I'm not sure what to think, maybe I had a soft copy (I sent it back), here are some infinity (manual) focus center crops compared to the CV40. Mind you, it could have been user error on my part, as I am a complete newbie. I did refocus before each shot to rule out focus shift.
I'm not sure what to think, maybe I had a soft copy (I sent it back), here are some infinity (manual) focus center crops compared to the CV40. Mind you, it could have been user error on my part, as I am a complete newbie. I did refocus before each shot to rule out focus shift.
At this pixel density I’m not sure I notice much difference. If anything, at 2.8 the top of the dildo shaped construction looks slightly better defined with the Sigma. Too much atmospheric haze there I think.
I'm not sure what to think, maybe I had a soft copy (I sent it back), here are some infinity (manual) focus center crops compared to the CV40. Mind you, it could have been user error on my part, as I am a complete newbie. I did refocus before each shot to rule out focus shift.
F4 and F5.6 look clearly softer on the Sigma. Also, F2.8 shows the best sharpness on the Sigma. I wonder if this is a user error or a faulty lens. I mean it would be the first lens that I've seen that gets softer when stopping down from max. aperture...
keepcoding wrote:
F4 and F5.6 look clearly softer on the Sigma. Also, F2.8 shows the best sharpness on the Sigma. I wonder if this is a user error or a faulty lens. I mean it would be the first lens that I've seen that gets softer when stopping down from max. aperture...
User error on my part, more likely. I will give a new copy another chance and repeat the test.
I dug up two more night time shots taken a few seconds apart, at F8.
Sigma
https://i.imgur.com/iAs8NkA.jpg
CV40
https://i.imgur.com/ayp5OGw.jpg
I don't see much difference other than the CV has "sunstars" and more vignetting. In a blind test I would had picked the first image as the "better" one, for both mentioned reasons.
vdo1 wrote:
I don't see much difference other than the CV has "sunstars" and more vignetting. In a blind test I would had picked the first image as the "better" one, for both mentioned reasons.
I don’t know, to my eyes building features and edges are better defined on the Voigtländer. It might be contrast, rather than resolution, that sets it apart.
vdo1 wrote:
I don't see much difference other than the CV has "sunstars" and more vignetting. In a blind test I would had picked the first image as the "better" one, for both mentioned reasons.
Resized for the web and at small apertures, it would be hard to tell them apart aside from sunstar and color rendition but at f/2.8, the Sigma would produce better corners in comparison. I also give a contrast edge to the Voigt.
Not sure this is the greatest comparison its like Apples and Peaches. They really are two very different type of lenses. Frankly I would have both for completely different shooting scenarios. But I understand folks like to know this data. For me something like this I would have both. I have the Sony 24mm for my work lens but travel landscape and for me than I have the CV 21.
One big thing with building a system is build a system not a one or two lens at a time per say but build on what kind of kit you want at the end of it 3,4,5 lens kit . Most folks mix this up with MF glass and AF glass. I have separate kits even though like the Sony 24 could and is a great landscape type lens. The Sigma here seems to be a general purpose type lens . Which works nicely for hobbyist that want a good lens
GMPhotography wrote:
Not sure this is the greatest comparison its like Apples and Peaches. They really are two very different type of lenses. Frankly I would have both for completely different shooting scenarios. But I understand folks like to know this data. For me something like this I would have both. I have the Sony 24mm for my work lens but travel landscape and for me than I have the CV 21.
One big thing with building a system is build a system not a one or two lens at a time per say but build on what kind of kit you want at the end of it 3,4,5 lens kit . Most folks mix this up with MF glass and AF glass. I have separate kits even though like the Sony 24 could and is a great landscape type lens. The Sigma here seems to be a general purpose type lens . Which works nicely for hobbyist that want a good lens...Show more →
My needs are simpler than that, as a mere hobbyist. I like shooting 40ish mm lenses, which cover most of what I see with my own eyes while going out or travelling on business or leisure. I have the CV40 (that is my only lens) and I have become quite profficient at MF, but every now and then there is that one unplanned shot where I miss AF.
The Sigma seemed to scratch that itch, but I must admit it excites me less than the CV40. Not that it's not good, but that it's not as good. I am not experienced enough to give a technical justification for why I prefer the CV40, I just like pictures taken with it more.
Well it's hard to beat the CV 40 that's been proved. Maybe look at the new Sony 35 1.8 and keep using the CV 40. Nothing wrong with having both as they do different things
It would be interesting to see the difference between Sigma and CV40 is the rendering of the open aperture (F2.8) in the portrait sphere (distance from one meter to two)
cwnchkn wrote:
My needs are simpler than that, as a mere hobbyist. I like shooting 40ish mm lenses, which cover most of what I see with my own eyes while going out or travelling on business or leisure. I have the CV40 (that is my only lens) and I have become quite profficient at MF, but every now and then there is that one unplanned shot where I miss AF.
The Sigma seemed to scratch that itch, but I must admit it excites me less than the CV40. Not that it's not good, but that it's not as good. I am not experienced enough to give a technical justification for why I prefer the CV40, I just like pictures taken with it more....Show more →
Both lenses are optimized for mid to long distance.
At f/2.8 they are very similar at center but the Voigtlander wins slightly on contrast. At mid-zone, the Voigtlander 40/1.2 E-mount does better. It's one of the reasons I love this lens since my subjects are usually framed on this area.
At the extreme corners, the Sigma does noticeably better with less astigmatism.
Center at f/2.8
Mid-field at f/2.8
Extreme corner at /2.8
Aug 12, 2019 at 03:59 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
d.s. wrote:
Apparently not many here have tried the C-Biogon natively (there's more to a lens than speed).
Funny you mention that - I got that lens bundled with a few other lenses and an M6. The C Biogon 35/2.8 is the *only* lens from the bundle I didn't sell, and has been my #1 most-used lens on the M6 for a couple months now. Astonishing how little love the lens gets on the Interwebs, though maybe everyone just goes for the faster ZM 35.
It's better than ok on digital, but some FC. On film it's SUBLIME. Wide open, you get this really amazing combination of sharpness, pop and ultra-smooth bokeh - the kind where it still gives the background some form and context. And it's TINY.
