p.5 #1 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
I used auto white balance.
The lower right image looks different to me. the reds are more saturated. It was the last pic shot, although all four pics were shot in a six minute period.
p.5 #2 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
I have both lenses. At f5.6 and above for Landscapes the differences between the two are subtle but I do find the Loxia a bit more saturated and contrasty which can be replicated in post processing. If shooting sun stars the Loxia is better for me.
When they get real different is at night. If doing astro wide open the CV 50 APO is much better. If shooting city lights and "sun stars" from the city lights at f5.6 and above I like the Loxia much better.
At current pricing for used I will keep both or may trade the 50 APO for a 35 APO since the CV 35 is much better than Loxia 35.
BTW Top right looks like Loxia to me but easily changed in post.
p.5 #3 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
I wonder if a nice setup might be the CV 65mm F2 APO along with the Loxia 50mm F2. The close focus abilities of the 65 APO would be a nice benefit over the 50mm APO for those who like Macro capabilities.
p.5 #4 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
billsnature wrote:
I have both lenses. At f5.6 and above for Landscapes the differences between the two are subtle but I do find the Loxia a bit more saturated and contrasty which can be replicated in post processing. If shooting sun stars the Loxia is better for me.
When they get real different is at night. If doing astro wide open the CV 50 APO is much better. If shooting city lights and "sun stars" from the city lights at f5.6 and above I like the Loxia much better.
At current pricing for used I will keep both or may trade the 50 APO for a 35 APO since the CV 35 is much better than Loxia 35.
BTW Top right looks like Loxia to me but easily changed in post. ...Show more →
You are right, the top right is the Loxia 50. A few other guys picked it. But for every correct pick, there were several incorrect. Still, I'm impressed. I don't know how you did it.
p.5 #5 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
AeroPhoto wrote:
You are right, the top right is the Loxia 50. A few other guys picked it. But for every correct pick, there were several incorrect. Still, I'm impressed. I don't know how you did it.
What about that frame hinted Loxia?
I think there is something inherently flawed about taking one or a few random images and letting the conclusion whether the lenses are any different, depend on whether people can guess which lens took which image.
You would have to take a very elaborate set of images under many different circumstances to give such a "test" any validity.
My experience, is that owning a lens and using it a lot in a wide variety of circumstances, is the only really valid way of evaluating whether you like the lens.
I think it is valid to say that you need to learn to discern things like colors and color rendering, bokeh and the amount of micro contrast or clarity.
Once you have learned to discern certain things, they become more obvious, but I have become much, much more color aware since taking up photography 15 years ago.
There is nothing wrong with challenging people to pick a Zeiss Loxia image from two or more images, but I know I would never put much value on such a test. I have sold and re-purchased the Loxia 25 and 50 lenses several times in the context of attempts at a system change, so I have gone back and forward on multiple lenses and camera bodies.
These two lenses are still my favorite lenses regarding color and contrast, even though I can perfectly appreciate other lenses for what they are.
I very much regret Zeiss stepping out of the arena, I would have loved to see a modern Loxia 35/2 and 50/2
p.5 #6 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
AeroPhoto wrote:
You are right, the top right is the Loxia 50. A few other guys picked it. But for every correct pick, there were several incorrect. Still, I'm impressed. I don't know how you did it.
What about that frame hinted Loxia?
While the exposure makes the greens of all four pictures look similar, the photo in upper right has reds that are a bit darker and less pink than the other three pictures (at least on my monitor). That ratio of green to red with the reds being a bit more saturated while the greens are the same is part of the Zeiss signature, along with a bit more micro or color contrast. To punch up a CV picture the NIK Tonal Contrast tool is a quick fix if used at low levels to not go too far.
p.5 #7 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
For those interested, just came across this little video from Peter Coulson: “What Difference Does a Lens Make?“. There he takes a look at a couple of manual 50mm lenses (Loxia 50 yes, Voigtländer 50 no). He is mainly interested in the different character of these lenses, emotions evoked, so it‘s not a scientific review by any means.
p.5 #8 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
I own the Loxia 35 and the Apo Lanthar 35. If the Apo had existed earlier I probably would not have bought the Loxia. But having both, has allowed today's experiment, which surprised me. These images were shot from a distance of 8 feet, manually focused with magnification and on tripod with self timer.
The first panel is centers. Apo wins f2. Apo also wins f2.8, but Loxia is quite close
The second panel is edges with only the Loxia refocused on the edge. To my surprise, the Loxia refocused edge is fairly sharp. I interpret this to mean that the Loxia soft edge is primarily due to field curvature. And many authors have pointed out that field curvature rarely matters.
Note, please ignore contrast of edge photos. I messed with exposure, so another test would be necessary to evaluate contrast.
Centers
Edges
A typical image where field curvature doesn't matter.
p.5 #9 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
AeroPhoto wrote:
I own the Loxia 35 and the Apo Lanthar 35. If the Apo had existed earlier I probably would not have bought the Loxia. But having both, has allowed today's experiment, which surprised me. These images were shot from a distance of 8 feet, manually focused with magnification and on tripod with self timer.
You might be interested in these comparison images from Tora_2097:
A great comparison. Thanks very much.
Being an engineer I enjoy all these details. It's fun, and as Phillip Reeve writes, I have two hobbies, photographic equipment and photography, and they sometimes intersect.
But after drowning in detail for days, I have to remember that in the real world, photos shot with these two lenses will be perceived as equal for many reasons:
In the real world we view a single image, not comparisons side-by-side.
When we use large apertures we usually want the edges very soft, that's why we use large apertures.
Many tasks demand smaller apertures for depth of field. Lenses become more equal at smaller apertures.
Comparisons like this view magnified pieces of the image. But in the real world we don't examine pieces of images.
So I say to myself, "Relax Alan, this is fun but it doesn't matter in the real world".
p.5 #12 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
Just your local curmudgeon here. I couldn't bring myself to read the entire thread but simply want to ask one question...
Does no one here do any post processing? With today's incredible tools, Lightroom, Photoshop, etc, one can quite easily manipulate color, and many other parameters to one's taste. I routinely adjust color in my images depending on the nature of the images. Sometimes the sky is too blue, sometimes the grass is too green. All of this is quite easily changed to meet one's esthetic choices.
I do not doubt for a minute that lenses have different color characteristics, but in the real world, someone reminded us earlier in the thread, that in the end, we look at one version of an image. Rarely, unless doing testing, do we compare two images from two different cameras or lenses. It seems to me that post processing clearly overrides the basic nature of the lens in question. If it doesn't the lens is likely faulty.
Enjoy the discussion, but, as I always seem to end up saying, quit debating angels on a pinhead, go out, travel, stay at home, but just make some images, play with them, have fun and make a print. The different screen settings on computers modify the colors as well. Not everyone uses a similarly profiled monitor.
End of rant, no intention to offend anyone, no ad hominem attitude here.
p.5 #13 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
How would you want to shoot astro? How would you want to shoot a cityscape at night?
I thought in general we used large apertures to have shallow depth of field and to be able to shoot in lower light. Whether the edges or soft or not really comes down to personal preference and the type of wide aperture shooting you're doing.
AeroPhoto wrote:
Tell us why you use large apertures but don't want soft edges.
p.5 #14 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
tsdevine wrote:
How would you want to shoot astro? How would you want to shoot a cityscape at night?
I thought in general we used large apertures to have shallow depth of field and to be able to shoot in lower light. Whether the edges or soft or not really comes down to personal preference and the type of wide aperture shooting you're doing.
Good examples. Thank you. I have not tried either, though I do shoot craters through a telescope.
p.5 #15 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
Soft outer frames (mid to wide edges) are the unwanted product of optical aberrations. I can show you many MTF plots that verify the direction of lens design towards all-aperture sharpness into the very corners, let alone the edges. As Peter Karbe says: 'why stop down?'
These lenses, such as the 50/2 APO noted in the thread title, give us much the same performance at f2 as at any other pre-diffraction aperture. I enjoy using it at f2. So we add that use case to Tim's two.
You may agree that you get a different focus fade character using f2 as compared with f4-f5.6, in open nature imaging at focus distances of 10 metres or longer. It's more of a traditional look, almost film-like in the smooth fade of focus.
In the days before the turn of the century, you had to stop down to obtain good outer frame resolution in such images. Not any more. Early lenses that behaved well, that behaved in a modern fashion, garnered acclaim from critics. Examples are the CZ 100MP and Leica's 100/2.8 in the R range. If you are open-minded to the issue, you can see the MTF of the latter lens at the link below - note the outer frames gently roll off and lose just 10% of the on-axis performance, for the lower line pair:
p.5 #16 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
Another reason for now using this kind of fine lens is that they very likely improve bokeh uniformity, because the content in the outer frame's bokeh field is unaffected (or less affected) by residual aberrations like curvature, focus shift, astigmatism and chromatic aberration.
Meaning it is effectively an extension of the bokeh closer to the axis = greater uniformity. No one in lens design is actively seeking poor corner definition. Quite the contrary, they are very much aware of the issues involved.
APO lenses are made for photographers that are fans of reality that they can now capture in vivid high fidelity images. They will be unpopular with those who want the lens to contribute its aberrations to the image for 'artistic' reasons, rather than simply capturing the compositions expertly. It's a battle to the death, one that may play out over many years! Actually no, they will continue to coexist, to cover all 'needs'.
p.5 #18 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
AeroPhoto wrote:
I'd love to see images which show what you are describing.
Alan
Alan:
I am not picking on anyone here - just trying to understand what people are talking about.
I have noticed that on the last few threads you have started, people sometimes make statements about lenses - "rendering", "sharpness", etc. You always ask them to post a photo of what they are describing so we can all be informed and understand what the poster is trying to get across. That would certainly be useful. Yet, I don't think I have seen anyone do that yet, which is a shame as I would also like to be clear on what they are describing, or why one would think think something supposedly so important about lens characteristics.
I am a scientist (not a troll) and like to see the data. Please post examples people!
p.5 #19 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
graytrekker wrote:
I am not picking on anyone here - just trying to understand what people are talking about.
I suppose that one path to understanding would be like that used by our Supreme Court: Find a definition or use of a term [or statute] that seems to support a chosen position. In that spirit, I offer this citation-free answer from the AI-driven search site Perplexity.ai:
Microcontrast plays a crucial role in enhancing depth perception in photography. While sharpness is commonly emphasized in lens reviews, microcontrast offers a different dimension to image quality by improving the rendition of colors and tones. It is not about measurable resolution but rather about how well a lens can render subtle tonal variations, contributing to the overall depth and visual appeal of an image. . . . In essence, lens microcontrast enhances the richness and depth of colors and tones in an image, contributing significantly to the overall quality and visual impact of photographs."
So, if it's about tonality rather than acuity, the desired microcontrast might be one factor that led some of us to prefer to use medium format in lieu of 35mm. Or something.
FWIW, here are some MTF plots. Do they suggest any difference in the hard-to-define microcontrast (rather than, say, the corner sharpness that may or may not matter to you)?
The Loxia 50mm f/2 (at f/5.6, 10, 20, and 40 cycles per mm) is on the top, and the Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO (at f/4, 10, 30, and 40 cycles per mm) at the bottom.
p.5 #20 · Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo VS Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2
MTF charts are nice and are generated theoretically/mathematically by the manufacturer, but should be somewhat related to real life experiences.
I believe that when the CV 50 Apo came out, Fred did some extensive testing and compared it to the Loxia 50. I think he also compared the CV 35 APO against his Loxia 35, which he said was better than most.
So people can go to those pages and make their own judgements.
