Fred Miranda wrote: Infinity Performance compared to Voigtlander 28mm f/2.8 Color-Skopar
In the Voigtlander 28mm f/2.8 Color-Skopar review, we found it to be a high-performance lens, closely competing with the Voigtlander 28/2 Utron. While the Color-Skopar shows slightly higher vignetting when wide open, its resolution and contrast are very similar to the Utron.
Now, how does the faster 28mm f/1.5 Nokton compare?
I did a comparison at infinity distance, and the test indicates that the Nokton is also a high-performance lens, on par with its counterparts, and even surpasses them in some areas of the frame. If you're into landscape photography, both lenses would be equally excellent, although the Color-Skopar's compact size is a notable feature.
Software: Lightroom with FM Default Landscape Sharpening. All other settings set to default
PS: Vignetting, CA and distortion were NOT corrected for both lenses.
Center Resolution and Contrast Infinity Performance compared to Voigtlander 28mm f/2.8 Color-Skopar...Show more →
Thank you for the comparison Fred, this is very helpful. My VM 28/2.8 Color-Skopar won't be going anywhere. I love this lens combined with the 40/2.8. I will definitely be getting the Nocton as well though, looks to be another wonderful lens from Voiglander.
RustyRus wrote:
Umm- Correct me if I am wrong here-
The images should be darker- 12-20% darker. The difference between 1.4 and 1.5 is 12-20% or something like that. Not ready for math but we should see a noticeable difference in light between lenses at different apertures. There is a reason its an f 1.5 lens vs a 1.4
+1 that there is a difference between f/1.4 vs. f/1.5.
My math works out to about 7% larger area for the 1.4 vs. 1.5.
But, I think the point being made is that the difference in reality, may be greater than the expected difference. Even if we give credence to a 20% difference ... bumping an additional .75 EV to become equitable, well that's ballpark a 3/4 stop +/-, not a trivial 1/4 stop ... which means about 1/2 stop vs. the expectation, turning that 1.5 into something more like a 1.8, or so in practice.
Again, these aren't with the 28 Lux, so we have to wait and see, if the Voigt is "cheating" a bit on their f/1.5 designation. On math, it may be that the physical dimension equates to an f/1.5 relationship, but in transmission of light ... it might be something different. I've often felt that Voigtlander was a bit "generous" with their designation, so while it isn't confirmed yet, it is something I'm curious to learn of its actual. I know everyone wants a free lunch, for a bargain, but maybe this is part of the price to be paid.
RustyBug wrote:
+1 that there is a difference between f/1.4 vs. f/1.5.
My math works out to about 7% larger area for the 1.4 vs. 1.5.
But, I think the point being made is that the difference in reality, may be greater than the expected difference. Even if we give credence to a 20% difference ... bumping an additional .75 EV to become equitable, well that's ballpark a 3/4 stop +/-, not a trivial 1/4 stop ... which means about 1/2 stop vs. the expectation, turning that 1.5 into something more like a 1.8, or so in practice.
Again, these aren't with the 28 Lux, so we have to wait and see, if the Voigt is "cheating" a bit on their f/1.5 designation. On math, it may be that the physical dimension equates to an f/1.5 relationship, but in transmission of light ... it might be something different. I've often felt that Voigtlander was a bit "generous" with their designation, so while it isn't confirmed yet, it is something I'm curious to learn of its actual. I know everyone wants a free lunch, for a bargain, but maybe this is part of the price to be paid.
We'll see ...
...Show more →
It is amazing how someone tries so hard to find something wrong with the Voigtländer to make the Leica look better.
PS: the Leica 50mm 0.95 has worse transmission than the Voigtländer VM 50mm 1.0 and here the price difference is something like 9k, not barely 7k.
d.s. wrote:
Matching the framing between the two would be a good start.
When you look at the shutter speeds in the rendering comparison of the CV 28/1.5 Nokton and the Leica 28/1.4 Lux, you'll see that they are almost identical in most side-by-side comparisons. Any differences are probably due to slight variations in camera metering (I shot all images wide open in Aperture mode). This indicates that even though the Voigtlander has a slightly narrower aperture opening, the light transmission between these lenses is quite similar.
BruceRH wrote:
Thank you for the comparison Fred, this is very helpful. My VM 28/2.8 Color-Skopar won't be going anywhere. I love this lens combined with the 40/2.8. I will definitely be getting the Nocton as well though, looks to be another wonderful lens from Voiglander.
Hi Bruce,
You're welcome, and I agree. After reviewing the Voigtlander 28mm f/2.8 Color-Skopar, I was so impressed that I swapped my CV 28/2 Ultron for it. It's remarkable how the new CV 28/1.5 Nokton can keep up with it and even has lower vignetting. Their lateral chromatic aberration correction is also similar. I'll post a section on chromatic aberration next.
RustyRus wrote:
Umm- Correct me if I am wrong here-
The images should be darker- 12-20% darker. The difference between 1.4 and 1.5 is 12-20% or something like that. Not ready for math but we should see a noticeable difference in light between lenses at different apertures. There is a reason its an f 1.5 lens vs a 1.4
Were other parameters held constant or IS0 and shutter allowed to float to achieve appropriate exposure?
Curiosity: While the optical designs of the Voigtlander 28/1.5 Nokton and Leica 28/1.4 Summilux are distinct, they share some similarities. One notable difference is the Leica's use of a floating element design, and the 2 sets of elements in the middle are inverted compared to the Voigt's. The large space in the middle of the Leica design is to accommodate the FLE movement.
Both lenses have 10 elements each, with the rear element being aspherical. However, the Voigtlander is equipped with two double aspherical elements, unlike the Leica. The front 3 elements in both lenses have different shapes but follow a similar pattern.
So, despite their distinct designs, they share some similarities.
Being a fast lens, the Voigtlander 28mm f/1.5 Nokton will exhibit noticeable lateral chromatic aberration (LaCA). This type of aberration becomes apparent towards the corners of images (at any aperture setting), typically manifesting as a magenta/red and green/blue color error in areas of high contrast. Lateral CA is undesirable as it can reduce resolution and contrast in the affected areas.
The positive aspect is that this aberration can be effectively corrected without noticeable side effects. The software aligns the red/green/blue channels to remove the aberration.
In the comparison below, I present the uncorrected version of the Voigtlander 28/1.5 Nokton for LaCA alongside a version corrected by Lightroom through the simple activation of "Remove Chromatic Aberration," which primarily reduces lateral CA.
Also, I have included comparisons between the uncorrected CV 28/1.5 Nokton and the CV 28/2.8 Color-Skopar, Leica 28/2 Summicron, and Leica 28/1.4 Summilux lenses:
(All lenses with aperture set to f/4)
Uncorrected version of the Voigtlander 28/1.5 Nokton for LaCA (LEFT) alongside a version corrected by Lightroom (RIGHT)
Uncorrected version of the Voigtlander 28/1.5 Nokton for LaCA (LEFT) compared to the uncorrected Voigtlander 28mm f/2.8 Color-Skopar (RIGHT)
Uncorrected version of the Voigtlander 28/1.5 Nokton for LaCA (LEFT) compared to the uncorrected Leica 28mm f/2 Summicron (RIGHT)
Uncorrected version of the Voigtlander 28/1.5 Nokton for LaCA (LEFT) compared to the uncorrected Leica 28mm f/1.4 Summilux (RIGHT)
Fred Miranda wrote:
When you look at the shutter speeds in the rendering comparison of the CV 28/1.5 Nokton and the Leica 28/1.4 Lux, you'll see that they are almost identical in most side-by-side comparisons. Any differences are probably due to slight variations in camera metering (I shot all images wide open in Aperture mode). This indicates that even though the Voigtlander has a slightly narrower aperture opening, the light transmission between these lenses is quite similar.
Indeed. To compare a 28 and 35mm’s light gathering capabilities though…
With respect to the Summilux 28/1.4, it's amazing the difference ten years is making in lens development. A lot of background here, and comments on the focal length:
Is the Summilux 28mm really 440 grams? It doesn't appear to get much attention, but that is another weight division entirely, compared to this upstart competitor (76% and 33% more than T1/T2). Might help explain the favour granted to T2 'with its massive brass construction' (their words).
photonc wrote:
Great shots. Do you happen to have the 28 ultron ii? Would love to see some comparisons with that lens. Trying to decide if I should upgrade.
Thanks - I don't I'm sorry. Hopefully someone else here does.
philip_pj wrote:
Is the Summilux 28mm really 440 grams?
Yes, measure mine. Exactly 440 grams without the rear cap.
