Went to take out the garbage and thought to use the street light to check out star rendering. I was surprised to see rather low performance at f/8. Here's an aperture series from f/8 to f/16. This may not be the best test and I didn't compare with another lens known to give good stars so take this with a small grain of salt.
Remains to be seen, but I’m pretty sure the hybrid iris mechanism of the AL50 produces somewhat less (to my taste) good sun stars than the Loxia 50, while being way better in every other way. I did worry that the latest development of the hybrid mechanism will produce even less well defined sun stars even outside the “round” apertures. Oh well. Some will be pleased, if it’s true.
apatel wrote:
Has anyone compared this lens on a Leica M camera to a Zeiss 35 1.4 ZM? Any reason to consider a change?
I don't have the 35/1.4 ZM to compare with it but the first impressing I got from the CV 35/2 APO's rendering was that it's reminiscent of the Zeiss ZM.
DavidBM wrote:
Remains to be seen, but I’m pretty sure the hybrid iris mechanism of the AL50 produces somewhat less (to my taste) good sun stars than the Loxia 50, while being way better in every other way. I did worry that the latest development of the hybrid mechanism will produce even less well defined sun stars even outside the “round” apertures. Oh well. Some will be pleased, if it’s true.
There are definitely more restrictions now but I appreciate the trade-offs. There are no sunstars wide open, f/2.8, f/5.6 and f/16.
I will do a sequence in third stops so we see which apertures are optimal now. I'm sure it will look great at f/4 (where the lens is optimal) and f/7.1 (or smaller) which are my fav. apertures for landscapes.
ysultan wrote:
Fred, thank you so much for the review. In terms of rendering, which is better in your opinion, the CV 50mm or the 35mm apo?
Yasser
Hi Yasser, I prefer the CV 50/2 APO's rendering. Although both amazing in terms of resolution/contrast and CA suppression, they definitely have distinctive draws. I do like the CV 35/2 APO's rendering as well, especially at close distance like in environment portraits.
Thank you so much, Fred! I felt that this was the case based on the samples you shared. I'm pretty sure one day I will own both, but I'm more tempted to add the Sigma 35mm f2 now. I can't believe that all of a sudden we have all these 35mm options.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Yasser, I prefer the CV 50/2 APO's rendering. Although both amazing in terms of resolution/contrast and CA suppression, they definitely have distinctive draws. I do like the CV 35/2 APO's rendering as well, especially at close distance like in environment portraits.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Extreme corner at f/2: WOW! The Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO has the best 35mm corners I've tested to date! It does significantly better than the Sigma here. Noticed how the Sigma has wider AOV by looking at the houses' sizes. (I've reframe the shots)
ysultan wrote:
Thank you so much, Fred! I felt that this was the case based on the samples you shared. I'm pretty sure one day I will own both, but I'm more tempted to add the Sigma 35mm f2 now. I can't believe that all of a sudden we have all these 35mm options.
At infinity distance, the Sigma 35/2 DG DN is super sharp at center and although not in the same league as the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO in terms of "off-axis" performance, it is still strong in comparison to other 35mm lenses. I consider it an all-rounder capable of high resolution (for landscapes), low CA and pleasant rendering.
The Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO could be considered the ultimate lens for landscapes but some shooters may see it as a more specialized lens. Personally I am not sure if I will keep both CV 35/2 APO E and M mount versions but it's a keeper for sure.
To my eyes, I would prefer the Sigma's rendering for people photos, particularly its smoother background blur at mid distances. AF with eye-detect would be another benefit for dynamic situations. The Voigtlander appears to be ideal for more 'deliberate' scenarios and applications with deeper focus where OOF rendering/character would likely be less relevant to an image's overall aesthetics.
I certainly would agree the Sigma would be and is a nice people lens along with its AF a great choice. Why I’m keeping mine. On the CV I need to get it in my hands as I have not been following as closely but it’s on order. I’d like both but CV lenses always tended to one fantastic lenses at distance, great sun stars and overall great color, contrast and saturation.
GMPhotography wrote:
Ordered need new cocktail now.
Actually folks I’m feeling quite lucky that I’m not seriously hurt but being a Golf Ranger I drove over a sand trap 6 ft high . Flew out of the cart it landed on top of me . Pinned my legs in the sand I had to shimmy out but I hit my shoulder really hard and I’m bruised pretty bad. I got up and went back to work. I’m a bad ass but I’m feeling it
Btw this is fun for me some money but I get to play one of the best clubs in Arizona. I’ll take some shots with the Sigma this week. Course is gorgeous ...Show more →
Geez .. hope you are feeling better today. Our local course is opening up thursday.
A couple portraits with my daughter. I've chosen a complex background intentionally. (To know worse scenario)
Close and mid-distance, both at f/2. Natural flat lighting.
