Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Knut. wrote:
How does this lens [75mm/f1.5] compare to the Voigtländer 65mm/f2.0?
What would the advantages be of one over the other?
Weigt wise the 65mm is 625g versus 515g for the e-mount Version of the 75mm.
The difference in horizontal FOV is 15%, which not really significant.
With an Apo lens [in this case the 65mm] I could expect a more distinct transition between in-focus and out-of-focus areas according to Peter Karbe, if this can be transfered to Voigtländer lenses.
Explanation at ~ 30 minutes, 0 seconds (30:00)
What other drawing differences can I expect at f2.0; f2.8; f4 or f5.6 between the Voigtländer 75mm and 65mm?...Show more →
I have had both lenses (the 75 f/1.5 in M mount, however) and here is my take. Yes, the 65 f/2 APO Macro has a fast transition from in focus to out of focus--I call this transition abrupt, and unlike Peter Karbe I don't particularly like it. It can make this transitional bokeh pretty busy if the background has any texture to it at all. That said it does add some pop and punch to the image and yes the bokeh from the 65 f/2 APO is otherwise quite nice. I do generally like the bokeh of the 75 f/1.5 better, however. They left some uncorrected spherical aberration in the 75 f/1.5 wide open and in my opinion they left just the right amount so the image is still decently sharp, but the bokeh has a smoother transition and a nice quality. Of course all of this is subjective and you might not feel the same way at all.
The big difference between the two which really isn't subjective is the close focus performance. The 65 f/2 APO as a Macro (or near Macro if you are a purist with the label) has beautiful close focus performance. It is of course a strength of the lens. The 75 f/1.5 even at .7M with the Leica M version really starts to loose sharpness at MFD. I would say close focus performance is one of its weaknesses and I really wish Cosina would have added floating elements to this lens to improve the close focus performance. Under 1M, they are night and day different performers with the 65 f/2 APO being much sharper and displaying in my view a much stronger performance.
Stopped down at long focus distances the two lenses are a lot more similar. I would still give a slight nod to the 65 f/2 APO in these situations for sharpness, but you really have to look hard to see it.
Personally, between these two lenses I think the choice can be made based on which type of bokeh you like best and whether you want to use close focus much. For me that is a split decision. I like the bokeh of the 75 f/1.5 better, but I do want a lens with good close focus at this focal length. One way I would describe it for me is that I like the 75 f/1.5 better for portraits and I like the 65 f/2 APO better for close focus shots.
What I have ended up doing is going with the Zeiss Loxia 85 f/2.4. It is between the other two in weight. It has very nice bokeh as a Sonnar without asph elements, and it has quite good close focus performance. It doesn't have as much bokeh or quite as nice bokeh in some ways as the 75 f/1.5, and its close focus performance while very good doesn't match the 65 f/2 APO. It isn't as well corrected for axial CA as the 65 f/2 APO, but it is quite well corrected for axial CA too. It does everything really well, portraits, close focus, landscapes, and I want a general purpose lens at this focal length so it fits what I want. There are lots of good choices beyond these three at about this focal length (the Voigtlander 75 f/1.9 has bokeh a bit more like the 65 f/2 APO and is much smaller but must be adapted to E mount is one example; if you like autofocus the Sigma i series 65 f/2 is also an interesting option), so there is no shortage of options you just have to decide what you want most and how to optimize that with your choice.
|
