p.4 #2 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
My thoughts are that they are actually comparable in sharpness at the distances demonstrated. The TTA shows a bit more axial CA at 0.95 which is to be expected.
The Nokton's rendering is smoother at transition zone but the TTA is capable of more blur from the wider aperture. The latter is considerably bigger and heavier. A more specialized lens.
The only reason I have the 50/0.95 is for when using my M9 in low light since high ISO dynamic range and SNR is limited for its CCD sensor.
p.4 #3 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
rscheffler wrote:
To my eyes the VM APO looks worse than the Lux at f/2.8, which I thought it shouldn't be...? And the extreme corners, while at wider apertures the APO is better, at f/4 and more stopped down, I prefer the Lux.
I thought there would have been more noticeable differences, in respect to sharpness. If it's really this close, I'll stick with the Lux since I already have it and love its rendering. Yeah, it's now an older design with some weaknesses showing, but it's possible to work around those most of the time.
Thanks Fred, for doing this 3-way comparison!
Ron,
I've checked my copy of the Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO's focus calibration and on the M9 and M10-R and it's perfect, so what we see on the infinity crops for both APO and Lux at their hard stops should be accurate.
So far, from my Voigtlander lenses, the CV 28mm f/2 Ultron II, CV 35mm f/1.7 Ultron, CV 50mm f/2 APO and CV 75/1.5 Nokton are perfectly calibrated. None of numerous copies of the f/1.2 Nokton's I've tried to date were perfect wide open but great at f/2. I think Cosina compensates them for focus shift.
p.4 #4 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
OK, thanks. Based on the MTFs from each I expected a bigger difference (advantage) for the VM APO at mid-field... Maybe it's something I'll still have to investigate for myself.
p.4 #5 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
rscheffler wrote:
OK, thanks. Based on the MTFs from each I expected a bigger difference (advantage) for the VM APO at mid-field... Maybe it's something I'll still have to investigate for myself.
I was surprised by that mid-field as well. I will re-test this.
p.4 #8 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
Yes, the FE version's performance came to mind. The VM has a slightly different optical design with correspondingly slightly weaker MTF performance. But would this be noticeable in real life use?
p.4 #9 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
ftllens wrote:
I wonder how the TTartisans 50 1.4 would do against these 3. The greens look so nice on the APO tho.
Good question. I also have the TTArtisans 50/1.4 and, while it’s soft wide open compared to the Lux, it improves markedly at f/2 with lovely rendering. Not that great at infinity which doesn’t bother me at all but would worry lots of FM members I imagine. Still, an absolute bargain given its price.
p.4 #10 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
Would be interesting to see how the VM 50/1.2 renders at f1.2 and f1.4 compared to the Lux at f1.4?
And perhaps add the 3'rd Voigtländer, if you still have the VM 50/1.5 II ?
Jul 01, 2021 at 09:14 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #11 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
From the Leica MTFs, the 50 lux Asph should only show only a moderate midzone dip at f/1.4 and only a mild midzone dip at f/2.8 (and these dips are only at 40 lp/mm), and there is essentially no midzone dip at f/5.6. The MTFs suggest the real weakness is in the extreme corners and that even persists a little all the way to f/5.6. I think these MTFs would basically predict the performance that we see in Fred's tests. Keep in mind the 40 lp/mm MTFs are only going to represent the finest details, and outside of those finest details the MTFs just don't show hardly any midzone dip.
p.4 #12 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
Steve Spencer wrote:
From the Leica MTFs, the 50 lux Asph should only show only a moderate midzone dip at f/1.4 and only a mild midzone dip at f/2.8 (and these dips are only at 40 lp/mm), and there is essentially no midzone dip at f/5.6. The MTFs suggest the real weakness is in the extreme corners and that even persists a little all the way to f/5.6. I think these MTFs would basically predict the performance that we see in Fred's tests. Keep in mind the 40 lp/mm MTFs are only going to represent the finest details, and outside of those finest details the MTFs just don't show hardly any midzone dip....Show more →
I just noticed that my 50/2 APO copy is slightly tiled and this weakness is showing on the mid and extreme corners crops posted here. I didn't notice it on 24MP but this tilt is noticeable on 40MP. I will try another copy and repost the infinity test with the 50/2 APO vs LUX.
Here is a crop showing the lens at f/2 (wide open). It's the upside down crop showing much better performance.
(view full image by expanding your browser window)
extreme corner at f/2 (from a corner not affected by tilt)
p.4 #13 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
I like the Lux...
and I was able to view some comparisons in a blind test.
But the slope with shrubs on it didn't show much difference - it's when there is something in the foreground that the Leica really ... ah... separates itself from the other lens.
p.4 #14 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
Hi Fred,
Thanks for this awesome comparison! I was wondering how you think the 50 Summilux compares to the VM 50/1.5 II.
In my review this is what I eventually concluded:
At infinity, both are very sharp wide-open in center, and degrade significantly in the edges/corners.
At mid-distances, VM is very sharp corner-to-corner whereas Leica only sharp in the central 50%.
At 0.7m, Leica still beautiful in the center whereas the VM has some SA but not that far behind.
Leica has far less LoCA and cleaner transition zones.
Would love to hear if you agree/disagree based on using both lenses.
p.4 #15 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just noticed that my 50/2 APO copy is slightly tiled and this weakness is showing on the mid and extreme corners crops posted here. I didn't notice it on 24MP but this tilt is noticeable on 40MP. I will try another copy and repost the infinity test with the 50/2 APO vs LUX.
Here is a crop showing the lens at f/2 (wide open). It's the upside down crop showing much better performance.
(view full image by expanding your browser window)
Ah, this makes more sense now. My CV 50 APO corners on the M10-R are much sharper than my 50 Lux (which isn't bad) – it isn't even a fair fight
p.4 #16 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
fwdesign wrote:
Hi Fred,
Thanks for this awesome comparison! I was wondering how you think the 50 Summilux compares to the VM 50/1.5 II.
In my review this is what I eventually concluded:
At infinity, both are very sharp wide-open in center, and degrade significantly in the edges/corners.
At mid-distances, VM is very sharp corner-to-corner whereas Leica only sharp in the central 50%.
At 0.7m, Leica still beautiful in the center whereas the VM has some SA but not that far behind.
Leica has far less LoCA and cleaner transition zones.
Would love to hear if you agree/disagree based on using both lenses.
Well written and presented. Great contribution to a very interesting thread!
"Summary and recommendations
So how good is the new Voigtlander 50/1.5 II compared to the legendary 50 Summilux? Optically, they each have their strengths and weaknesses. The Voigtlander seems to be optimized for mid-distances, where image quality is reliably good across the entire frame. But at far distances, the periphery isn’t sharp until f/4. The Leica is the opposite: it does better at infinity, but at closer distances there isn’t much resolution to speak of in the outer half of the frame. The Leica is also better-corrected at 0.7m, but it’s not a huge difference. In terms of rendering, the Leica is definitely better in the transition zones, which are cleaner and have less chromatic aberration. Overall, I’d say the Leica delivers slightly better performance for my taste, but it’s close. And neither has the consistent image quality of a 50mm f/2 lens such as the Zeiss Planar or Leica Summicron.
When aspects outside of image quality are considered, the comparison becomes much more favorable for the Voigtlander. It’s drastically smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the Leica. Taking this into account, it’s highly impressive that the Voigtlander’s image quality is neck and neck with the 50 Summilux."
p.4 #19 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
Just received my second copy of the Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO and this one is perfectly centered on my Leica M10-R. I will update the comparison between Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/2 APO today.
p.4 #20 · Leica 50/1.4 Lux vs Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton vs 50/2 APO
So, I have updated the crops showing the new Voigtlander 50/2 APO copy. It does much better than the previous copy which was slightly tilted. This was only noticeable on 41MP.
My take on the results: The Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO is one of the best 50mm lenses on the market in terms of resolution and contrast across the image field. I highly recommend it, especially if you have a Leica M10-R. It's already outstanding from wide open at center, mid-field and extreme corners only improving slightly at smaller apertures.
On the other hand, the Leica 50/1.4 Lux performed great around the center area even at f/2 but could not keep up with the Voigtlander APO's high resolution at mid-field and corners. Having said that, stopping it down to f/4 and smaller, makes it a strong performer as well. The Leica's optimal apertures for highest resolution/contrast across the field is f/5.6 and f/8.
Perhaps the Leica APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2 is able to match the Voigtlander APO's image quality, but that's a test for another day.
