BastianK wrote:
I have yet to find someone who can tell me what is great about that field curvature bringing the corners back into focus even though they shouldn't be.
I find that objectively wrong, ugly and distracting. I am also pretty sure it is the reason the Laowa 28mm 1.2 and 45mm 0.95 did not gather a lot of fans.
Had you read the comparison you would have noticed that all the tests of the M-mount lenses have been conducted on a Leica M10.
Also here I wonder if you actually had a look at that article.
I don't know of anyone else who goes through the trouble of comparing no less than six lenses and even finding a model to sit still long enough to dial through all of them.
I wish someone else did that, because then I wouldn't have to and could spend my time with something way more enjoyable....Show more →
Well, that’s when I get for skim reading, seeing a reference to Sony, and going straight to the photos. I’m sorry for misrepresenting your test by wrongly saying they were taken all on a non-M sensor.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Well, that’s when I get for skim reading, seeing a reference to Sony, and going straight to the photos. I’m sorry for misrepresenting your test by wrongly saying they were taken all on a non-M sensor.
That’s a great and mature response James. Good to see such civility on the forum.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
That’s a great and mature response James. Good to see such civility on the forum.
Thanks. I have to check myself every so often. I've taken IQ tests and scored well, but I always perform very poorly in general reading comprehension testing. Sometimes I have to read things three or four times. So if I skim read something, all bets are off
My choice of lens used would be based primarily on size - would I enjoy using it? - and then flare resistance would be the next big one. So it would be the CV.
If I was a dedicated landscape photographer, I could see my choice being different.
Desmolicious wrote:
would I enjoy using it?
Talking only about the ergonomics and not the results, Thypoch gets a negative score from me in this category
I like the size, flare resistance, ergonomics, more structured draw and contrast of the CV. I like the price, better midzone performance at large apertures, less optical vignetting and lack of FC on the Thypoch.
So, essentially, trade-offs per usual 🤷🏼♂️ For my purposes, I lean CV, but going to process some Thypoch files to ascertain that.
Have we seen this compared to the Q/Q2/Q3 Summilux 28/1.7 ... IQ or size (on M)?
It looks good, just wondering what the gain / loss / diff is for when I might want to use the Q vs. the Voigt (AF / Macro notwithstanding) for rendering.
RustyBug wrote:
Have we seen this compared to the Q/Q2/Q3 Summilux 28/1.7 ... IQ or size (on M)?
It looks good, just wondering what the gain / loss / diff is for when I might want to use the Q vs. the Voigt (AF / Macro notwithstanding) for rendering.
I don’t think any 28 beats the Q for rendering, but I’m a biased Q fan. Two completely different bokeh styles, but each has their own charm. The Q may get bested in the corners by the 28 1.5 by a stop or two. But the Q is otherwise optically very well corrected for everything but distortion. The Q is also sharp at the point of focus wide open regardless of where in the frame the subject is and at any distance. The 28 1.5 is softer wide open close up when the subject is near the intersection of the rule of thirds.
This is based on what I remember from having the 28 1.5 currently and in the past owning several copies of Q, Q2, and Q2 Mono, so someone with both may be able to test and say for sure.
