p.5 #1 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
rscheffler wrote:
Good to know about the 75/1.5. For a fast lens, I think 90 degrees is too fast.
IMO for 'quick shot' situations, a focusing tab is beneficial because you can already approximate focusing distance based on where you feel the focusing tab is, as you raise the camera to your eye, then fine tune focus, if needed. No need to look at the scale or rack the lens to find the end points. I guess for people like me, the TAAB lens tab might be an option for the 50/1.5: https://www.lenstab.com
First thing I noticed: the Leica blew out the highlights pretty badly!
Background differences between Sony and Leica are difficult to nail down. Some of it might be difference in framing and therefore different placement in the frame of specific OOF highlight bokeh balls. I have the feeling the bokeh is slightly harsher on Sony, but this might be mitigated somewhat by the closer focusing distance. IOW, it probably changes/worsens (based on the blue car photos) at farther distances.
Based on these and astrobuoy's, my feeling is at nearer subject distances with moderate background separation, bokeh will be decent. Likely at farther subject distances with less dramatic background separation, bokeh swirl will probably become more apparent. But this is a challenge for many lenses.
The central 'hotspot' at f/1.5 disappears at f/2 and flipping between the two, it makes a pretty big difference to the feel of the image. The pumpkin images almost seem to pop, as if distortion changes between f/1.5 and f/2. But really I think it's just the edges sharpening and SA reducing at f/2. In the photos of astrobuoy's wife, I like the effect of shadow fill at wide open that perhaps slightly extra light combined with SA causes. At f/2 and further stopped down, the shadows on her face are heavier and IMO less pleasing. Though I still think f/2 is probably the balance point between some SA, a bit more sharpness and less cats eyes effect in the background....Show more →
The M10's Multi-field is not as sophisticated as Sony's Multi. In the future, when I do side by sides at various distances I will make sure to underexposure the Leica in order avoid that detail loss. The Leica M10 does not have the same highlight latitude as the Sony so once it's gone, it can't be recovered.
I agree, at close distance, blur masks any issue with induced FC so the real test will be at mid-distance and wide open (at 2-3.5m). I also agree that f/2 is a great balance between SA and resolution/contrast but I also like f/1.7 where there is a small improvement with similar blur without a noticeably polygon shape forming for the specular highlights.
p.5 #2 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
rscheffler wrote:
From those photos in the link above, I feel like f/2 is the sweet spot. Not quite as glowy but still a touch of SA and less cats eyes in the background. f/2.4 is also nice. From f/2.8 on I guess the lens will be pretty much as sharp as it gets with just DoF and background separation changing as one stops down.
I agree with this, for me f/2 is the sweet spot, though I like it at f/2.4 as well. I am curious to see what this will look like on film, and I could see wide open potentially working with that glow and shadow fill as you mentioned, in certain situations.
I remembered that I just happened to have a spare of the 7artisans photo tabs (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1424612-REG/7artisans_photoelectric_ring_f_lens_focus_ring.html) and I put it on the lens. I think it works really well. I've used it on other lenses over the Taab one, just because I've felt that those tabs add a bit of "chunk" to the lens which I don't always like. The 7artisans tabs use an adhesive which in my experience doesn't leave residue if you wish to remove it, but they stay solidly on with no wiggle, even in hot weather. It fits perfectly on the Nokton II, leaving enough room for me to grip the aperture ring separately, and I can also manipulate them both at the same time.
p.5 #3 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
The M10's Multi-field is not as sophisticated as Sony's Multi. In the future, when I do side by sides at various distances I will make sure to underexposure the Leica in order avoid that detail loss. The Leica M10 does not have the same highlight latitude as the Sony so once it's gone, it can't be recovered.
You could either use auto exposure without live view which will then use the regular centered metering that takes care of blown highlights, or you could use manual exposure on both cameras to be even more accurate.
My M10 has a solid latitude for recovering highlights. Have you installed the latest firmware? There was a bug in the stock firmware which used ISO 100 by default. ISO 100 on the M10 is very bad for recovering highlights. One should use at least the native ISO 200.
p.5 #4 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
vtckon wrote:
You could either use auto exposure without live view which will then use the regular centered metering that takes care of blown highlights, or you could use manual exposure on both cameras to be even more accurate.
My M10 has a solid latitude for recovering highlights. Have you installed the latest firmware? There was a bug in the stock firmware which used ISO 100 by default. ISO 100 on the M10 is very bad for recovering highlights. One should use at least the native ISO 200.
Thanks for your thoughts vtckon,
I didn't use live view (rangefinder instead) and I never use ISO 100 because highlight latitude is even lower at this setting.
I'm not saying DR is bad for the M10 but it has less room for error compared to the Sony.
p.5 #5 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Sony vs Leica: Color and OOF background rendering at 3 and 4.5m
RAWs straight out of the camera using Lightroom daylight WB for both.
At mid-distance we can easily see the effects of induced field curvature when using the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II on the thicker Sony sensor. At closer distances (0.7m to about 1.5m) this ill-effect is somewhat masked by blur but once the subject is at 2m or longer from the lens, out of focus corners will look sharper on Sony images.
Here are two scenes demonstrating this:
Example 1 at 3m: Leica top | Sony bottom (f/1.5)
Thumbnail showing the corner area shown below
Area showing the corner at 1:1 (f/1.5) - Sony (LEFT) | Leica (RIGHT)
Area showing the corner at 1:1 (f/2) - Sony (LEFT) | Leica (RIGHT)
Example 2 at 4.5m: Leica top | Sony bottom (f/1.5)
Thumbnail showing the corner area shown below
Area showing the corner at 1:1 (f/1.5) - Sony (LEFT) | Leica (RIGHT)
Area showing the corner at 1:1 (f/2) - Sony (LEFT) | Leica (RIGHT)
p.5 #7 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
Leica M10 + Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical
Background rendering at 1.5m (f/1.5, f/2, f/2.8)
Thanks. These two posts have been very informative.
Comparing the flower photo at the different aperture settings, the difference between f/1.5 and f/2 is very interesting. The lens certainly has a lot of vignetting because between 1.5 and 2.0, the character of the peripheral area of the frame barely changes between the two. Only very slight change to more circular bokeh balls. But there's a big difference in background rendering in the center of the frame.
p.5 #9 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Thank you so much for posting these types of portraits, they are so valuable for judging the lens. I am in the ZM C Sonnar lovers camp, but I'm starting to see some really nice pop here! Like many peeps here I am so interested in seeing a comparison with the ZM C Sonnar purely in terms of render quality.
Also, this is the MC right? I am in hopes that some proud SC owner could post some samples too.
p.5 #11 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Thanks for that link. Hmm, looks like SC just has more flare, haha. I see no difference in bokeh or sharpness. Can't tell if there's any difference in colour rendition either. Maybe it's more oriented for B&W? Or flare lovers?
p.5 #13 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
pptmstr wrote:
Thanks for that link. Hmm, looks like SC just has more flare, haha. I see no difference in bokeh or sharpness. Can't tell if there's any difference in colour rendition either. Maybe it's more oriented for B&W? Or flare lovers?
My guess is most differences will probably only be noticeable in side by side comparisons. The only exception might be flare. Since they're optically the same and it's coating differences, sharpness and bokeh should be the same.
Those samples look good. It's interesting the photographer chose to stop down, probably between f/2-2.8 for the close up bokeh shots with OOF specular highlights. The bokeh balls are nice and round, but you start to see the straight sides of the aperture blades. Pity Cosina didn't/couldn't keep them round through f/2.8...
p.5 #15 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Post some samples guys!
Really enjoying this lens. It works quite well on the Sony without noticeable rendering issues, although induced FC is still visible at mid-distance towards the OOF corners where it appears slightly sharper compared to same scene with the Leica M10.
p.5 #17 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
These are somewhat boring shots, but my wife and I were playing around with the lens this weekend and took some close portraits of each other, all at f/2 on the Leica M10 using the 50mm Summilux ASPH profile. These are unedited and straight out of camera. The one with the painting in the background shows a touch of glow (around the edges of the hat and her shoulders), not sure what that's from but I don't mind it here. I'm growing fond of this lens, it's more characterful than I would have thought but in a way I enjoy. The focus transition zone is a bit wild and dreamy sometimes, but the out of focus areas (at least here, with the plants in the background) are quite creamy, the colors are lovely, and the resolution is very high at the plane of focus.
Nothing new in pointing all this out I suppose. I was able to get some shots on color film on the weekend, though with the time change I'm not sure when I'll be able to get more. I'd also like to see/take some black & white examples with it still.
p.5 #18 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
I have a roll of Portra 400 I I’ll be developing later today that have shots using the SC from this past weekend. Will either scan and post them tonight or tomorrow. That’s if I don’t screw up the c-41 development.
p.5 #20 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Alpha_Geist wrote:
I have a roll of Portra 400 I I’ll be developing later today that have shots using the SC from this past weekend. Will either scan and post them tonight or tomorrow. That’s if I don’t screw up the c-41 development.
I can't wait to see! I haven't seen ANY film images yet, and I'm dying to know how it renders. Also, super cool that you develop your own C41, I've done B&W home dev in the past, but haven't gone down that rabbit hole. How do you find it? Do you mind if I ask, what kit do you use? The number of chemicals and specificness of temperatures has kept me from trying, but I like to hear others' experiences
