p.10 #1 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Cosina: forcing photographers to engage in deep introspection, so as to identify what they *really* need and want from their lenses. What makes it hard is that each lens may open doors to show a different form of photography, one that you may really enjoy but never had THE lens before to make it happen. Luckily, with solid resale, users can try them out, then place lenses in circulation for others to buy.
This might be what is appealing about the amazing choices at 50mm, even if it's frustrating at times, trying to work through the decisons. With rare exceptions, other makers have more of a predictable narrow formulaic approach, new lenses from them do much the same thing as earlier lenses, but 'better'. Not these guys, they cover the whole field, and do it well.
p.10 #3 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Apologies if anyone else has already posted this, but I came across a comparison of the Nokton II and the Zeiss C-Sonnar, which I know quite a few people (myself included) were hoping to see. Interesting reading!
p.10 #6 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
astrobuoy wrote:
Apologies if anyone else has already posted this, but I came across a comparison of the Nokton II and the Zeiss C-Sonnar, which I know quite a few people (myself included) were hoping to see. Interesting reading!
Looks like there's something wrong with the Zeiss. Perhaps bad focus calibration, because it doesn't look lite it's in focus.
Or it's decentered or tiltet. Check the top left part of the overview. It's clearly unsharp even at very small viewing size.
We don't know if it was shot with the Zeiss though...
p.10 #7 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
My Sonnar is sharper than that stopped down. I wonder if focus shift isn’t to blame here, though if so, it’s a good example of what it can do if you don’t account for it.
By f/5.6, the Sonnar is plenty sharp enough for me. Maybe not as sharp as the VM APO, but closer than I thought it would be. At the very least, the Sonnar gets much sharper stopping down, which I didn’t really see in that review.
p.10 #10 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
astrobuoy wrote:
I just wish he'd have tested off-center sharpness as well.
I'm curious, what makes you feel like you'll stick with the Sonnar (I've got both, but juggling with the question of whether I really need both)?
I find the review a little limiting, it's just 2 scenes, are they are irrelevant to my type of photography (environmental portraits, slices of life). I find the Sonnar quite magical in rendition. The Nokton seems liker a solid lens, but it's trying to cater towards the sharp end of the spectrum, where competitors like the VM APO are better solutions imho. I might go with a combination of ZM C-Sonnar 50/1.5 + VM APO 50/2 + Contax G Carl Zeiss 45/2.
p.10 #14 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Thanks a lot for that review! Was debating if I should spend the extra money from the TTArtisan 50/1.4 but eventually caved in. Went ahead and kept my Nokton 50/1.5 II.
p.10 #15 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Interesting review in a wide range of ways, but deficient in terms of the ZM C-Sonnar. Why bother including it if one doesn’t intend to focus it properly? Both this specific lens and it’s use in the comparison is poor, at least by reference to my own version. Regardless, the CV 50/1.2 is the standout from my perspective and would be tempting if I didn’t value the rendering (and have a very nicely sharp copy) of the Sonnar.
My favorite of the bunch is the Voigtlander 50/1.2 followed by the Leica 50/1.4 lux. The Voigtlander 50/1.5 II performs great and is very compact but the high optical vignetting bothers me a bit. (swirling, extreme cats' eye + DOF increase towards the corners)
p.10 #18 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for posting! Amazing review.
Thanks for posting! Amazing review.
My favorite of the bunch is the Voigtlander 50/1.2 followed by the Leica 50/1.4 lux. The Voigtlander 50/1.5 II performs great and is very compact but the high optical vignetting bothers me a bit. (swirling, extreme cats' eye + DOF increase towards the corners)
That is exactly what I like about it - A modern lens with hint of character!
p.10 #19 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
expwmbat wrote:
Interesting review in a wide range of ways, but deficient in terms of the ZM C-Sonnar. Why bother including it if one doesn’t intend to focus it properly? Both this specific lens and it’s use in the comparison is poor, at least by reference to my own version. Regardless, the CV 50/1.2 is the standout from my perspective and would be tempting if I didn’t value the rendering (and have a very nicely sharp copy) of the Sonnar.
DJK
i completely agree with you, i find that part a bit careless imho .. i'll see myself out
p.10 #20 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
pptmstr wrote:
i completely agree with you, i find that part a bit careless imho .. i'll see myself out
After reading the review, I grabbed my C-Sonnar to evaluate whether I was delusional—it was raining so I decided to just take some quick hand-held 1/2 MFD (Voigtlander M-E adapter cuts the MFD) wide open and at f2.8 to compare with my Leica Macro-Elmarit R 60/2.8 at the same focal length. My aim was just to consider sharpness at close focus by grabbing images of a couple of flowers and ferns around the house. Wide open, at 1/2 MFD, I can still see in sharp (but glowy) detail the tiniest hairs on the frond of a fern. At 2.8 the Leica focuses a lot closer (obviously), but in a comparable framing doesn’t appear to include a lot more detail. It’s very slightly sharper (I didn’t compare stopped down—but the Leica definitely pulls ahead a bit at f4 and f5.6). Rendering is obviously quite different—but the Leica is a known exceptional all-arounder. I can’t post photos here, but I’m tempted to try a comparable scene more systematically to see how they look with more secure parameters...
Maybe I just have an exceptional C-Sonnar, but I have no complaints about the sharpness, wide open and otherwise. It’s not as sharp as the good 50s at infinity (again, one is often surprised in these comparison by the sharpness if not the chromatic aberrations of earlier double-gauss film lenses like the FDn), but it’s excellent across the midrange and very good even very close.
