p.1 #1 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
Any input on the IQ and rendering would be greatly appreciated.
The Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII is a super compact lens (134g, 23mm length). I intend to use it on the M10 whenever the bigger Voigtlander 35/1.2 III is not needed.
I'm actually considering either the Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar or the newer Voigtlander 35/2 Ultron.
p.1 #2 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
Images characteristics of the Skopars seem consistent across the line (neutral across the board, vignetting because of the small front element, a bit of astigmatism wide open).
There was a person on here who sold their C-Biogon for it, and gave it nearly as high of praise. That, in my book, would be enough to try it out--especially at half the C's cost.
--
I really like it for your intended use (*Whenever the bigger Voigtlander 35/1.2 III is not needed).
But of course, only you can determine whether or not you like the way that it 'renders' scenes.
p.1 #4 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
If you can deal with the speed, it's a near technically perfect lens. It would make a great companion to your 35/1.2. Sharpness is excellent but colors are typically voigtlander colors which come across as neutral to me. I prefer the ZM-C 35/2.8 even though its twice the price on the used market.
p.1 #5 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
Thanks guys...and @Takira71A for the review links.
I'm torn between the 35/2.5 Skopar and the newer CV 35/2 Ultron. The latter seems even smaller than my CV 21/3.5 Color-Skopar but not quite pancake size.
Wondering how they differ wide open. From what I've read the CV 35/2 Ultron performs better off-axis but how would they compare rendering-wise?
p.1 #6 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks guys...and @Takira71A@ for the review links.
I'm torn between the 35/2.5 Skopar and the newer CV 35/2 Ultron. The latter seems even smaller than my CV 21/3.5 Color-Skopar but not quite pancake size.
Wondering how they differ wide open. From what I've read the CV 35/2 Ultron performs better off-axis but how would they compare rendering-wise?
p.1 #7 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
I had the Color-Skopar 35/2.5 in LTM mount which has the same optics as the M-mount PII. It’s a good performer but I much prefer the C Biogon ZM 35/2.8 even though it’s huge compared to the diminutive Color-Skopar.
p.1 #8 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks guys...and @Takira71A@ for the review links.
I'm torn between the 35/2.5 Skopar and the newer CV 35/2 Ultron. The latter seems even smaller than my CV 21/3.5 Color-Skopar but not quite pancake size.
Wondering how they differ wide open. From what I've read the CV 35/2 Ultron performs better off-axis but how would they compare rendering-wise?
That was not a problem at all Fred (glad to be of some assistance).
--
The Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f/2 Aspherical will definitely render quite differently to the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm f/2.5 P II Lens:
--
I have no doubt, that the Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f/2 is Technically the better 'All-around' Lens.
I.e... It is smoother, more refined, has better bokeh and less vignetting, etc. However, the Color-Skopar definitely has a lot, more 'Character'.
--
Think of the Ultron as an 'Every Day and Everywhere' Lens and the Color-Skopar as more of an alternative, 'Specialty' Lens...
With an additional and more 'distinctive' character.
"Six of One... Half a Dozen of the Other." You get the idea of course!
--
Regards, -Tim.
_______
p.1 #9 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks guys...and @Takira71A@ for the review links.
I'm torn between the 35/2.5 Skopar and the newer CV 35/2 Ultron. The latter seems even smaller than my CV 21/3.5 Color-Skopar but not quite pancake size.
Wondering how they differ wide open. From what I've read the CV 35/2 Ultron performs better off-axis but how would they compare rendering-wise?
I never compared the two--I was on the same spot as you. I ended up with the CV 35/2 after research. From what I had read, the CV 35/2.5 is older, and doesn't quite have the micro-contrast the new CV's do.
I had also read the CV 35/2 has more bite, feels more Zeiss-y than most other recent CV glass. The CV 21 1.4 seems to have that reputation too. And while the bokeh of the 35/2 is worse than some (lots!) other 35mms, the lens really does have a nice look to the files, even though it's not the type of glass I usually like. Here's a link where I compared it to other 35mms recently, and here's a couple samples below. It's really not a well controlled lens like the 35 1.2 or 35 1.7, it renders a little richer color wise, less neutral than those, bokeh is worse, and flare and highlights are handled differently (more wildly) when I tested, which I preferred. The second FM link has several samples. Not pocketable, but not far off:
p.1 #10 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I never compared the two--I was on the same spot as you. I ended up with the CV 35/2 after research. From what I had read, the CV 35/2.4 is older, and doesn't quite have the micro-contrast the new CV's do.
I had also read the CV 35/2 has more bite, feels more Zeiss-y than most other recent CV glass. The CV 21 1.4 seems to have that reputation too. And while the bokeh of the 35/2 is worse than some (lots!) other 35mms, the lens really does have a nice look to the files, even though it's not the type of glass I usually like. Here's a link where I compared it to other 35mms recently, and here's a couple samples below. It's really not a well controlled lens like the 35 1.2 or 35 1.7, it renders a little richer color wise, less neutral than those, bokeh is worse, and flare and highlights are handled differently (more wildly) when I tested, which I preferred. The second FM link has several samples. Not pocketable, but not far off:
That was a great blind test! The best rendering was from Sonnar 35/2 and Pentax 31!
The 35/2 Ultron's rendering reminds me of the Leica 35 summicron, except that specular highlights are not as rounded towards the edges. (It has higher optical vignetting)
p.1 #11 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
Fred Miranda wrote:
That was a great blind test! The best rendering was from Sonnar 35/2 and Pentax 31!
The 35/2 Ultron's rendering reminds me of the Leica 35 summicron, except that the specular highlights are less rounded towards the edges.
There might be another in the works, you never know
Also, I use the CV 35/2 with an a7r2 and a very small but high IQ one lens solution as I tired of the finicky RX1r2--I have kept an original RX1 I still use for that glorious Sonnar. Here's the 35/2 on the a7r2--works well with the close focus helicoid--doesn't seem to lose much like some lenses.
edit: be warned though, the ergo sucks because the focus ring is simply too small, but I am not a fan of focusing tabs.
p.1 #12 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
I have the Ultron 35/2 and I used to have Color-Skopar 35/2.5 "pancake" LTM version which should be optically same as the newer version. 35/2.5 is a film era lens and not optimized for digital. Don't know how well it works on M10 but on Sony FF cameras it had quite a lot of field curvature. I did enjoy it on my Nex-6 which was my main camera when I got it though.
I think Ultron 35/2 is a kind of mix of 35/1.4 classic and 35/1.7 in terms of rendering, bokeh is more funky than with 35/1.7. It's pretty sharp up close like the 35/1.7 and focuses to 0.58m (vs. 0.5m for 35/1.7 and 0.7 for 35/2.5, 0.9m for the old 35/2.5 LTM). I think 35/2.5 has similar rendering to other Color Skopars, a rather contrasty look. Can't remember a lot of details about it as I sold mine a few years ago already and it never got much use after I moved to FF Sony cameras.
p.1 #13 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
There might be another in the works, you never know
Also, I use the CV 35/2 with an a7r2 and a very small but high IQ one lens solution as I tired of the finicky RX1r2--I have kept an original RX1 I still use for that glorious Sonnar. Here's the 35/2 on the a7r2--works well with the close focus helicoid--doesn't seem to lose much like some lenses.
Question: Did you test all lenses on the Sony sensor? If so, I would think that the harsher/sharper rendering towards the corners for the M mount lenses would be due to induced field curvature and would look way smoother on the Leica. If that's the case, we can only judge center bokeh rendering from that test.
p.1 #14 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Question: Did you test all lenses on the Sony sensor? I would think that the harsher/sharper corners for the M mount lenses is due to induced field curvature and would look way smoother on the Leica. If that's the case, we can only judge center bokeh rendering on the test.
Yes, correct. All on stock Sony. If you read the thread, you'll find Sebboh posted some helpful crops comparing a stock Leica and stock Sony with several RF lenses. The outter 20% or so and corners will be better (and congruous with the rest of the frame) I would think on your M10.
Though some lenses like the FE 35 1.8 get rough in the outer frame bokeh wise, even on native sensors.
p.1 #15 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I have the Ultron 35/2 and I used to have Color-Skopar 35/2.5 "pancake" LTM version which should be optically same as the newer version. 35/2.5 is a film era lens and not optimized for digital. Don't know how well it works on M10 but on Sony FF cameras it had quite a lot of field curvature. I did enjoy it on my Nex-6 which was my main camera when I got it though.
I think Ultron 35/2 is a kind of mix of 35/1.4 classic and 35/1.7 in terms of rendering, bokeh is more funky than with 35/1.7. It's pretty sharp up close like the 35/1.7 and focuses to 0.58m (vs. 0.5m for 35/1.7 and 0.7 for 35/2.5, 0.9m for the old 35/2.5 LTM). I think 35/2.5 has similar rendering to other Color Skopars, a rather contrasty look. Can't remember a lot of details about it as I sold mine a few years ago already and it never got much use after I moved to FF Sony cameras.
Nowadays I'm using LTM Color-Skopar pair 28/3.5 and 50/2.5 a lot on my Sony A9 and Sigma fp and enjoying both though, especially the 28/3.5....Show more →
Thanks for the info and samples Juha. The 28/3.5 is hard to find. I wish Voigtlander would bring it back.
p.1 #16 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
Fred Miranda wrote:
... The 35/2 Ultron's rendering reminds me of the Leica 35 summicron, except that specular highlights are not as rounded towards the edges.
Agreed...
--
But, the Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f/2 Aspherical definitely still holds its own:
p.1 #17 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
There might be another in the works, you never know
Also, I use the CV 35/2 with an a7r2 and a very small but high IQ one lens solution as I tired of the finicky RX1r2--I have kept an original RX1 I still use for that glorious Sonnar. Here's the 35/2 on the a7r2--works well with the close focus helicoid--doesn't seem to lose much like some lenses.
edit: be warned though, the ergo sucks because the focus ring is simply too small, but I am not a fan of focusing tabs.
I don't like focusing tabs but can live with it.
The CV 21/3.5 VM has similar ergo design to CV 35/2 Ultron and to me it offers the best of both worlds in a compact design: Thin ring + tab.
I prefer the thin ring for precise focusing and the tab for when shooting at small apertures and guesstimating focus and depth of field.
I may get both CV 35/2 and 35/2.5 and do some side by side testing. The CV 35/1.2 III is definitely a keeper. Love the super smooth rendering and sharpness beyond 1m. At closer distance, spherical aberration is moderate wide open but gets pretty sharp at f/1.7. I tested it against the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM and the rendering was way smoother for the Voigtlander at transition zone. (very noticeable at mid-distance)
Wow, thanks for posting this test. Very interesting. I has only checked some images at Flickr and noticed the resemblance but didn't know it was that close. The main difference wide open is the more pronounced cat-eye bokeh shape at the corners in many images I checked and this test confirms that. I much prefer the smaller size of the Voigtlander though. (and price )
p.1 #19 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
genji wrote:
I had the Color-Skopar 35/2.5 in LTM mount which has the same optics as the M-mount PII. It’s a good performer but I much prefer the C Biogon ZM 35/2.8 even though it’s huge compared to the diminutive Color-Skopar.
p.1 #20 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
You preferred the Zeiss colors/contrast?
Yes, plus the C Biogon's sharpness, bokeh, minimal distortion, lack of focusing tab, 1/3 f-stops... I frequently go out with two bodies (M10-P and M246) and two lenses of the same focal length. The C Biogon is a perfect complement to the Distagon ZM 35/1.4.
