p.2 #1 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
expwmbat wrote:
Interesting lens. Not sure I see anything here that would cause me to give up the ZM C-Sonnar for this one. Thoughts about how they compare?
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
I've owned the Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 C ZM for many years and without testing them side by side, my impression is that the Voigtlander performs better at center wide open and way better off-axis, especially at the very corners. Rendering is also smoother wide open with less outlining. I do think the Zeiss had less optical vignetting compared to the Voigt. (rounder bokeh balls towards the corners)
p.2 #2 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Flare Resistance
I was able to start testing the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II "MC" for flare resistance this morning. The aperture was se to f/5.6 and sunstars were not even defined due to haze.
There is a persistent ghosting blob in all my images as I moved the camera around the sun. Very good performance but not excellent.
Veiling flare seems well controlled with the scene retaining contrast.
p.2 #3 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
rscheffler wrote:
Are the portraits of your daughter all wide open? The shutter speed changed 1.5 stops between the first and the third photo. And the bokeh balls are quite round at the mid zone area in the second and third photos, suggesting the lens may have been stopped down slightly.
When you get to the starburst section, I'd like to know how round the aperture opening remains at f/2 and f/2.8 and how stopping down 1-2 stops affects bokeh balls, as it may help minimize the wide open cats eye effect that is quite noticeable already slightly off-axis.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The first wide open (f/1.5), second (f/2) and third (f/2.4). Do not pay attention to the f/numbers reported by Leica as they are just estimations and usually inaccurate.
OK, thanks. That is what I thought but I think you initially stated all were shot wide open (but have now edited that post?).
Off-axis f/2 performance based on the crop looks very promising. Did you use the rangefinder to focus or the EVF?
p.2 #4 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
rscheffler wrote:
OK, thanks. That is what I thought but I think you initially stated all were shot wide open (but have now edited that post?).
Off-axis f/2 performance based on the crop looks very promising. Did you use the rangefinder to focus or the EVF?
Yes, I edited right after I posted after checked my notes. I used the rangefinder to focus all images.
Like with other Voigtlander lenses with 12 aperture blades, a dodecagon shape specular highlights will be noticeable starting at f/2. They are not obvious on my daughter's samples due to distance and blur.
p.2 #5 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I've owned the Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 C ZM for many years and without testing them side by side, my impression is that the Voigtlander performs better at center wide open and way better off-axis, especially at the very corners. Rendering is also smoother wide open with less outlining. I do think the Zeiss had less optical vignetting compared to the Voigt. (rounder bokeh balls towards the corners)
+1
I think Voigtlander find a good formula for lens have great optic performance and smooth bokeh. (both CV75 and this one show)
I can't tell on center, but this lens has better performance at extreme corner than 50lux ASPH m.
Only real minus to me so far is mechanical vignette which bother me slightly, especially it will show up in images often with tunnel effect(swirl bokeh), this is trade off they decide to make for smaller size. I think it is reasonable, a well engineered product. Real engineering has to deal with trade off
I think this is the most attractive 50mm Voigtlander glasses out of all to me personally. The real scenario for me is how to deal with overlap with 50lux. As they both offer good sharpness WO and smooth bokeh, CV is smaller and sharper at corner and midzone maybe but 50 has much less vignette and less CA (at least center portion). 50lux ASPH is a Karbe's master piece, but it definitely show its age compare to modern ones on bench testing, for real world images, it will be a classic forever IMHO
p.2 #6 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I've owned the Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 C ZM for many years and without testing them side by side, my impression is that the Voigtlander performs better at center wide open and way better off-axis, especially at the very corners. Rendering is also smoother wide open with less outlining. I do think the Zeiss had less optical vignetting compared to the Voigt. (rounder bokeh balls towards the corners)
Hi Fred,
Thank you for the reply and the extensive reviews—I always learn a lot from them (and other discussions on this board). While I agree that the CV might be sharper in the middle wide open and certainly is so at the outer edges of the frame, I’ll have to wait to see more with regard to the smoothness. The design of the C-Sonnar produces very distinct (and to my eye pleasing) rendering which I prefer so far to what I see here. And I’ve never thought the beauty of an image produced by it was compromised by either of the two above advantages the CV might have. My copy is plenty sharp wide open (and seems as sharp as the CV stopped down). It also looks like the CV has some swirly bokeh wide open.
p.2 #7 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
expwmbat wrote:
Hi Fred,
Thank you for the reply and the extensive reviews—I always learn a lot from them (and other discussions on this board). While I agree that the CV might be sharper in the middle wide open and certainly is so at the outer edges of the frame, I’ll have to wait to see more with regard to the smoothness. The design of the C-Sonnar produces very distinct (and to my eye pleasing) rendering which I prefer so far to what I see here. And I’ve never thought the beauty of an image produced by it was compromised by either of the two above advantages the CV might have. My copy is plenty sharp wide open (and seems as sharp as the CV stopped down). It also looks like the CV has some swirly bokeh wide open.
Hi Daniel,
One of the 50/1.5 Sonnar C advantages is the lower optical vignetting. That causes the cat-eye shape bokeh and swirling which are visible with the Voigtlander.
p.2 #8 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Specular Highlights (Bokeh balls shape)
The Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.5 II is a very compact and fast lens so I was not expecting low optical vignetting. It's actually pronounced as you can see from the crops below and samples images. Specular highlights go from round at center to cat-eye shape towards the edge of the frame.
The lens is equipped with a 12-blade aperture which should ensure round specular highlights even stopped down. However, under high magnification, it's possible to detect the dodecagon shape even stopping down from f/1.5 to f/2.
Here is a sequence from f/1.5 until f/4 in half-stops:
p.2 #9 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
When we inspect the specular highlights at pixel level, the dodecagon shape is easily detected.
There is no distinct onion pattern but the inner structure is not clean.
p.2 #10 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Distortion
The Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II exhibits minor pincushion distortion. It's easily corrected in Lightroom with manual setting of "-3".
This slight distortion is not a signification issue and should not be apparent in real world images.
Here is a sample showing the scene without correction (TOP) and with correction (BOTTOM):
p.2 #11 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
zhangyue wrote:
I think this is the most attractive 50mm Voigtlander glasses out of all to me personally. The real scenario for me is how to deal with overlap with 50lux. As they both offer good sharpness WO and smooth bokeh, CV is smaller and sharper at corner and midzone maybe but 50 has much less vignette and less CA (at least center portion). 50lux ASPH is a Karbe's master piece, but it definitely show its age compare to modern ones on bench testing, for real world images, it will be a classic forever IMHO
I have the Black Chrome edition of the 50 Lux ASPH which, like this new Nokton 50/1.5 Aspherical takes a 43mm filter. The Lux’s diameter is slightly less (52.5mm vs the Nokton’s 55.3mm) but it is significantly longer (53.5mm vs 36.9mm). The brass Lux weighs 335g whereas the Nokton silver and black variants weigh only 198g but a fairer weight comparison would be with the (brass) nickel black paint Nokton which weighs 255g. Even so the Lux is still more than 30% heavier than the “panda” Nokton. For my uses the size and weight advantages of the Nokton are insignificant because the Lux has one feature that the Nokton doesn’t: a floating element design. And, from the samples I’ve seen so far, I strongly prefer the Lux’s rendering. I was initially tempted by the single-coated version of the Nokton—though not as a replacement for the Lux. But it will have to offer something very special in the rendering department for me to be persuaded to purchase one.
p.2 #12 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
genji wrote:
I have the Black Chrome edition of the 50 Lux ASPH which, like this new Nokton 50/1.5 Aspherical takes a 43mm filter. The Lux’s diameter is slightly less (52.5mm vs the Nokton’s 55.3mm) but it is significantly longer (53.5mm vs 36.9mm). The brass Lux weighs 335g whereas the Nokton silver and black variants weigh only 198g but a fairer weight comparison would be with the (brass) nickel black paint Nokton which weighs 255g. Even so the Lux is still more than 30% heavier than the “panda” Nokton. For my uses the size and weight advantages of the Nokton are insignificant because the Lux has one feature that the Nokton doesn’t: a floating element design. And, from the samples I’ve seen so far, I strongly prefer the Lux’s rendering. I was initially tempted by the single-coated version of the Nokton—though not as a replacement for the Lux. But it will have to offer something very special in the rendering department for me to be persuaded to purchase one....Show more →
I agree with you, though we should not forget the price difference.
For people have spend money on M lux, with 6 bit code, floating elements, coverage, leica ergo and red dot. Lux still has its place for M users. However, based on what I saw, I have a feeling that this one shooting at close distance will have similar performance to M lux. I personally don't mind slightly SA in close range. A few recent ones I like all seems have this treat: sigma 45m CV75 etc... A good engineer compromise for size and $$$(manufacture complication).
One thing Ron also point out is free of mid zone dip of 50lux M. (I am never bothered much personally) No matter what, this is a strong design with a nice balance set of features that I was hoping come from Zeiss
p.2 #14 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
zhangyue wrote:
I agree with you, though we should not forget the price difference.
How about weight and size? The Voigtlander weighs 140 grams less than the Leica and it's way shorter. That counts for something since it's probably the main goal of this optical design. IMO, the main advantage for the Leica design is the floating system and therefore better performance at close distance. It's also slightly faster (f/1.4 vs f/1.5).
p.2 #15 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
How about weight and size? The Voigtlander weighs 140 grams less than the Leica and it's way shorter. That counts for something since it's probably the main goal of this optical design. IMO, the main advantage for the Leica design is the floating system and therefore better performance at close distance. It's also slightly faster (f/1.4 vs f/1.5).
No disagree at all.
I would say image area coverage difference is the biggest plus of lux for me personally as I feel this impact the IQ the most for my preference. (Bokeh is in TBD situation. I think lux will have advantage based on my feeling) FLE might be the plus for others. Size, price, and field curvature performance go to this little CV. no matter what, it is a very strong contender continuing CV's recent successes.
p.2 #16 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
expwmbat wrote:
Interesting lens. Not sure I see anything here that would cause me to give up the ZM C-Sonnar for this one. Thoughts about how they compare?
Daniel
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I've owned the Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 C ZM for many years and without testing them side by side, my impression is that the Voigtlander performs better at center wide open and way better off-axis, especially at the very corners. Rendering is also smoother wide open with less outlining. I do think the Zeiss had less optical vignetting compared to the Voigt. (rounder bokeh balls towards the corners)
The ZM 50/1.5C is a Sonnar design and is inherently going to have fairly busy bokeh/background rendering wide open, but stopped down a stop or two will be smoother while retaining that Sonnar rendering not seen in this Voigtlander 50/1.5II. IMO the Voigtlander's rendering is quite modern though the optical vignetting results in some swirl not seen in larger modern lenses.
zhangyue wrote:
+1
I think Voigtlander find a good formula for lens have great optic performance and smooth bokeh. (both CV75 and this one show)
I can't tell on center, but this lens has better performance at extreme corner than 50lux ASPH m.
Only real minus to me so far is mechanical vignette which bother me slightly, especially it will show up in images often with tunnel effect(swirl bokeh), this is trade off they decide to make for smaller size. I think it is reasonable, a well engineered product. Real engineering has to deal with trade off
I think this is the most attractive 50mm Voigtlander glasses out of all to me personally. The real scenario for me is how to deal with overlap with 50lux. As they both offer good sharpness WO and smooth bokeh, CV is smaller and sharper at corner and midzone maybe but 50 has much less vignette and less CA (at least center portion). 50lux ASPH is a Karbe's master piece, but it definitely show its age compare to modern ones on bench testing, for real world images, it will be a classic forever IMHO ...Show more →
There are indeed some things the CV does better than the Lux ASPH. It appears to have a better mid zone, though still has a dip here; no ninja-star aperture shape, though the 12 straight edges are a slight disappointment and was very noticeable IMO in Fred's test with OOF specular light sources; probably handles backlighting and veiling flare better.
Where I think the Lux ASPH is better is LoCA and purple fringing. Likely also slightly more Gaussian background bokeh. And as you mentioned, lower optical vignetting.
I also agree that there are small, difficult to quantify details, like ergonomics and 6-bit coding that IMO make the Lux an easier lens to use on a Leica camera.
Just to throw in another new 50mm option: Phillip Reeve's blog recently posted a review of the TTArtisans 50/1.4 ASPH and it's pretty decent. The only major weaknesses IMO seem to be LoCA and flare resistance. And maybe also size, given it's a bit bigger than the 50 Lux ASPH.
p.2 #17 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Given these new CV fast compact 50s, the distinctive C-Sonnar, and the amazing Lux, it would be very interesting to see a blind comparison of rendering in a given scene or two.
p.2 #18 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
rscheffler wrote:
The ZM 50/1.5C is a Sonnar design and is inherently going to have fairly busy bokeh/background rendering wide open, but stopped down a stop or two will be smoother while retaining that Sonnar rendering not seen in this Voigtlander 50/1.5II. IMO the Voigtlander's rendering is quite modern though the optical vignetting results in some swirl not seen in larger modern lenses.
There are indeed some things the CV does better than the Lux ASPH. It appears to have a better mid zone, though still has a dip here; no ninja-star aperture shape, though the 12 straight edges are a slight disappointment and was very noticeable IMO in Fred's test with OOF specular light sources; probably handles backlighting and veiling flare better.
Where I think the Lux ASPH is better is LoCA and purple fringing. Likely also slightly more Gaussian background bokeh. And as you mentioned, lower optical vignetting.
I also agree that there are small, difficult to quantify details, like ergonomics and 6-bit coding that IMO make the Lux an easier lens to use on a Leica camera.
Just to throw in another new 50mm option: Phillip Reeve's blog recently posted a review of the TTArtisans 50/1.4 ASPH and it's pretty decent. The only major weaknesses IMO seem to be LoCA and flare resistance. And maybe also size, given it's a bit bigger than the 50 Lux ASPH....Show more →
Looking at Bastian's review, I'm not impressed with the TTArtisans 50/1.4 ASPH. It's twice as heavy as the Voigtlander and much longer (37mm vs 58mm).
For the extra elements it should perform better but it does not seem to be the case in many aspects like resolution, flare resistance and CA. Nice rendering though.
Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander and others, produce compact lenses with certain goals in mind (compromises). They seem to stick with their formula and priorities and that's what gives them a certain look and unique signature.
Which compromise is better or worse is subjective. For example, some photographers may like their subjects to glow wide open at close distance, others dislike SA. High vignetting, swirl rendering and even flare is attractive to some. Having said that, there are characteristics we can all agree we could live without like color error, focus shift and coma, just to name a few, but these ill-effects come with the territory when designing super compact lenses.
p.2 #19 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
zhangyue wrote:
I agree with you, though we should not forget the price difference.
For people have spend money on M lux, with 6 bit code, floating elements, coverage, leica ergo and red dot. Lux still has its place for M users. However, based on what I saw, I have a feeling that this one shooting at close distance will have similar performance to M lux. I personally don't mind slightly SA in close range. A few recent ones I like all seems have this treat: sigma 45m CV75 etc... A good engineer compromise for size and $$$(manufacture complication).
One thing Ron also point out is free of mid zone dip of 50lux M. (I am never bothered much personally) No matter what, this is a strong design with a nice balance set of features that I was hoping come from Zeiss ...Show more →
You’re absolutely right! The Nokton is USD949 (black/silver) or USD1049 (nickel) from Cameraquest whereas B&H lists the Lux 50 ASPH at prices ranging from USD3995 to USD5095 depending on model (black or silver), place of manufacture (Germany or Portugal), or BC special edition. So my argument really only makes sense for someone who either already owns a Lux or is not price sensitive. And I realise that my post was mainly designed to talk myself out of buying yet another 50mm M-mount lens, of which I have too many as it is. The Department of Rationalisation and Self-Justification had suggested that the new Nokton 50/1.5 would be perfect for sole use on the M9M but the Central Committee, whose approval is required for all new purchases, is arguing that my C Sonnar ZM 50/1.5 would be equally well suited to that role. We’ll see what happens.
