Notice that the new Voigtlander 35mm f/1.5 Nokton is equipped with 12 aperture blades while the Ultron has only 10. Therefore sunstars from these lenses have 12 and 10 points respectively.
The Voigtlander 35mm f/1.5 Nokton is also able to retains higher contrast since it has stronger veiling flare resistance.
Nice comparisons Fred. I like the look of the 1.5 compared with the 2. Don’t understand Sample 6 as it seems to be out of focus. What was the point of focus?
rramesh wrote:
Nice comparisons Fred. I like the look of the 1.5 compared with the 2. Don’t understand Sample 6 as it seems to be out of focus. What was the point of focus?
On sample 6, both lenses were set to 1m but there is no foreground in focus. I just wanted to compare the specular highlights' shape towards the edges to see which lens has higher optical vignetting wide open. Also wanted to compared them at f/2.
The Nokton has higher optical vignetting but the Ultron bokeh has more outlining.
I've noticed that if you shoot the lens uncoded and use the Voigt 35/1.2 SE correction in Lightroom it 100% corrects the vignette (doesn't seem to overcorrect) so you can scale it back as much as you want from there.
thrice wrote:
I've noticed that if you shoot the lens uncoded and use the Voigt 35/1.2 SE correction in Lightroom it 100% corrects the vignette (doesn't seem to overcorrect) so you can scale it back as much as you want from there.
I just tried this and it works well for vignetting but I remember that the CV 35/1.2 SE has some wavy distortion which seems different with the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.5 Nokton.
BTW, for all rendering comparisons, the focused area is shown at 100% magnification (pixel level) while the OOF rendering crops are displayed at 50% magnification.
Oh dang. Could make a preset with distortion set to 0? Or we just wait until Adobe make a profile for the new Nokton Vintage 😊
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just tried this and it works well for vignetting but I remember that the CV 35/1.2 SE has some wavy distortion which seems different with the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.5 Nokton.
BTW, for all rendering comparisons, the focused area is shown at 100% magnification (pixel level) while the OOF rendering crops are displayed at 50% magnification.
Voigtlander did a good job correcting lateral CA and to a lesser degree longitudinal CA. The latter is noticeable in most images shot wide open, especially under high contrast lighting. I would consider it to be an average performance considering the size and speed of this lens.
Here is an example at f/5.6 showing the great lateral CA performance towards the edge of the frame. If you look hard, it's still visible at 100% but very easy to correct in post.
Uncorrected Lateral CA (LEFT) | Corrected Lateral CA in LR (RIGHT)
Perhaps easier to see LACA at 200% magnification. It's very well controlled.
Fred, would you say that this is pretty good lens, similar to 40/1.2 IQ wise?
Wihtout pixel peeping, just overall IQ.
I'm considering swapping 40/1.2 with this lens, not keeping both, just picking one. 35mm vs 40mm is so close that doesn't matter for me.
F1.2 is nice to have, but then I almost never use it. 40/1.2 stopped to 1.4 makes a difference in IQ and being so close to 1.5 I could live with 1.5.
Ideally CV could make this 35/1.5 in E mount (imagine this lens in same size as CV35/1.4 E), but its just a wish for now
qiu0717 wrote:
Made this ollux style hood for this lens. Looking more streamlined. It also hide some length of the lens in the hood and make it seem shorter.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Just like the 35 1.2 III, which I sold for the same reason.
From my experience with these two lenses, the level of CA correction is similar when both lenses are set to the same aperture. However , the CV 35/1.2 III's axial CA is even more noticeable wide open at f/1.2.
Desmolicious wrote:
Ya know, I've never noticed that on film images. Is it because I just haven't looked close enough, or it is an artifact on digital sensors?
IDK, maybe so. Could also be because with film you're not shooting wide open a lot due to the high speed shutter limit of 1/1000 sec.
highdesertmesa wrote:
IDK, maybe so. Could also be because with film you're not shooting wide open a lot due to the high speed shutter limit of 1/1000 sec.
I have a few film cameras w 1/8000 sec top speed so I should check.
