: Great pictures, especially in the Nikon threads. I like your style.
I have now bought the Voigtlander and tested it (on my Sony A7RIII) against my Loxia 21mm. My Loxia is a good one that I got from Zeiss after complaining that there were so many bad copies on the market. In my experience it is really difficult to find a Zeiss that is equally sharp against infinity (objects more than 100/200 meters away) from the left to the right edge of the image (not corners), e.g. when photographing a distant mountain range. Most of the Zeiss Loxia 21mm lenses seem to have their infinity stop too early. This is something that many reviewers do not notice because they do not test the lenses in suitable, even very distant sceneries that can show these problems.
My third Voigtlander is now superior to my Zeiss, actually over the whole frame (at least 90 percent of it) from f2.8 to f8.
As with the Loxia, there seem to be significant differences between the various copies.
My first impression in every-day usage is that the Voigtländer shows very different colors than the Zeiss, but it also shows very nice colors, you can see that also in the viewfinder.
Time will tell whether the pictures also have that certain something like the Zeiss.
By the way, the Zeiss is the visibly wider-angle lens....Show more →
Can you post a comparison so we can see how much wider the Zeiss is? Thanks.
HelBen85 wrote:
Most of the Zeiss Loxia 21mm lenses seem to have their infinity stop too early. This is something that many reviewers do not notice because they do not test the lenses in suitable, even very distant sceneries that can show these problems.
My third Voigtlander is now superior to my Zeiss, actually over the whole frame (at least 90 percent of it) from f2.8 to f8.
As with the Loxia, there seem to be significant differences between the various copies.
There is field curvature to take in consideration though.
All copies of the loxia 21/2.8 I've tried, had the extreme corners perfectly focused when using the lens' infinity hard stop while the center plane of focus is achieved a tad before the hard stop.
Optimal sharpness at infinity can only be achieved 'between' these two focus positions and by stopping the lens down to allow depth of field to mask field curvature.
In the case of the Voigtlander 21/1.4, the field curvature is towards the mid-field instead.
Fred Miranda wrote:
There is field curvature to take in consideration though.
All copies of the loxia 21/2.8 I've tried, had the extreme corners perfectly focused when using the lens' infinity hard stop while the center plane of focus is achieved a tad before the hard stop.
Optimal sharpness at infinity can only be achieved 'between' these two focus positions and by stopping the lens down to allow depth of field to mask field curvature.
In the case of the Voigtlander 21/1.4, the field curvature is towards the mid-field instead.
Frankly, I see it differently.
If I remember correctly, I had 3 Loxias 21mm lenses at home and in use around the world for over 3 years.
I also tested 2 more at the store where I bought the Loxia.
All 5 lenses had the same problem, in different forms, they had clearly (!) visible blurring in a more or less large part of the photo, regardless of the focus and aperture. I got the same result with all my Sony Cameras in this period (A7II/A7RII/A7III/A7RIII).
For all 5 lenses, it was best to get an evenly sharp image if you held the focus ring at infinity, exactly at the hard stop, not only 1mm before, hold it at hard stop.
The best of the 5 Loxia lenses was by far the one I received directly from Zeiss after my complaint.
All Loxia 21mm lenses had the following problem:
They had one clearly visible area of blur (compared to the very sharp remaining part of the picture). That blur area was NEVER in the 4 corners of the picture. There the lenses were always very sharp.
The blurring was in the upper third and depending on the respective lens either half left or half right (never both), not in the corners but slightly before, roughly between what you call "midfield" and the corners.
You can only see these blurs if you have no or very little sky in the picture. A test scenario is only suitable if the subject (ideally nature / mountains, because of the finer structures than the ones of buildings) is equally very far away.
These blurs were (somewhat) less if I focused directly on infinity (on the hard stop) and stopped down. But they never completely disappeared. They remained clearly visible.
All reviewers I know use unsuitable scenarios to recognize this. Either the subjects are too close or there is too much sky in the picture.
Your sharpness test procedure would have resulted in perfect sharpness for all my 21mm Loxias, but only because the problematic spots on your test images are in the sky. So if your conclusion on uniform sharpness is based on viewing / comparing the sharpness at the points marked red by you or on the basis of these diagonal test images at all, it is impossible to notice the phenomenon I have described.
I have therefore adapted my own test procedures.
I test my lenses from a tower and make test shots without having any sky in the shots to be able to check the uniform sharpness.
Maybe I was unlucky 5 times or the reviewers missed something. I think the latter.
I often see problems that others don't see, for example with the popular 24mm GM. However, I no longer feel like arguing with strangers over the internet just because they cannot/ do not notice this.
I have several hundred pictures (travel photography and test shots) that show this blurring, but I don't make my money with reviews and I don't care whether people believe me on the internet or not.
I think it is sufficient and fair of me to give such hints to the professional reviewers. It is the same with the focal length. I am very surprised that no reviewer seem to notice that the Loxia is significantly more wide angle. But I see no need to prove it. It is obvious…
Anyway, I solved the problem for myself. My current Voigtlander 21mm Nokton is better / more evenly sharp, and that with all apertures that both lenses share (from f2.8 on).
The Loxia is a fantastic lens. Small, light and very sharp, plus the great Zeiss colors and is able to create very vivid/three-dimensional Pictures.It was my most used lens for over 3 years.
But it annoyed me that I could see this blur in many landscape shots and there was no way to prevent it.
My short conclusion: In short, I am thrilled.
In comparison to the 21mm Loxia: Regarding sharpness and back light behavior: I think a good copy is better than a good Loxia copy (on Sony A7III and A7RIII) and I have had quite a few.
The colors are great too, but very different from the Loxia. I think the image impression of the Loxia is more three-dimensional. In contrast, the colors of the Voigtlander are easier to process.
The Loxia is a little more wide-angle in comparison.
With perfect focussing my Nokton peaks at f5.6 (depending on the necessary depth of field, of course). From there on my Voigtlander copy is very sharp over the entire image. After that, the depth of field expands, but it doesn't get any sharper.
If you want the highest uniform sharpness, you have to carefully test the perfect focus setting. Even the smallest deviations prevent an evenly sharp image, as it is with the Loxia.
The perfect focussing for my copy is well before the hard stop.
In comparison to the 24mm GM. The Nokton is not much wider than the 24mm GM. Unlike the Nokton, the 24mm GM is always sharp from f1.4, but the Nokton wins at f4 at the latest. The 24mm GM often refuses to focus at infinity with autofocus on A7III and RIII. It is therefore advisable to use manual focus for landscapes when the aperture is open or bigger than f8 in order to maintain a consistently high sharpness where you want it. Sunstars are better.
Here are a few first snapshots with the 21mm Nokton of one of my typical use casses, in this case a ski tour to one of the highest mountains in Austria.
No further postprocessing, just exported:
Just got my copy of the Voigtländer 21mm f/1.4 VM. The review is spot on. I see more coma and a bit more longitudinal chromatic aberrations with apertures larger than f/4, compared to Nikon 24mm f/1.8 S and Zeiss Milvus 1.4/25. For most situations, however, both are sufficiently controlled and the Voigtländer is a lot smaller (especially the hood). The lens is really great for bokeh (or slight smoothness away from the focus plane that leads the eye to the subject or main part of a scene), and is really great for apertures f/4 and smaller! (Off center color tint is comparable to a Leica Summarit 90mm - in many cases you don't see it if you don't know it's there, but you need a color cast correction file for best results. Sharpness does not seem to be affected by the somewhat thicker sensor glass on the Nikon Z, compared to Leica M.)
The lens needs a slight correction for color cast in the outer areas on the Nikon Z7. The cropped images are at pixel level at 100% JPG quality.
EDIT: There is an issue with exporting images that have lens color cast corrections in Capture One 20, including version 20.3. Thus, the crops do not have the same color values as the full image. These pictures can therefore only be used to assess resolution and errors such as lateral chromatic aberrations, astigmatism, or coma.
Full image without correction for color aberrations, slight correction for color cast - f/6.3
Compared to the Loxia, it is more difficult to find the focus setting with the highest sharpness (for me). But if you hit it, I find the sharpness better.
Compared to the Loxia, it is more difficult to find the focus setting with the highest sharpness (for me). But if you hit it, I find the sharpness better.
Great set of cityscapes from Europe! Really makes me want to travel there again. I was there in 2016 with my camera phone, 2018 with my APSC gear, and now I am ready to go with my FF gear.
Don't have a Voigtlander 21 yet, still fiddling around with my Loxia 21, but something has to be said for the draw of Voigtlander lenses over Zeiss. My Loxia lens gives me sharp and biting results whereas my Voigtlander 40 gives a more relaxing feel.
Thank you. If you need tips on what to see, let me know
The Loxia is also a fantastic lens. After my first experiences with the Voigtländer, I find both very different. I swapped the Loxia because I couldn't find a Loxia that was completely sharp at f8 at all over the whole picture (within the DOF of course). The Voigtländer gives me a little more sharpness and more consistent sharpness when I focus optimally, which I find much more difficult than with the Zeiss. The colors are different, but both have a very special rendering. The Zeiss is wider, the Voigtlander (subjectively) gives me a bit more clarity, especially over longer distances, the Zeiss shows (subjectively) a little more three-dimensionally stopped down...
