I come this forum for information but not to make final decisions. I see what peoples say and take what I find useful; it’s like reading Amazon/movie reviews where I don’t care what they said they liked but what they pointed out and where the conversations centered around. Also, it’s entertaining to read other’s opinions.
Back to Loxia vs Voigtlander, it sounds like Voigtlander is technically superior but Loxia has its unique look that’s more distinct and appealing. Is my summary fair?
My suggestion is: buy a used Loxia and use it (I like Zeiss lenses); it's cheaper than the Voigt.
If you like its rendering, keep and use it. If you feel that its performace at the wider apertures does not meet your expectations, sell it and buy the Voigt.
To be honest, I own four Zeiss ZF lenses and have never used a Voigt lens. However, looking at pictures posted in FM forum, reviews and tests, I think I'll buy the Voigt 50/2 AL in Z mount for my MILC when available from the Italian importer (I could buy the Loxia and the new Megadap ETZ21 adapter, and use them on my Nikon Z body: adapter and lens together cost less than the Apo Lanthar ).
Younjulius wrote:
Back to Loxia vs Voigtlander, it sounds like Voigtlander is technically superior but Loxia has its unique look that’s more distinct and appealing. Is my summary fair?
According to several FM fellows, the Voigt 40/1.2 Nokton (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1512530?b=2) has its own character, being not as corrected as the 50/2 AL.
It suffers from some technical issues you should be aware of to use the lens at its best.
You could consider this lens too.
I know this question is a bit off topic, but I didn't want to open a separate thread for this question.
I have a Loxia 50mm F2 that I really like. I recently bought the Voigländer 15mm F4.5 used on eBay. When I used it for the first time, I immediately noticed that my A7III suddenly displayed a bar in the viewfinder, which helped you see where you were in the focusing range, almost like on a scale. Closer to infinity in the center or at close range.
When using my Loxia lens, such a scale does not appear. Why? Don't the Loxias support this feature?
E mount Voigtlander lenses report focus distance as part of the communication between the lens and the camera. Zeiss Loxia lenses don't.
zeitlos wrote:
I know this question is a bit off topic, but I didn't want to open a separate thread for this question.
I have a Loxia 50mm F2 that I really like. I recently bought the Voigländer 15mm F4.5 used on eBay. When I used it for the first time, I immediately noticed that my A7III suddenly displayed a bar in the viewfinder, which helped you see where you were in the focusing range, almost like on a scale. Closer to infinity in the center or at close range.
When using my Loxia lens, such a scale does not appear. Why? Don't the Loxias support this feature?...Show more →
Robin Smith wrote:
I’m never sure why the in EVF distance scale is useful. Is it there just because it could be?
I also use a rangefinder and sometimes use zone focussing using the distances printed on the lens. The EVF distance scale allows the same sort of zone focussing with a mirrorless camera and it works well. If you get good at estimating distance and especially if you stop down a bit, then zone focussing allows you to focus on capturing the scene without even worrying about focus because you know that what you are shooting will be well within the depth of field. It can be a really useful technique in some situations (e.g., street shooting).
Only use for me is to check which direction I am focusing, as a precursor to magnification for exact focus. Helpful when you use lenses that go each way.
philip_pj wrote:
Only use for me is to check which direction I am focusing, as a precursor to magnification for exact focus. Helpful when you use lenses that go each way.
I have both lenses and was about to sell the 50 APO because I like the sunstars on the Loxia 50 much better. I did some last minute testing at the request of a potential buyer and have to say that below f5.6 the 50 APO really is much sharper than the Loxia. It's leaving me in a real quandary. I like the color, contrast and sunstars of the Loxia, but for any shooting at wider apertures the 50 APO is stellar. It is edge to edge sharp at f2.0
I would say that "best" here might be defined by application. For f8 and higher landscape work I would take the Loxia. For wide open street, portrait, and astro-landscape I would take the 50 APO. Tough to justify owning both, but I may end up doing that.
You are well into diffraction at f8 and up in today's better lenses, Bill, sad but true. It seems like a pretty small niche, no? (f11 and the war is lost).
You see some tremendous landscapes shot with the 50/2 APO, indistinguishable from medium format. One of the members did a series using focus stacking - wow. It is perfect for this method thanks to the flat field, gentle fall-off and as you say, wall to wall sharpness, plus rich colour. Head or heart, maybe.
'Is my summary fair?'
No, not for me, it's not. I am a head guy.
Voigtlander 50/2 APO - f8 is half way down the 45 degree slope.
I had the Loxia 21 and 35 for a while each and liked both. I only briefly had the Loxia 50, because I thought that it was among the least remarkable 50s I had used. In my opinion, it was very average in every way except its price and its size…the size being nice.
The Loxia 25 is really special and is one I will probably pick up at some point, but that is hard to justify as a sidecar to the 24GM. I just don’t use that focal length that often.
zeitlos wrote:
Interesting. I love the rendering of the Loxia 50 and consider it as one of the most special 50mm lenses I have had so far. Great character.
Different strokes for different folks. I have owned many Zeiss 50s (Contax 50/1.7 and 1.4; ZE 50/2 and 50/1.4; Sony. ZA 50/1.4; CZJ 58/2 and 50/1.4), and I thought that the Loxia was the least Zeiss-y of all of them. I liked the Loxia's size and the auto-zoom when focusing, but I thought it was very vanilla in rendering.
Grenache wrote:
Different strokes for different folks.
Absolutely. I like that it renders more robust, not so softened. For me it was the way back to Zeiss because I realized again what a Zeiss glass is all about.
).
