p.2 #4 · Voigtlander 21mm f/4 VM Color-Skopar. Any good?
_jim_ wrote:
Also, fun to consider that the design approach to the Color-Skopar has a lot in common with the Zeiss 21/4.5...much like the Voigt 35/2.5 and Zeiss 35/2.8. Clearly, they are not EXACTLY the same, but there is a good degree of overlap...almost like maybe they were designed by the same people (I've theorized that Cosina was doing a lot of the Zeiss design in-house, then Z would sign-off if it met their standards/licensing agreement).
That's an excellent observation. Indeed, the optical design of the Zeiss 21/4.5 and CV 21/4 is quite similar. Both have 8 elements in 6 groups with elements arranged in a similar manner. Even their color shift shows striking similarities.
p.2 #5 · Voigtlander 21mm f/4 VM Color-Skopar. Any good?
It's unfortunate that the CV 21/3.5 Color-Skopar struggles in the mid-field. There's a dip in performance in that area, although it's not field curvature.
When compared to the highly regarded Loxia 21/2.8 Distagon, the Voigtlander keeps pace with the Zeiss in terms of center and extreme corner sharpness. However, it's only decent at f/8 in the mid-zone, still not matching the performance of the Loxia even at f/8. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1566500/0#14632368
I'm curious if the CV 21/4 performs better in the mid-field, considering the Zeiss 21/4.5, with a similar optical design, has a flatter MTF graph.
p.2 #6 · Voigtlander 21mm f/4 VM Color-Skopar. Any good?
This is the Voigtlander 21 4.0 LTM. A great little lens I wish I had kept.
M2, Voigtlander 21 4.0 Color Skopar LTM, Portra 160, taken in September 2014:
The tests mentioned by MAubrey they look very positive. I was considering modding my camera, to use this, the 35 and the 75. They are tiny. The kind of lenses I like. I have the LTM versions of the three.
I tested the 21 and the 35 in stock sony, modded Sony and in an M10 at f8. I intend them to be used in my hikes. Thank you very very very much @BastianK.
I think that they are a way better as landscape lenses in a M10 than in an a A7rII, and still better in a M10 than in the A7rII modded. Your mileage may vary, but this was my honest opinion. None of them so great, but very very small.
The vigneting can be corrected by flat field in one click in Rawtherapee, so I think this is not the real issue.
But at infinity, out of the center they (the 21, the 35 and the 75) are are not so great... This was of course my non-scientific impressions. The 75 is not so great anywhere. The weight difference of the zm 85 is completely justified, due to its excellent performance.
After this, I decided not to mod my camera, although of course YMMV.
My impression is that the newer 21/3.5 is much better. Still not so good as the Lox.
I am not so sure if I will keep the lenses. ...Show more →
I believe the primary benefit of the Voigtlander 21/3.5 Color-Skopar lens design is its compatibility with both Leica and Sony sensors, allowing it to perform well across different camera systems: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1647789/0
That's not the case with the CV 21/1.4 or Leica 21/3.5 SEM
p.2 #8 · Voigtlander 21mm f/4 VM Color-Skopar. Any good?
Maybe I am wrong, but I had the impression contrast and color accuracy were also better in the f/3.5. I am not sure about vigneting. I think it was very intense with both lenses. The 21/3.5 in M mound is tricky for the usage of filters. If I recall correctly it has metric 39 thread, and filters tend to vignette easily with that lens.
Maybe in the M10 you like this small lens. For moving around the combo of the three ltm lenses 21/35/75 is tiny tiny. That is why I have it. Probably the three together similarly as large and heavy as loxia 21 alone.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I believe the primary benefit of the Voigtlander 21/3.5 Color-Skopar lens design is its compatibility with both Leica and Sony sensors, allowing it to perform well across different camera systems: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1647789/0
That's not the case with the CV 21/1.4 or Leica 21/3.5 SEM
p.2 #9 · Voigtlander 21mm f/4 VM Color-Skopar. Any good?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Wait, are you talking about the CV 21/4 Color-Skopar M-mount? It comes with a very small screw-in hood:
Yes, I have the CV 21/4P for M-Mount, though based on what you and Juha said I think mine came with the older LH-1 hood which fits both the LTM and M versions. I wouldn't recommend the LH-1 hood, I will have to look into tracking down the original small hood, that looks much more manageable.
p.2 #10 · Voigtlander 21mm f/4 VM Color-Skopar. Any good?
I haven’t experienced the Color-Skopar 21/4, but its sibling, the ZM 21/4.5 C Biogon, has been my main super-wide lens for film photography during the past six years. The ZM is a lovely little lens for both snapshot and landscape. It’s so light that I often consider it an accessory rather than a lens, and I wouldn’t hesitate to take it with me even for a casual walk.
As many of you have known, the ZM 21/4.5 shares the same optical design with VM 21/4 Color-Skopar. In fact, this lens seems to had been designed not by Zeiss, but Cosina. According to some sources, Mr. Kobayashi Hirofumi, Cosina’s president, considered this a personal project as he had been dreaming of improving the classic 21/4.5 Biogon design with modern glass materials. So the ZM 21/4.5 was born, one of the last lenses designed exclusively for film photography.
Regarding the ZM 21/4.5’s optical performance, I would say it’s more than capable on film, but definitely not a good choice on digital cameras. When adapted to my stacked A7r2, images are plagued with extremely heavy corner smearing and vignetting. When mounted on a film camera, however, it produces sharp and distortion-free images with beautiful colors. The sharpness level is not up to that from modern lenses such as Loxia 21/2.8 or Nokton 21/1.4, but it is good enough for a 15MP scan of slide film. The practically zero distortion makes it a perfect choice to shoot buildings.
Flare resistance seems to be slight inferior to other contemporary Zeiss lenses. When the sun is just outside the frame, it would often provoke a double ring-like flare in the image.
p.2 #11 · Voigtlander 21mm f/4 VM Color-Skopar. Any good?
Why not get the f3.5 skopar? Is that dip in performance such an issue? Can it really be seen in the images besides the charts? I used mine for a while and haven't had any issues with it. Perhaps is cause I don't pixel pip, but this lens is what brought me confidence back to Voigtlander.
I only thought of selling it to get the leica 21mm elmar given I have the 24mm elmar and found it to be an amazing lens, and I read the leica 21mm is even better.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's unfortunate that the CV 21/3.5 Color-Skopar struggles in the mid-field. There's a dip in performance in that area, although it's not field curvature.
When compared to the highly regarded Loxia 21/2.8 Distagon, the Voigtlander keeps pace with the Zeiss in terms of center and extreme corner sharpness. However, it's only decent at f/8 in the mid-zone, still not matching the performance of the Loxia even at f/8. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1566500/0#14632368
I'm curious if the CV 21/4 performs better in the mid-field, considering the Zeiss 21/4.5, with a similar optical design, has a flatter MTF graph.
p.2 #12 · Voigtlander 21mm f/4 VM Color-Skopar. Any good?
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's unfortunate that the CV 21/3.5 Color-Skopar struggles in the mid-field. There's a dip in performance in that area, although it's not field curvature.
When compared to the highly regarded Loxia 21/2.8 Distagon, the Voigtlander keeps pace with the Zeiss in terms of center and extreme corner sharpness. However, it's only decent at f/8 in the mid-zone, still not matching the performance of the Loxia even at f/8. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1566500/0#14632368
I'm curious if the CV 21/4 performs better in the mid-field, considering the Zeiss 21/4.5, with a similar optical design, has a flatter MTF graph.
I'll have to test my copy of the VM 21/3.5 but I've never perceived any mid-zone drop in sharpness relative to the edges.
My copy is brutally sharp in the greater central area, with a drop off at the mids that remains to the edges. Very little difference in performance at f/8 compared to f/5.6 except at the far corners. Lots of wavy field curvature though. I don't love the performance at all but I make do since the size of the lens is convenient and there's nothing better right now without going big or going Leica, which I won't do.
I'll have to find a suitable subject to test for a mid-zone dip, but I'd be surprised if I find any on mine.
I'll report back.
p.2 #13 · Voigtlander 21mm f/4 VM Color-Skopar. Any good?
I also have the f/3.5, and honestly, I haven't seen any issues with image quality either. It's a great lens. Yes, it suffers from some vignetting, but none that can't be fixed in post. Perhaps I'm not looking where I should.
hmzimelka wrote:
I'll have to test my copy of the VM 21/3.5 but I've never perceived any mid-zone drop in sharpness relative to the edges.
My copy is brutally sharp in the greater central area, with a drop off at the mids that remains to the edges. Very little difference in performance at f/8 compared to f/5.6 except at the far corners. Lots of wavy field curvature though. I don't love the performance at all but I make do since the size of the lens is convenient and there's nothing better right now without going big or going Leica, which I won't do.
I'll have to find a suitable subject to test for a mid-zone dip, but I'd be surprised if I find any on mine.
I'll report back. ...Show more →
p.2 #14 · Voigtlander 21mm f/4 VM Color-Skopar. Any good?
I just checked my lens and I can't see a mid zone dip, in the sense that the centre and edges are sharper than the mid zone. Mine has a very sharp central area depicted in the area of the red circle, and outside that its a fair dip in resolution that gradually deteriorates towards the edges. The image was shot at f/5.6 and gains only marginal improvement at f/8.
It's not a great performer at the edges but it's not horrible either. I'm using a M11.
p.2 #15 · Voigtlander 21mm f/4 VM Color-Skopar. Any good?
hmzimelka wrote:
I just checked my lens and I can't see a mid zone dip, in the sense that the centre and edges are sharper than the mid zone. Mine has a very sharp central area depicted in the area of the red circle, and outside that its a fair dip in resolution that gradually deteriorates towards the edges. The image was shot at f/5.6 and gains only marginal improvement at f/8.
It's not a great performer at the edges but it's not horrible either. I'm using a M11.
The decrease in resolution in the middle area won't be too obvious with a sample like this one. Consider using an image with high detail throughout, from the center to the corners, focused at infinity. The drop in resolution is quite noticeable and isn't caused by differences in copies. I've tried multiple CV 21/3.5 Color-Skopar lenses in both E and M mounts and they perform the same way.
While there's field curvature, focusing on that area instead of the center for a subject at a long distance doesn't improve the mid-zone sharpness:
p.2 #17 · Voigtlander 21mm f/4 VM Color-Skopar. Any good?
Malabito wrote:
Unless pixel peeping, I don't think anyone is going to notice the so-called dip.
Well, that's precisely the purpose of testing a lens. We assess its performance at the pixel level. While shooting with it, it's indeed a great performer, especially at center, unless you are particularly focused on achieving high resolution across the entire field. I really like it and have been considering getting another copy. I'm curious if the CV 21/4 would offer stronger mid-zone performance, especially since that's where I often position my subjects.
Your approach suits you perfectly. Just keep shooting and don't scrutinize too closely.
p.2 #18 · Voigtlander 21mm f/4 VM Color-Skopar. Any good?
NodNova wrote:
I haven’t experienced the Color-Skopar 21/4, but its sibling, the ZM 21/4.5 C Biogon, has been my main super-wide lens for film photography during the past six years. The ZM is a lovely little lens for both snapshot and landscape. It’s so light that I often consider it an accessory rather than a lens, and I wouldn’t hesitate to take it with me even for a casual walk.
As many of you have known, the ZM 21/4.5 shares the same optical design with VM 21/4 Color-Skopar. In fact, this lens seems to had been designed not by Zeiss, but Cosina. According to some sources, Mr. Kobayashi Hirofumi, Cosina’s president, considered this a personal project as he had been dreaming of improving the classic 21/4.5 Biogon design with modern glass materials. So the ZM 21/4.5 was born, one of the last lenses designed exclusively for film photography.
Regarding the ZM 21/4.5’s optical performance, I would say it’s more than capable on film, but definitely not a good choice on digital cameras. When adapted to my stacked A7r2, images are plagued with extremely heavy corner smearing and vignetting. When mounted on a film camera, however, it produces sharp and distortion-free images with beautiful colors. The sharpness level is not up to that from modern lenses such as Loxia 21/2.8 or Nokton 21/1.4, but it is good enough for a 15MP scan of slide film. The practically zero distortion makes it a perfect choice to shoot buildings.
Flare resistance seems to be slight inferior to other contemporary Zeiss lenses. When the sun is just outside the frame, it would often provoke a double ring-like flare in the image.
I plan to get both the CV 21/4 and CV 21/3.5 and compare them directly, using both Leica digital and film cameras. If you're looking for a 21mm M-mount lens that works exceptionally well with Sony sensors, the CV 21/3.5 is definitely the way to go. I was surprised by how similar the performance is on the Leica and thicker Sony sensor.
p.2 #19 · Voigtlander 21mm f/4 VM Color-Skopar. Any good?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for sharing so many great samples!
I plan to get both the CV 21/4 and CV 21/3.5 and compare them directly, using both Leica digital and film cameras. If you're looking for a 21mm M-mount lens that works exceptionally well with Sony sensors, the CV 21/3.5 is definitely the way to go. I was surprised by how similar the performance is on the Leica and thicker Sony sensor.
Fred, I think I read this elsewhere but can you remind me, putting price aside, how you'd compare the V21/3.5 to the Leica 21mm Super-Elmar-M ASPH f/3.4?
p.2 #20 · Voigtlander 21mm f/4 VM Color-Skopar. Any good?
brick33308 wrote:
Fred, I think I read this elsewhere but can you remind me, putting price aside, how you'd compare the V21/3.5 to the Leica 21mm Super-Elmar-M ASPH f/3.4?
I've owned the Leica 21/3.4 for three years, and it's truly the top performer among compact 21mm lenses. It shows strong performance in the center and mid-zone, with excellent quality extending to the extreme corners. While it slightly trails behind the much larger Voigtlander 21/1.4 Nokton in the corners, its overall performance is exceptional. I believe I compared it to the Voigtländer 21/3.5 in a test, and I'll try to locate those results.
