p.2 #1 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Funny to read this thread. I've owned at least 8 modern CV lenses. I generally prefer the ergo, size, speed and price to Zeiss glass, but the colors and contrast are typically subpar to Zeiss glass IMO (CV 35 1.2iii vs ZM 35 1.4, Loxia 21 vs CV 21s, CV 50 1.2 vs ZM 50/1.5 and Loxia 50, etc.) and I am not quire satisfied with CV ultimately though I can address lots of the lower contrast, color and sterility in post and they offer the best compromises often as a total package. CV lenses technically test well generally, so they are going to get a lot of attention. But I am less excited by each release, specs aside.
But even on good reviews, there's very little mention/attention to color, contrast and rendering qualities beyond measuring the typical parameters (CA, bokeh aspects, distortion, lack of SA at close distance, etc.). To me, much of a lens' uniqueness and value ultimately rest on the less measurable aspects, which seems to drive many nuts....Show more →
Agreed! This is has been a really interesting thread for me. I've had the Loxia 50 for ~2 years - got a great deal used and have enjoyed it, but tempted reading the raves about the CV 50 1.2 & APO. This thread has led to me reassess that maybe the grass isn't always greener
p.2 #2 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
ChrisMak wrote:
I agree with you, although have to mention that I only know Voigtländer from what I see posted, I never owned a Voigtländer lens. Once I tried Zeiss lenses, I tended to stay with Zeiss even when switching systems, switching which was largely due to birding and wildlife photography. My recent adventure with Nikon has made me once again aware that if you don't truly like the images a lens/camera combination produces, no-one else is going to like them for you, even if all the reviewers in the world praise a lens and camera. It is just too subjective.
I have tried to understand and even analyze why I did not connect to my new Nikon gear, but I accepted that it was useless and pointless. 8 months was enough and I decided to do what was obvious. I will take a bit more care in future, and place the emphasis on simply liking and connecting to images again, instead of mentally determining what is the "best" lens. I hope Zeiss will stay around to offer lenses that may not always measure that well, but that produce great color and contrast....Show more →
Connection with my equipment is a major part of the fun, at least for a hobbyist like me. I happen to connect with several Voigtlander lenses, including the 50mm APO-Lanthar. It certainly is subjective, at least it is subjective once a fairly level of quality is reached.
p.2 #3 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
Agreed! This is has been a really interesting thread for me. I've had the Loxia 50 for ~2 years - got a great deal used and have enjoyed it, but tempted reading the raves about the CV 50 1.2 & APO. This thread has led to me reassess that maybe the grass isn't always greener
I am the same but the opposite. My Loxia 21 puts out amazing results, but for some reason I am oersonally most drawn to the images made by my Voigtlanders.
p.2 #5 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Funny to read this thread. I've owned at least 8 modern CV lenses. I generally prefer the ergo, size, speed and price to Zeiss glass, but the colors and contrast are typically subpar to Zeiss glass IMO (CV 35 1.2iii vs ZM 35 1.4, Loxia 21 vs CV 21s, CV 50 1.2 vs ZM 50/1.5 and Loxia 50, etc.) and I am not quire satisfied with CV ultimately though I can address lots of the lower contrast, color and sterility in post and they offer the best compromises often as a total package. CV lenses technically test well generally, so they are going to get a lot of attention. But I am less excited by each release, specs aside.
But even on good reviews, there's very little mention/attention to color, contrast and rendering qualities beyond measuring the typical parameters (CA, bokeh aspects, distortion, lack of SA at close distance, etc.). To me, much of a lens' uniqueness and value ultimately rest on the less measurable aspects, which seems to drive many nuts....Show more →
Very interesting comments, and I am inclined to agree with you about the idea that there is more to a lens's signature rendering than can be described by CA, SA, bokeh, etc.
I would be very interested in hearing you describe as best you can what those other aspects of rendering are. As twentysevenone said upthread, Loxia images always seem to be instantly recognizable. If true, what is it that makes that so?
p.2 #6 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
APO Lanthar 50/2 appears to be missing from that list. It is in a different league of its own.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Funny to read this thread. I've owned at least 8 modern CV lenses. I generally prefer the ergo, size, speed and price to Zeiss glass, but the colors and contrast are typically subpar to Zeiss glass IMO (CV 35 1.2iii vs ZM 35 1.4, Loxia 21 vs CV 21s, CV 50 1.2 vs ZM 50/1.5 and Loxia 50, etc.) and I am not quire satisfied with CV ultimately though I can address lots of the lower contrast, color and sterility in post and they offer the best compromises often as a total package. CV lenses technically test well generally, so they are going to get a lot of attention. But I am less excited by each release, specs aside.
But even on good reviews, there's very little mention/attention to color, contrast and rendering qualities beyond measuring the typical parameters (CA, bokeh aspects, distortion, lack of SA at close distance, etc.). To me, much of a lens' uniqueness and value ultimately rest on the less measurable aspects, which seems to drive many nuts....Show more →
p.2 #7 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
realVivek wrote:
APO Lanthar 50/2 appears to be missing from that list. It is in a different league of its own.
I didn’t put it on the list, because I haven’t shot it. I try to only have opinions on things I can be informed on as far as photography, so I either have to own it or have processed raw files shot in different lighting and/or look at tons of sample images, otherwise I don’t consider myself intelligent on a particular lens.
Not really being much of a 50 mm shooter, but my primary thought so far with this CV 50/2, and it seems to be echoed in the thread so far and by Fred: if you care about optical correction, in particular axial CA, the CV 50 APO is a dream. If you are more concerned with richer color and micro-contrast, you will go for the Loxia. To me, that is the very typical voigtlander/zeiss situation. And I always opt for color, contrast, and overall rendering over correction, but that is my bias which I will happily state.
p.2 #8 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
Zeiss badged Cosina lenses vs Voigtlander badged Cosina lenses. Could that be a result of the power of suggestion since the qualities attributed are so nebulous?
FWIW, I have a factory original lenshood for my ZM35/1.4 in a Cosina box. Works exactly as it is supposed to.
p.2 #9 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
realVivek wrote:
Zeiss badged Cosina lenses vs Voigtlander badged Cosina lenses. Could that be a result of the power of suggestion since the qualities attributed are so nebulous?
FWIW, I have a factory original lenshood for my ZM35/1.4 in a Cosina box. Works exactly as it is supposed to.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your post and tone, but you seem to have ignored reasoned points and many people’s observations, including Fred’s, and responded with a rhetorical question and emoji...
Many things in life, including photography, can’t be treated like a calculator and quantitated neatly. On my 75 Summilux review on Philip Reeve, and you can see I actually went through great pains to scientifically approach and measure color response. I see or know of very few people who are actually interested in trying to go about it with any semblance of methodology. If anybody knows these type of reviews are people, please direct me. I am always curious and trying to understand it better.
p.2 #10 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Maybe I am misunderstanding your post and tone, but you seem to have ignored reasoned points and many people’s observations, including Fred’s, and responded with a rhetorical question and emoji...
Many things in life, including photography, can’t be treated like a calculator and quantitated neatly. On my 75 Summilux review on Philip Reeve, and you can see I actually went through great pains to scientifically approach and measure color response. I see or know of very few people who are actually interested in trying to go about it with any semblance of methodology. If anybody knows these type of reviews are people, please direct me. I am always curious and trying to understand it better.
Your post itself is riddled with contradictions. Why would you say all the stuff you prefer is nebulous and then dispute what I say? May be that is my personal preference and opinion. No need to convert your opinions to “well reasoned points”.
Sorry, I have no interest in Summilux 75 or reading any reviews on it. I had the AA 75/2 for a few years but sold it for reasons other than its optical qualities or usability. Still miss its built hood. Wish every lens comes with one. Miss that unique feature.
The Cosina AL 50/2, IMO, is head and shoulders above the AA 75/2 but for the built in hood.
p.2 #11 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
realVivek wrote:
Your post itself is riddled with contradictions. Why would you say all the stuff you prefer is nebulous and then dispute what I say? May be that is my personal preference and opinion. No need to convert your opinions to “well reasoned points”.
Sorry, I have no interest in Summilux 75 or reading any reviews on it. I had the AA 75/2 for a few years but sold it for reasons other than its optical qualities or usability. Still miss its built hood. Wish every lens comes with one. Miss that unique feature.
The Cosina AL 50/2, IMO, is head and shoulders above the AA 75/2 but for the built in hood. ...Show more →
Just because I developed a methodology and put a quantitative value on color response for comparative purposes doesn’t mean that’s an exhaustive metric or that it (color response) is entirely measurable and objectively understandable.
You don’t have to read the 75 Lux review, I was pointing you to the color section specifically but you seem to a flatly rejected that immediately with a closed mind.
I never shot a 75 APO, no opinions on it, not sure why you brought it up to be honest. I don’t really want to go back-and-forth with you anymore, I’ll just civilly disengage.
p.2 #12 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Just because I developed a methodology and put a quantitative value on color response for comparative purposes doesn’t mean that’s an exhaustive metric or that it (color response) is entirely measurable and objectively understandable.
Not a clue what that means.
I posted in this thread because of the AL 50/2 part. You do not have anything to do with that lens by your own admission.
But appear to have a lot to say about it in many ways.
p.2 #13 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
I remember a while back I compared the Loxia 50 against the Zeiss 50MP adapted. And the Loxia smoked the 50MP, which was a well regarded lens in its day. The APO might beat the Loxia for resolution, but I’ll argue we’re getting into irrelevant territory. If you like the color and contrast of the Lox 25, pair it with the half as expensive Lox 50 and call it a day. And pixel peeping differences aren’t going to improve or ruin the image.
ChrisMak wrote:
Thanks, much appreciated, although it is of course not what I hoped to hear. But the overall impression that I get from looking at the images posted in threads, is that I may not like the color of the Voigtländer the same way I enjoy the color of the Loxia lenses. The Loxia 25 is flawless for my needs, I could not think of anything I could imagine improved in the look of the images. I am not a pixel peeper and do not print beyond A2. Still, the Loxia 50 is an older design, and it is not a truly strong landscape lens. Good enough for me though, and I will take it over the Voigtländer if the color is significantly more pleasing.
The Loxia line is pretty much final now, I assume.
p.2 #15 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
This thread is starting to get a little weird. If we're comparing the Loxia 85mm to the CV 50mm, then yes, it's a tough choice. The Loxia 85mm has better color and contrast.. CA control is still excellent and the bokeh is good. But the Loxia 50mm is noticeablly inferior to to the CV 50mm Apo. The Loxia 50mm CA wide open is very noticeable and it takes time to be corrected (if you're doing portraits of people with eyeglasses, good luck). And the bokeh is not smooth with lots of outlining and green fringing. Sharpness is another big advantage for the CV. Even the Loxia 50mm color signature is not the same as the 21mm, 25mm and the 85mm (the three lenses render color similarly). It's even slightly different from the Loxia 35mm color signature. With that being said, if you're going to shoot landscape at F5.6 and smaller, then yes. The CV advantage will be minor. Otherwise, it's not even close. CV renders excellent color still. And its CA contrIol makes the overall rendering very pleasing.
p.2 #16 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
I have the Voigtlander 50mm APO Lanthar. I don't have the Loxia, but I am very happy with the APO Lanthar.
I did try another Voigtlander 50mm, but I did not like it's wide open performance, nor its performance at f/2 (the APO Lanthar was sharper wide open at f/2 than the other lens was closed down to f/2).
p.2 #17 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
ysultan wrote:
This thread is starting to get a little weird. If we're comparing the Loxia 85mm to the CV 50mm, then yes, it's a tough choice. The Loxia 85mm has better color and contrast.. CA control is still excellent and the bokeh is good. But the Loxia 50mm is noticeablly inferior to to the CV 50mm Apo. The Loxia 50mm CA wide open is very noticeable and it takes time to be corrected (if you're doing portraits of people with eyeglasses, good luck). And the bokeh is not smooth with lots of outlining and green fringing. Sharpness is another big advantage for the CV. Even the Loxia 50mm color signature is not the same as the 21mm, 25mm and the 85mm (the three lenses render color similarly). It's even slightly different from the Loxia 35mm color signature. With that being said, if you're going to shoot landscape at F5.6 and smaller, then yes. The CV advantage will be minor. Otherwise, it's not even close. CV renders excellent color still. And its CA contrIol makes the overall rendering very pleasing. ...Show more →
I only used the Loxia 50/2 for landscapes at f/5.6 or smaller. So, I see great contrast and bold colors a couple stops down from wide open.
I agree that OOF rendering is harsh and I could not image preferring the Loxia over the Voigtlander which is pretty much flawless.
p.2 #18 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
Yes, I totally agree. For landscape, the Loxia 50mm is excellent. It's OK wide open but with several flaws. I'm just surprised that many people in this thread are saying the Loxia is the better lens.
I'm a huge Zeiss fan, but the CV 50mm is one of the few lenses that work in any situation without issues. When it's attached to my camera, I'm not concerned about stopping down a little to get more resolution or to get rid of the CA or SA or to get better bokeh rendering (as we do with the Loxia 35mm). It's just almost perfect regardless of the circumstances. I can say the same about Loxia 85mm but not 50mm.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I only used the Loxia 50/2 for landscapes at f/5.6 or smaller. So, I see great contrast and bold colors a couple stops down from wide open.
I agree that OOF rendering is harsh and I could not image preferring the Loxia over the Voigtlander which is pretty much flawless.
p.2 #19 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
There are many out there that love the CV classic line for their oof rendering & wide open under certain circumstances the Loxia 50 does that a little. Saying that it's unimaginable that someone would prefer the Loxia oof over the plasticy Apo oof is a bit of stretch.
In situations where the "impressionist painting" bokeh is undesirable it's always possible to stop the lens down to 3.2 or beyond & that way the results are always very reliable & the bokeh will be what I consider mainstream/typical Zeiss. I mean sure if someone keeps looking at their photos at 100% view all the time & they hate green CA with a passion, then it's an easy choice, get the APO! https://i.imgur.com/0Uuw0d6.png
F4, 100% crop
ysultan wrote:
Even the Loxia 50mm color signature is not the same as the 21mm, 25mm and the 85mm (the three lenses render color similarly). It's even slightly different from the Loxia 35mm color signature.
I consider that experience different from my own. I think the 21 & 50 render color in a very similar way, there being only a tiny difference. The 35 and 85 differ more in my experience. The 85 seems to emphasize reds more, I don't know.
Also the sunstar rendering can be a consideration too. The Loxia starts producing distinct 10 pronged sunstars at like f2.2-2-5 and you need to stop down the APO to f4 to reach the same intensity for its 12 pronged sunstars.
-------------------------
Here is an example how the objectively worst Loxia50 bokeh looks like: https://i.imgur.com/kDMEUgv.png
f2, 100% crop (admittedly even I found this one too much, but this is one of 3 such cases over 2 years)
p.2 #20 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
Okay, as usual an incredibly subjective thread which considering the op's concerns is quite
appropriate.
Not that anyone should care, but i've had a life-long affair with zeiss
lenses precisely for color, contrast and microcontrast from dslr's
to mirrorless (in the guise of adapted m mount lenses) to leica cams.
While I still have great affection for such, my attention has, in recent
years, turned to voigtlander whose quality has improved immeasurably
over this time.
The cv 50mm f2 apo is a beautiful lens. Though I have an otus 85, my
interest in the 50 lies not in its absence of flaws, but in its rendering and -
dare I say it - its color which for some reason reminds me of my earlier passion
for zeiss.
I am not about to compare color output from one lens to another;
this is far too subjective and has too many uncontrolled
and uncontrollable variables.
I will say that I find the color of the cv 50 apo exceptional, especially
as to skin tones, in its accuracy and purity, depth and intensity.
However, no one can or should convince you: buy or rent it and
see for yourself and make an informed and purely subjective - since
personal - decision.
