p.5 #1 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
MAubrey wrote:
Just looking at their optical designs, they are incredibly similar. Even the aspherical element is in the same place (third from the back).
p.5 #2 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
MAubrey wrote:
Just looking at their optical designs, they are incredibly similar. Even the aspherical element is in the same place (third from the back).
p.5 #3 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Very interesting!!
The Zeiss 35/2.8 Biogon is a very compact lens but the CV 35/2.5 Color-Skopar weighs 134g (vs 200g) and extends only 23mm (vs 55mm).
As a walk around, Leica M10 + CV 35/2.5 is a super compact/light solution with surprising great IQ.
It's very curious. They look extremely similar, but the slightly faster one is also the shorter one (perhaps helped by the spacing of the front and rear elements relative to the next ones in?). And both Zeiss (on their website) and Cosina (in their 2020 catalogue) designate the final rear element as anomalous partial dispersion.
p.5 #4 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
Thank you guys for the supporting information! I’m more of a 50mm focal length type of person, but I was looking for a small and mighty 35mm for those instances where I would need something wider than 50mm (currently my widest for M mount) that won’t break the bank. If I were to shoot the 35mm, then it would pretty much always be stopped down around f/5.6-f/8. No need for a low light monster. Considering my intended total use of the 35mm compared to my other M mount focal lengths and shooting on a B&W digital sensor along with B&W film, I’m not worried about color accuracy or even chromatic aberrations. So this lens feels like the right choice for my needs.
p.5 #6 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
d.s. wrote:
As far as size, I think you're confusing the 35/2.8 C-Biogon with the 35/2 Biogon. The C-Biogon is roughly the same size as the 35/1.4 Nokton.
Are these specs wrong?
B&H comparison of specs between CV 35/2.5 and Zeiss 35/2.8 ZM
p.5 #9 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've always wondered about this. What is the 35/2.8 ZM's length from the flange?
On a pixel-basis from the image I posted above, the ZM's length from the flange is 279px and the total length is 398px, which makes it roughly ~70% of the total length. If that's right, then the lens is about 38.5mm long from the flange.
p.5 #12 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
I had the 35/2.5 in LTM in silver. It was a jewel-like little lens and the fit and finish was great. I foolishly sold it along with my CV 75/2.5 LTM...at least I made a Leica M owner very happy
I had the original A7 and A7R at the time and, on both, the edges and corners were mush due to field curvature. It got 'better' with stopping down but never into a range I'd consider acceptable for any sort of landscape work. There was also some colour shifting going on towards the edges so I almost always converted to B&W.
Now, I felt like the 35 had a special 'look', especially in B&W, and it was really sharp in the central portion of the image. If it worked for what I was trying to do, it REALLY worked, IMO. Here are some shots of my father from a rainy photo walk between Kitsilano and Jericho Beach here in Vancouver. I know crops here don't show it as well, but it is hair-defining sharp on his moustache. No EXIF but I'd guess I was wide open with these, or very close to it.
Sep 23, 2020 at 04:40 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #13 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Are these specs wrong?
Fred, I think Zeiss almost always reports the weight with caps and hood included, but Voigtlander reports the weight without caps and hoods. I am not sure of that, but I think in this case that might explain why the Zeiss seems so much heavier when in fact the difference is more like 30g instead of 66g.
Size:
2.034" (51.7mm) diameter by 1.173" (29.80mm) extension from flange, measured.
Weight:
6.279 oz. (178.0g), measured. (probably without caps)
7.1 oz. (200g), specified. (probably with caps)
If this is correct, the Zeiss is 29.8mm in length (vs 23mm) and weighs 178g (vs 134g)
So, The 35/2.8 ZM is 44 grams heavier and 7mm longer than the Voigtlander 35/2.5 Color-Skopar II. With the Zeiss, there will be a small blockage of the 35mm framelines and with the Voigtlander there is no finder blockage.
Interestingly the Zeiss 35/2.8 ZM's physical size and weight is actually almost the same as the Voigtlander 35/2 Ultron, which is a stop faster.
p.5 #15 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
I've never tried the Zeiss 35/2.8 ZM but have experience with the 35/2 ZM and Loxia 35/2 (same optical design).
Are the f/2 and f/2.8 similar in rendering?
p.5 #16 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
The CV 35/2.5 is quite contrasty. Here is a sample at close distance.
It does not show the transition zone but rendering seems neutral and pleasant to me all the way to the edge. I prefer the rendering from the CV 35/1.7 or CV 35/1.2 III lenses but this is quite nice for a pancake lens.
p.5 #17 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
The way I feel about really small lenses on the Sony cameras is that they don’t balance that well. I actually prefer a little weight on the mount, say +500g. Smaller than that and it feels weird. Give me a smaller body and maybe then. But like others have decided, the a7c doesn’t cut the mustard for me. Here’s to next time.
p.5 #18 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
Justin Stone wrote:
The way I feel about really small lenses on the Sony cameras is that they don’t balance that well. I actually prefer a little weight on the mount, say +500g. Smaller than that and it feels weird. Give me a smaller body and maybe then. But like others have decided, the a7c doesn’t cut the mustard for me. Here’s to next time.
I like the balance with smaller, light lenses. My RII isn't far off the weight of, say, an M6 TTL. I don't mind some heft on a lens either, but I think the 7R series do well with M mount lenses.
p.5 #19 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
Whelp, the lens will be arriving next week. I'm glad it uses 39mm filters as I have all the black and white contrast filters I need for it already covered.
Question! For those using this lens on a digital Leica body, what lens profile are you using, if any? Would using a lens profile on a Monocrhom body provide any benefit?
p.5 #20 · Any love for the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm F2.5 PII pancake?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've never tried the Zeiss 35/2.8 ZM but have experience with the 35/2 ZM and Loxia 35/2 (same optical design).
Are the f/2 and f/2.8 similar in rendering?
They're different. My time with the C-Biogon on film probably wouldn't make for a fair comparison, but I'll try to take a few shots for you on my A7Riii over the weekend.
