According to what I read, they both seem to have very nice rendering characteristics. I wonder how these two manual lenses compare. I’m more interested in rendering micro contrast and colors, but I would love to hear from those who had used them beyond typical online reviews. Thanks.
I've never used the Loxia but the Voightlander 50 f/2 APO is a genuinely amazingly wonderful lens. Unless I need autofocus, eg things that move, it's my go to lens. It's unbeatable in the landscape. I just got back from a day at the Oregon Coast and the two lenses I used most, almost exclusively, were the 50APO and the 110APO. Both are just superb.
I have or had both Voightlander and Loxia lenses. Both are excellent. The 50 is not the class of the Loxia line, but it is very good and great colors and contrast if that is your interest like you say. The APO Voightlanders have a very shiney look about them. Pristine almost. I remember I had the 65apo and the GM 135 at the same time and used them together and the 65 always struck me awe inspiring rather than the GM. It got old to me though. Loxia seems to straddle the line between classic Zeiss and the 21,25 and 85 have a more modern look. I am very happy with Loxia, the images do not get old with me.
I started the same thread about 1,5 yrs ago. I once had three Loxia lenses, 25, 35 and 50, but sold them when I wanted to go one system with Nikon.
I missed the Loxia lenses, and especially my favorite wide angle L25. I ended up going one system with Sony instead and immediately re-purchased the Loxia 25, but I hesitated with the 35 and 50, because these are not the new designs like L21, L25 and L85. I never re-bought the Loxia 35, but wanted a 50 to go with the L25 so asked the question you are asking.
It came down to the Loxia 50 having the typical Zeiss color and contrast and the Voigtländer being the technically more perfect lens with a very smooth rendering.
I ended up getting the Loxia 50 after browsing through images taken over the years.
My reason was that I prefer the fantastic color and contrast of the Loxia 50 over technical perfection and smooth rendering. It brings life to the images. I now have the 35GM as 35mm lens, but as smooth and perfect as the bokeh for instance may be, I will take a bit of roughness any day if it brings more life and "mood" to the images
ChrisMak wrote:
I started the same thread about 1,5 yrs ago. I once had three Loxia lenses, 25, 35 and 50, but sold them when I wanted to go one system with Nikon.
I missed the Loxia lenses, and especially my favorite wide angle L25. I ended up going one system with Sony instead and immediately re-purchased the Loxia 25, but I hesitated with the 35 and 50, because these are not the new designs like L21, L25 and L85. I never re-bought the Loxia 35, but wanted a 50 to go with the L25 so asked the question you are asking.
It came down to the Loxia 50 having the typical Zeiss color and contrast and the Voigtländer being the technically more perfect lens with a very smooth rendering.
I ended up getting the Loxia 50 after browsing through images taken over the years.
My reason was that I prefer the fantastic color and contrast of the Loxia 50 over technical perfection and smooth rendering. It brings life to the images. I now have the 35GM as 35mm lens, but as smooth and perfect as the bokeh for instance may be, I will take a bit of roughness any day if it brings more life and "mood" to the images...Show more →
I have to say that it's great to see how well the Loxias have retain their photographic/artistic competence - which obviously tells something about Zeiss and their lens design experience. Sure, there has been times where Loxias where seen as 'done' while other products entered the stage, but when the effect of novelty vanishes and people are making more balanced reconsiderations, then the bottom line appers again: great colors and contrast which differentiates Loxias from the rest. Maybe we can already agree that Loxias are relevant to the Sony Alpha system like 'classics' to which every new product will be compared, but none can actually make such a long-standing effect.
ChrisMak wrote:
I started the same thread about 1,5 yrs ago. I once had three Loxia lenses, 25, 35 and 50, but sold them when I wanted to go one system with Nikon.
I missed the Loxia lenses, and especially my favorite wide angle L25. I ended up going one system with Sony instead and immediately re-purchased the Loxia 25, but I hesitated with the 35 and 50, because these are not the new designs like L21, L25 and L85. I never re-bought the Loxia 35, but wanted a 50 to go with the L25 so asked the question you are asking.
It came down to the Loxia 50 having the typical Zeiss color and contrast and the Voigtländer being the technically more perfect lens with a very smooth rendering.
I ended up getting the Loxia 50 after browsing through images taken over the years.
My reason was that I prefer the fantastic color and contrast of the Loxia 50 over technical perfection and smooth rendering. It brings life to the images. I now have the 35GM as 35mm lens, but as smooth and perfect as the bokeh for instance may be, I will take a bit of roughness any day if it brings more life and "mood" to the images...Show more →
So, in your experience, you liked Loxia’s color and contrast better than Voigtlander’s?
Younjulius wrote:
So, in your experience, you liked Loxia’s color and contrast better than Voigtlander’s?
I never got to try the Voigtländer 50 apo myself, so it is more a summary of the reactions I got from others who owned and have used both. The consensus was that yes, the Loxia has more lively and arguably better color, and higher contrast.
It is a very subjective preference but the ones that preferred the Lox50 over the Voigt50apo did so because of its color quality and contrast.
Younjulius wrote:
I’m curious what zeiss color peoples talk about. Is it being more saturated or more to it?
I use both Zeiss ZF.2 and Nikkor lenses.
I see not much difference in color rendition.
Below you see the (more or less) same scene photographed with Zeiss ZF.2 135/2 Apo Sonnar and Micro-Nikkor AF-S ED 105/2.8G VR. Both @ f/5.6. Same raw development in Capture One Pro.
Have the two lenses the same rendition? No. The Zeiss has better overall performance (less LoCA, less LaCA, visibly sharper at the wider apertures, more resolution).
I don't think a Voigtlander Apo Lanthar could have less microcontrast and/or worse colors than a Zeiss (both made by the same manufacturer, i.e. Cosina).
Unless you have a calibrated monitor though, you have no idea if you're viewing as those posting examples are viewing them, assuming they have a calibrated workflow.
Are we to believe Cosina makes all their lenses the same? All are equal in every possible way because the Chef in the kitchen is making the same meal, even if the recipe is different? Is it that simple? Are we to believe straight bright light is the same as other types of light when it comes to a way a lens represents color? Clearly saying Zeiss color and contrast is better is a broad stroke, but denying it is just as broad. The rule of the internet is that nobody ever believes something they don't already believe. Both ways up and down the river.
Zeiss might source their glass from a different source, but the Zeiss coatings are a big part of what make them special. The coatings have a large effect of color rendering and Zeiss is famous for consistency among lenses and color rendering due to their T* coatings.
Ripolini wrote:
I see not much difference in color rendition.
To be clearer, I wrote "I see not much difference in color rendition"; I never said there is no difference in color rendition. Look carefully at both pictures (use a calibrated monitor). Let me stress (again): same subject, same lighting, same white balance, all equal in raw development. Find the differences and let's discuss about facts.
MARKFER wrote:
Are we to believe Cosina makes all their lenses the same?
Who said such a nonsense? I wrote "both made by the same manufacturer, i.e. Cosina"; isn't it correct?
Both Loxia 50/2 and Voigt 50/2 AL are "top of the line" lenses made by Cosina; if one thinks that the Zeiss has better color rendition and contrast than the Apo Lanthar, well I (and OP too, I guess) would love seeing some proof. Otherwise we speak about religion, not lenses.
Ripolini wrote:
To be clearer, I wrote "I see not much difference in color rendition"; I never said there is no difference in color rendition. Look carefully at both pictures (use a calibrated monitor). Let me stress (again): same subject, same lighting, same white balance, all equal in raw development. Find the differences and let's discuss about facts.
Who said such a nonsense? I wrote "both made by the same manufacturer, i.e. Cosina"; isn't it correct?
Both Loxia 50/2 and Voigt 50/2 AL are "top of the line" lenses made by Cosina; if one thinks that the Zeiss has better color rendition and contrast than the Apo Lanthar, well I (and OP too, I guess) would love seeing some proof. Otherwise we speak about religion, not lenses....Show more →
I don't think religion is being talked about here. Here is a possible definition of religion to make it easier to differentiate:
Action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power; the performance of religious rites or observances.
I always like these comments where a (scientific) proof is demanded.
How could such a proof look like, so that it convinces you? Perhaps you can briefly explain a method that can be used to prove that the colors of one lens are "better" than those of another.
Maybe you can start by defining "better"....
I know both lenses and I think the APO is clearly the better lens.
However, when I open images from my Sony A7RIII with the 50mm Loxia and the 50mm APO in RAW format in LR classic, I almost always like the colors of the Loxia better. I also find the look of the images more three-dimensional. I also like the sun stars more. In any case, I can see clear differences in the colors.
Still, I kept the APO and not the Loxia. It is much sharper, has a nicer bokeh in my opinion, better handling and I find it easier to edit images with it to my liking. Even though I like the ooc raws of the Loxia more in terms of colors in LR classic.
HelBen85 wrote:
I don't think religion is being talked about here. Here is a possible definition of religion to make it easier to differentiate:
Action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power; the performance of religious rites or observances.
I always like these comments where a (scientific) proof is demanded.
How could such a proof look like, so that it convinces you? Perhaps you can briefly explain a method that can be used to prove that the colors of one lens are "better" than those of another.
Maybe you can start by defining "better"....
I know both lenses and I think the APO is clearly the better lens.
However, when I open images from my Sony A7RIII with the 50mm Loxia and the 50mm APO in RAW format in LR classic, I almost always like the colors of the Loxia better. I also find the look of the images more three-dimensional. I also like the sun stars more. In any case, I can see clear differences in the colors.
Still, I kept the APO and not the Loxia. It is much sharper, has a nicer bokeh in my opinion, better handling and I find it easier to edit images with it to my liking. Even though I like the ooc raws of the Loxia more in terms of colors in LR classic.
A good post.
Religion has absolutely nothing to do with it, at most a simple subjective preference or liking.
And posting two image samples to spot the difference is not going to bannish out all "objective" differences either. It takes elaborate use in many different circumstances, different types of light, contrast etc., to get an overall "feel" or impression about the output of a lens.
What you describe is in line with was said in the thread I started on this topic 1,5yrs ago. And also with my own impressions. The Loxia lenses have better color rendition, and better 3D rendition. In all other ways, the Voigtländer will no doubt be better. I have the Loxia 25 and 50 and the 35GM lens. It is exactly the same: colors from the Loxia and 3D (image depth) are much more to my liking, but resolution wise, the 35GM is much better, and the bokeh is smooth as can be for a 35mm lens.
No need to contest this or write it off as a religious belief. When many people share a common impression, it usually is close to the truth.
Based on what I now know about the Sony GM top end lenses and the Loxia lenses, I can say that I personally prefer the rendering of the Loxia lenses, and I expect it to be the same with Voigtländer vs Loxia. Bit that is because I highly value 3D or image depth, and good color.
I was leaning toward voigtlander 50mm, but what’s describing the loxia lens is hitting the right notes such as 3d pop and unique colors. I also want images with micro contrast even if resolution is lower. Smooth bokeh matters as well.
With the advance of editing tools, many characteristics can be simulated but some are really difficult to mimic. I want a lens that complements more general GM lenses.
Younjulius wrote:
I was leaning toward voigtlander 50mm, but what’s describing the loxia lens is hitting the right notes such as 3d pop and unique colors. I also want images with micro contrast even if resolution is lower. Smooth bokeh matters as well.
With the advance of editing tools, many characteristics can be simulated but some are really difficult to mimic. I want a lens that complements more general GM lenses.
I don't know how anyone can resist Loxia when the used prices are so appealing for the wonderful image quality they provide. Getting a Loxia 50 or 35 for around $500 -- crazy great values!
I have the whole set of Loxia and use them more than any other lenses. My most used are the 25, 35, and 50.
I also have two CV lenses: 15/4.5 E and 40/1.2E. Both are outstanding and super-sharp, with amazing contrast. As good as they are, I use them less than the Loxia models. Probably CV will come out with a 28 someday and I'll be sure to grab that -- no sense waiting for Zeiss to come out with a Loxia 28, unfortunately.
Zeiss glass and coatings make the difference for me.
ChrisMak wrote:
posting two image samples to spot the difference is not going to bannish out all "objective" differences either. It takes elaborate use in many different circumstances, different types of light, contrast etc., to get an overall "feel" or impression about the output of a lens.
I do not take every picture with a Zeiss AND a Nikkor lens.
I took one example I have in my archive and shared it.
Does it annoy you? Why don't you tell us which differences you see in those two pictures? I see subtle differences , but I'm curious to hear from others.
If one wishes to demonstrate that 50 Batis colors are superior to 50/2 AL, take the Loxia and 50 AL, go out, take pictures and post. It's simple. Comparing pictures from the web of different subjects photographed under different lighting conditions, most likely processed according to personal taste with different software, is preferable to showing two pictures of the same subject, photographed with the exact the same lighting, and processed the same way?
As a general remark, repeating many times the same thing doesn't make it a truth.
ChrisMak wrote:
The Loxia lenses have better color rendition, and better 3D rendition.
Examples, please.
In particular when comparing the Batis 50 to the 50/2 AL. This is the topic of this thread.
ChrisMak wrote:
resolution wise, the 35GM is much better, and the bokeh is smooth as can be for a 35mm lens.
I'm not sure OP is interested in 35 GM
ChrisMak wrote:
When many people share a common impression, it usually is close to the truth.
No. There are many more people who prefer Maneskin to Mozart; this doesn't confirm they compose better music than Wolfgang Amadeus. And people preferred Barabbas to Jesus.
I trust people who have demonstrated to be reliable, and facts.
For this reason I rarely ask in a Forum if lens A is better than lens B. I know what kind of answers I'll receive.
I agree in many ways with Riccardo. I've been at this for a long time and am weary of people who ask questions on websites because they are unwilling to do their own tests. One reason there is so much disagreement about lenses is that it is really hard to do proper lens testing, with a single lens, to say nothing of attempting to compare two or more. Instead folks perpetuate the impressions of others, usually the loudest voice or some well known reviewer who may or may not done have any real testing. I have never seen any documentation of "Zeiss colors." No one except pixel peepers cares about "bokeh."
People who publish images, such as our fearless leader Fred, do the best non-instrumented tests I've seen. Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals measures TEN samples before being willing to publish his excellent tests though even his have limitations, being done only at full aperture. Optical Limits also does decent testing as does Philip Reeves.
Everyone should have the gear they'd like within the limits of their own affordability. It's just frustrating when inaccurate and misleading information is passed around without any real basis in data. It makes it even harder to make expensive decisions.
