zhangyue wrote:
Fred, My copy is well centered as well. I can post a few with SL2 at extreme corner later today. I think i have seen sharper lens at f2 at this extreme corner. Both 65 and 35's extreme corner seems benefit from stop down until f5.6. (maybe f4 for 65) Center is peak at f2.8~f4 for both. Mine are L mount with SL2 sensor stack.
However, I consider both result are academic to me, they are just beyond approach for landscape need given most of time I am fighting DOF.
65 is almost felt too sharp for portrait for me at f2. I seems used to Lens with SA for this use. However, it does have well behaved bokeh. I have zero complain about all three I have and will for sure use them a lot for foreseeable future. My curiosity would be how this sigma 35mm compare to Nikon 35Z. I think only 35Z could give it a fight, they two behave very similar in sharpness POV. But Nikon one is larger and offer not so lovely build. Sigma get this set nailed.
Very interesting link, Fred.
In that article there is an example of a tilted Voigt lens revealed by find edge filter.
In that specific case where are the shims to be inserted?
Left, right up, down?
Just some indication to start with correctly.
Thanks.
Well my 35mm F2 arrived today. One day I would like to receive a new lens and it not be raining. Today is not that day. Oh well tomorrow is supposed to be nice. Looking forward to giving it a try.
Thx, Tim. One of the things I absolutely love about the mid FL Voigtlander APOs is the extended DOF wide open, the smooth context front to back. And the highlight sparkle. And the tonal separation. And the resulting image depth conveyed.
Yes, you can definitely see he expanded depth of field. Notice that on the 50 APO too.
philip_pj wrote:
Thx, Tim. One of the things I absolutely love about the mid FL Voigtlander APOs is the extended DOF wide open, the smooth context front to back. And the highlight sparkle. And the tonal separation. And the resulting image depth conveyed.
In the plane of focus itself, I think I have to give the edge to the Voigtlander, though the SIgma is no slouch. On the overall rendering, I prefer the Sigma.
The manual focus implementation on these lenses (35/2 and 65/2 DG DN) is so good that I'm finding it hard to make a valid excuse for keeping my equal focal length Voigtlanders (35/1.2 Nokton and 65/2 APO Macro Lanthar).
What beautiful lenses, just stellar build quality, and the rendering is special. Also, both of my lenses were perfectly centered. There don't seem to be many lemons...
smpetty wrote:
The manual focus implementation on these lenses (35/2 and 65/2 DG DN) is so good that I'm finding it hard to make a valid excuse for keeping my equal focal length Voigtlanders (35/1.2 Nokton and 65/2 APO Macro Lanthar).
What beautiful lenses, just stellar build quality, and the rendering is special. Also, both of my lenses were perfectly centered. There don't seem to be many lemons...
I was out yesterday enjoying the 65mm and I really liked using the manual focus. I am not a big manual focus shooter or haven't been but that may change with these lenses. Tomorrow going out and try the 35mm. If its as nice as the 65mm I will be a happy camper.
To finance the whole I series I sold the CV65 apo and GM24 .... two very nice lenses but never regretted it, I thought of the cv35 1.2 instead of the i35 f2 for low light but with the price of the i35 saves you money to buy a reasonable tripod or almost a second-hand CV35 1.2
smpetty wrote:
The manual focus implementation on these lenses (35/2 and 65/2 DG DN) is so good that I'm finding it hard to make a valid excuse for keeping my equal focal length Voigtlanders (35/1.2 Nokton and 65/2 APO Macro Lanthar).
What beautiful lenses, just stellar build quality, and the rendering is special. Also, both of my lenses were perfectly centered. There don't seem to be many lemons...
I compared the field of view between Sigma 24/3.5 DG DN, Sony 24/1.4 GM, Sony 24-105/4 G (at wide end) and Minolta 24/2.8 MD W.Rokkor, and then between Sigma 65/2 and CV 65/2 at near infinity.
I took comparison shots from balcony (handheld but I tried to keep framing identical, I took multiple shots and chose the best matches). Exported from Raw files in C1 Pro 21 to generate distortion-corrected and uncorrected JPEGs (using Manufacturer profile for each lens, which produces identical distortion correction to SOOC JPEGs when applied).
The order of the files in the folder didn't stay as I intended so please refer to the filenames:
- Sigma_24_DC_OFF / ON.jpg
- Sony_24_DC_OFF / ON.jpg
- Sony_24105_DC_OFF.jpg / ON.jpg
- Minolta_24.jpg
- Sigma_65_DC_OFF / ON.jpg
- CV_65_DC_OFF / ON.jpg
Findings for 24mm: Sony 24/1.4 GM is the widest, followed closely by Minolta and then Sony 24-105 zoom. Sigma is the least wide by noticeable margin. Sony 24-105 zoom has quite a lot of distortion and in-camera JPEGs have distortion correction always set to Auto for that lens (but in C1 Pro those correction can be disabled). Lens corrections didn't have that much impact on field of view but a bit more for the zoom.
Findings for 65mm: Sigma is a bit longer and CV a bit wider. Not sure which one is more accurate 65mm as there are no other 65mm reference primes I could have compared to.
Note that C1 Pro misinterprets Sigma 65/2 as CV 65/2, and writes incorrect lens name in EXIF in exported JPEGs for the Sigma shots. It also tries to use incorrect lens profile for the Sigma but the profile can be switched to Manufacturer Profile manually which will then apply corrections based on lens profile data found from EXIF. It doesn't have any negative impact on distortion or other lens corrections when Manufacturer Profile is selected manually (as I did). Similarly it misinterprets CV 50/2 as Loxia 50/2 and Sigma 35/2 as Loxia 35/2. I reported this issue to them for the 35/2 case and they asked for some RAW files for investigation and promised to look into it and hopefully fix it at some later date but not sure when they get around to it.
tsdevine wrote:
Yes, you can definitely see he expanded depth of field. Notice that on the 50 APO too.
I'm having a hard time believing those were both shot at the same aperture: the Voigt looks like it has an extra stop of depth-of-field! I spose there might have been a slight change in light between shots, so you can't really use the shutter speed as a guide to the lenses' real T-stop; that said, did they have the same shutter speed Tim?
The Sigma has the smoother bokeh, but how much of that is due to the extra defocus? It might be worth stopping down the Sigma a bit Tim until we get equivalent depth of field - would make the comparison more apples-to-apples.
Overall though, to be able to trade blows with a reference lens like the Voit 65, the Sigma 65 does very, very well here.
At the very least, this comparison is a stark reminder of how real-world depth-of-field can vary between lenses: perhaps great rendering requires some sacrifice in depth-of-field?
The light was changeable, but it's snowing today and I had to work with what I was given. I tried to shoot in the windows where the lighting was stable. The EXIF is intact, you can verify the aperture. Shutter speed worked out to be the same between each lens (different though in the different framings.) The CV vignettes more.
Not sure it makes sense to stop the lens down to try to make the depth of field more equal. It seems to be apples to oranges to me.
For landscape sharpness, I think the CV wins. But for bokeh and rendering, I like the Sigma.
Petegh wrote:
I'm having a hard time believing those were both shot at the same aperture: the Voigt looks like it has an extra stop of depth-of-field! I spose there might have been a slight change in light between shots, so you can't really use the shutter speed as a guide to the lenses' real T-stop; that said, did they have the same shutter speed Tim?
The Sigma has the smoother bokeh, but how much of that is due to the extra defocus? It might be worth stopping down the Sigma a bit Tim until we get equivalent depth of field - would make the comparison more apples-to-apples.
Overall though, to be able to trade blows with a reference lens like the Voit 65, the Sigma 65 does very, very well here.
At the very least, this comparison is a stark reminder of how real-world depth-of-field can vary between lenses: perhaps great rendering requires some sacrifice in depth-of-field? ...Show more →
I think the 65mm's both are fantastic. I give a slight to the Sigma for overall rendering vs the CV but I wouldn't disappointed in either resulting shot. I guess it may come down to preference in a fully manual focus lens vs an AF lens that has exceptional manual focus capabilities for an AF lens.
