Fred Miranda wrote:
Couldn't they fix this in a minute? I'm sure C1 has been receiving reports on this. What's taking so long? Same for the Voigtlander 35/2 APO showing as Loxia.
Yeah it's weird.
There are many EXIF fields associated with the lens; LensModel, Lens, and LensID amongst them.
Manufacutuers aren't always consistent with which fields they use...
Lens Model EXIF field is perhaps the most reliable, but not always.
Lens Info sometime has name, sometimes just focal length and aperture.
Lens ID is a derived field, maybe based on Lens Model, or ors other stuff?
There are Maker Notes fields which are relevant too:
Lens Type2 for instance, tends to be where CV puts lens names recently.
Sometimes Lens Type has the name too, sometimes garbage.
So here's my guess: because of this randomness, early on the C1 developers decided to have their own database of lens names, and use specs to pick the lens. It was a bad idea, because eventually there would be many lenses with the same spec, and it required them to update their own database. But I can see how it may have been tempting early on.
But now it really has to change, just read all the relevant fields, and have an algorithm to guess the most likely real name. I'll bet that's what Adobe does (or maybe they know, for each brand and era, which field is the reliable one. Also not hard.
There are many EXIF fields associated with the lens; LensModel, Lens, and LensID amongst them.
Manufacutuers aren't always consistent with which fields they use...
Lens Model EXIF field is perhaps the most reliable, but not always.
Lens Info sometime has name, sometimes just focal length and aperture.
Lens ID is a derived field, maybe based on Lens Model, or ors other stuff?
There are Maker Notes fields which are relevant too:
Lens Type2 for instance, tends to be where CV puts lens names recently.
Sometimes Lens Type has the name too, sometimes garbage.
So here's my guess: because of this randomness, early on the CV developers decided to have their own database of lens names, and use specs to pick the lens. It was a bad idea, because eventually there would be many lenses with the same spec, and it required them to update their own database. But I can see how it may have been tempting early on.
But now it really has to change, just read all the relevant fields, and have an algorithm to guess the most likely real name. I'll bet that's what Adobe does (or maybe they know, for each brand and era, which field is the reliable one. Also not hard....Show more →
I think the old Loxia lenses didn't have clear information on the Lens Model and Lens ID fields (I used to have Loxia 50/2) and that might have been one reason that C1 had to rely on some other info from EXIF to try to identify those lenses. Yesterday I reported the problem about CV 35/2 getting recognized as Loxia 35/2 and Sigma 65/2 getting recognized as CV 65/2 to C1 Support just in case although they might have received reports on these from others already...
CV 35/2 has "Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 35mm F2 Aspherical" in Lens Model and Lens ID fields. It has "Unknown (51006)" in Lens Type 2 field.
Sigma 65/2 has "65mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020" in Lens Model and Lens ID fields and "Unknown (50523)" in Lens Type 2 field.
I also checked Sony 40/2.5 G just for reference and it has "FE 40mm F2.5 G" in Lens Model, Lens Spec and Lens ID fields. It has "Unknown E-mount lens or other lens" in Lens Type 2 field.
I suppose in most cases with recent lenses it should be possible to try to identify the lens based on Lens Model or Lens ID fields. I think if and when there is no C1 in-built lens profile match, C1 will currently pick up the lens name from one of these EXIF fields as-is and will copy that name to it's own metadata. E.g. 40/2.5 G appears as "FE 40mm F2.5 G" in C1 metadata and it doesn't have any profile match (so manufacturer profile will be used automatically). The lens name problem seems to be just happening with the lenses that get incorrectly matched like CV 35/2 and Sigma 65/2 currently.
I am using Capture One 20. Is there a way to bulk change applied profile from "Loxia 35" to "Manufacturer Profile"? Toggling between the two, there is a clear difference in profiles, but I am not sure which one is more accurate. I will have to shoot some straight lines or a brick wall to figure that out.
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
I am using Capture One 20. Is there a way to bulk change applied profile from "Loxia 35" to "Manufacturer Profile"? Toggling between the two, there is a clear difference between the lens profiles, but I am not sure which one is more accurate. I will have to shot some straight lines or a brick wall to figure that out.
I've learned it here, for Capture One 21 at least but I think it should work in earlier versions too.
You can create a preset in "Lens Correction" (profile, light falloff, etc.) tab and then select it in "Styles" in "Adjustments" section in the import window.
j4nu wrote:
I've learned it here, for Capture One 21 at least but I think it should work in earlier versions too.
You can create a preset in "Lens Correction" (profile, light falloff, etc.) tab and then select it in "Styles" in "Adjustments" section in the import window.
FWIW, a Phase One employee replied to my question regarding the new Voigtlander 35mm APO lens (which, like the new Sigma 35, is misidentified in Capture One as the Loxia 35/2) to indicate that the "Manufactuer Profile" works correctly for that lens--and so, perhaps, for yours.
(As it happens, although both the Loxia and the Voigtlander have minimal distortion, there is a clear difference between the Loxia profile and the Manufactuer Profile when distortion correction is applied to the Voigtlander files.)
FWIW, a Phase One employee replied to my question regarding the new Voigtlander 35mm APO lens (which, like the new Sigma 35, is misidentified in Capture One as the Loxia 35/2) to indicate that the "Manufactuer Profile" works correctly for that lens--and so, perhaps, for yours.
(As it happens, although both the Loxia and the Voigtlander have minimal distortion, there is a clear difference between the Loxia profile and the Manufactuer Profile when distortion correction is applied to the Voigtlander files.)
Yeah, I actually prefer "Manufacturer Profile" to CO lens profile that comes later most of the time ...
received mine today and it is very nicely finished. to my surprise not only is it basically a 30mm lens but it has significant barrel distortion. i found my copy significantly softer wide open than i am happy with. distortion is not a big deal but i did not buy a 30mm lens, i bought a 35mm lens, so it will be going back. so far i can’t seem to find anything better than the 2.8 za for its portability/iq factor. the sigma is not any sharper than the za at 2.8 but at this point i guess both lenses out resolve my R2, and my za copy is superior across the frame than my 35i. i cannot understand how a previous poster demonstrated the 2.8 za that soft at 2.8, my copy is much sharper.
I got the following response from Capture One Support engineer on my new support requests regarding CV 35/2 and Sigma 65/2 lens identification problem:
"I consider this a bug and I've filed a report with all the details for our R&D team to audit the issue. I will place your ticket on-hold and will get back to you when we have a response from our engineers or if we need any more information for this report.
We also cannot guarantee that this bug will be in the next service release, but rest assured that it has been reported and will be looked into and our developers will do their best to roll out a fix as soon as possible."
I suppose they'll fix both within a few months at least.
In the meanwhile I ordered Sigma 35/2 DG DN for L-mount as well (to go with my Sigma fp + EVF-11 combo), as I have only 2 native L-mount lenses so far (45/2.8 DG DN and Panasonic 20-60) and could use a general purpose 35mm lens for this setup as well. Will also probably pick up 24/3.5 for L-mount at some point.
Thank you for perhaps the best review I’ve read about this lens, Fred! I do wonder if I got a bad copy of it though… it’s just not sharp half the time I’m expecting it to be.
Sadly I can’t post photos because I lurk here and haven’t posted enough?
Pewpewphotos wrote:
Thank you for perhaps the best review I’ve read about this lens, Fred! I do wonder if I got a bad copy of it though… it’s just not sharp half the time I’m expecting it to be.
Sadly I can’t post photos because I lurk here and haven’t posted enough?
I think you need to purchase a subscription to post photos directly to the forum. You can use links from sites like Flickr though and they should show up.
ReleaseDrive wrote:
I searched and I don't see the Voigtlander 35mm 1.7 mentioned here. Anyone have thoughts on it verses the Sigma?
I wouldn't mind the AF. May have to own both for awhile to decide.
I have both lenses. My experience is that they draw a similair image. Build quality of both is excellent.
Colour of the Sigma is somewhat cooler. Sigma has the better edge to edge sharpness stopped down.
Voigtlander has the (much) better sunstars and is very sharp (centre) wide open. Backlit situations the voigtlander has to edge to me.
Oogappeltje wrote:
I have both lenses. My experience is that they draw a similair image. Build quality of both is excellent.
Colour of the Sigma is somewhat cooler. Sigma has the better edge to edge sharpness stopped down.
Voigtlander has the (much) better sunstars and is very sharp (centre) wide open. Backlit situations the voigtlander has to edge to me.
I keep both (-:
Thanks! What you mentioned is exactly why I like the Voigtlander. I'll probably have to own both as well.
Got the lens at the end of last week, haven't gotten to go out with it, just shooting around the house. Few comments in line with the rest of the thread:
- incredible build quality, the hood is so nice I actually use it.
- the wider fov, similar to the RX1 and Pentax 31, is much appreciated
- really good OOF rendering, but I feel a slightly harsher transition zone than the RX1R2 I had. Not a serious issue though.
- neutral / cool colors seem better than other Sigma, Tamron, and Sony G lenses, but not quite the oomph of Sony GM, Voigtlander, or Zeiss. I'll play around with the color wheels and profiles and presets, but if it's not going to match my 16-35 f2.8 GM, 85 Batis, or my CZ 35-70, I'll be a bit disappointed
- sharpness looks great, but I really need to get an R3 or R4 for better eye AF than my R2
Very excited to try this lens for all the weddings in attending this year. Also disappointed that I can't afford to keep my beautiful CV 40/1.2 in the meanwhile.
...
I am using C1 on y USB3.2 and it works like a charm. Don't have faster network than that at home.