rscheffler wrote:
Huss: this VM vs the LLL 35 Cron replica. What do think? I guess the VM is more modern and controlled. Maybe a little less WO mojo?
Interesting question! I never thought to compare but I will do side by side shots w my digi M when I get the chance.
It will also show actual coverage of both lenses, and of course f2 vs f2.8 etc.
rscheffler wrote:
Huss: this VM vs the LLL 35 Cron replica. What do think? I guess the VM is more modern and controlled. Maybe a little less WO mojo?
Here is a quick n dirty unintentional comparison. Unintentional as the pics were taken days apart, and I never thought about the other lens. Anyway, similar pose/same subject + lighting. Not the same camera to subject distance, but should still give you an idea.
First is the CV 40 @ 2.8
LLL 35 f2 @ 2.0
FYI both had the in camera Leica 35 pre asph profile set. It's what I use for the LLL, and happened to be left at that for the CV 40. 11310/11311
M_Wales wrote:
Has anyone that owns this lens been able to code it?
If so what profile?
Thanks
I didn't try to code the black version when I had in hands but the silver can be coded just like any other Voigtlander lens.
The black version could probably get coded as well but one would need to use black 'and' white paint. (The silver only needs the black code)
There is no Leica 40mm code available so perhaps the closest match is Leica 50mm f/2.8 Elmar since the Voigtlander 40/2.8 Heliar brings the 50/75 framelines,.
So here's an observation. My CV 40 2.8 is very tight fitting on my MP, but brings up the frame lines no issues and locks on correctly. Same for my M7 but slightly less tight. On my M240 it does not lock on and if turned as far as it will go it brings up the 28mm lines. Slightly backing off it brings up the 50. Backing off a little more brings up the 35. Backing up more and the lens comes off...
Obviously there are machining tolerance differences between the three camera mounts, and a tolerance in the machining of the lens mount which results in this observation. As I bought it primarily for film use, I think I'm ok w it...
Ok so here is my profile test. On my M240 I used the 35 f2 profiles (asph and non asph), the two 50mm f2 profiles, and the 50 2.8 profile. Details in the image name for the actual profile names. All straight from the camera, did not touch anything apart from give +.5 EV to all the blind shots. Auto white balance. No crops, no adjustments, no nuffink.
Desmolicious wrote:
Ok so here is my profile test. On my M240 I used the 35 f2 profiles (asph and non asph), the two 50mm f2 profiles, and the 50 2.8 profile. Details in the image name for the actual profile names. All straight from the camera, did not touch anything apart from give +.5 EV to all the blind shots. Auto white balance. No crops, no adjustments, no nuffink.
In terms of in-camera vignetting correction, it seems that the 35/2 and 50/2.8 lens profiles (first and last from your list) look very similar with higher vignetting correction compared to the other profiles. I don't think Leica in-camera profiles correct for CA or Distortion at all.
Fred Miranda wrote:
In terms of in-camera vignetting correction, it seems that the 35/2 and 50/2.8 lens profiles (first and last from your list) look very similar with higher vignetting correction compared to the other profiles. I don't think Leica in-camera profiles correct for CA or Distortion at all.
yeah, which is why I would not even sweat it re. setting lens profiles in camera. The lens profiles in LR make a big difference in distortion and vignetting. Funny thing is clicking through them I think what they list as the 'correct' profile often makes things worse, at least to my eye!
LR is disappointing in the fact that for Leica M it does not have very many profiles at all.
Fred Miranda wrote:
You're welcome. The Leica Summaron-M 28mm f/5.6 has the same filter thread size (34mm), so its push on cap may fit the Voigtlander 40mm f/2.8 Heliar.
I purchased 3rd party, but I throw away after using a few times. The attached glue coming out. Finally, I purchased original (genuine) one that is perfect and permanent. Made in China should be cheap, but durability and reliability, and usability are questionable. Used original is far better.
junglialoh wrote:
I purchased 3rd party, but I throw away after using a few times. The attached glue coming out. Finally, I purchased original (genuine) one that is perfect and permanent. Made in China should be cheap, but durability and reliability, and usability is questionable. Used original is far better.
It was a cute idea, but it's much better to use the lens with the included, and very nice, lens hood. I then put a cheapo 43mm pinch lens cap over that, and leave the nice voigtlander one in the box. So I don't have to worry about dropping/losing it plus the pinch cap is quicker to put on and take off.
Desmolicious wrote:
Ok so here is my profile test. On my M240 I used the 35 f2 profiles (asph and non asph), the two 50mm f2 profiles, and the 50 2.8 profile. Details in the image name for the actual profile names. All straight from the camera, did not touch anything apart from give +.5 EV to all the blind shots. Auto white balance. No crops, no adjustments, no nuffink.
Fred Miranda wrote:
In terms of in-camera vignetting correction, it seems that the 35/2 and 50/2.8 lens profiles (first and last from your list) look very similar with higher vignetting correction compared to the other profiles. I don't think Leica in-camera profiles correct for CA or Distortion at all.
My only nitpick with the test is that color shift, if it exists, would be more acute when the lens is focused at infinity compared to closer distances.
Thanks for the earlier impromptu LLL comparison image. To my eyes the VM appears to have a bit more wide open acutance. It seems like a generally very nice all-purpose lens. Would be interesting if Cosina were to make a 28/2.8 or 28/3.5 companion.
Desmolicious wrote:
yeah, which is why I would not even sweat it re. setting lens profiles in camera. The lens profiles in LR make a big difference in distortion and vignetting. Funny thing is clicking through them I think what they list as the 'correct' profile often makes things worse, at least to my eye!
LR is disappointing in the fact that for Leica M it does not have very many profiles at all.
It's odd, given how directly tied to Adobe products Leica has been (you used to get a copy of LR included in your purchase on an M8, 9, or their DMR).
I do find the LR profiles for the ZM lenses to be spot on at infinity, less so if you're closer to MFD.
The Voigtlander 40mm f/2.8 Heliar is greatly corrected for lateral CA and axial CA. One would be hard-pressed to spot any color error around the corners of the frame. I was not expecting great levels of axial CA since it's not a fast lens but was surprise with the low level when shooting wide open at f/2.8. There is some fringing but it's minimum.
Lens stopped down to f/5.6 - Lateral CA is non-existent even when checking at pixel level (100% mag.)
Minimum purple fringing (axial CA) at the focus plane
f/2.8: Out of focus are behind the focus place (green fringing)
f/2.8 to f/4: Axial CA goes completely away at f/4
