p.1 #1 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
In the last 6 months I've picked up several Voigtlander lenses for Fuji; 23, 35 & 50 f/1.2 Noktons and the 27mm Ultron. I'm seeing a pattern with all of them.
All of my shooting is with the demanding 40 mp sensor X-T5 so any optical weakness will be show up in spades.
All of the lenses are small and a joy to carry & use. Manual focus is smooth and pretty easy to nail. Dealing with the manual aperture is easy. Open the aperture to focus, then stop down to shoot. If you're shooting at, say f/4 or faster, just focus & shoot. Open the f/1.2 lenses no wider than f/2 for focus unless you're shooting faster, then focus at your shooting aperture. Simple once you get used to it. And flexible. You get to choose the trade-off between focus sharpness (via stopping down) and accuracy (via opening for shallower DoF). Focus shift at wide apertures becomes a non-issue since you're focusing at your shooting aperture.
The emphasis on small size comes at an optical cost. Sharpness at the edges & corners is not as good as the center and is not up to Fuji prime standards. Center sharpness on all of these is great stopped down in the center. At the edges, my Noktons produce sharpness at f/5.6 that is ever so slightly behind my Sigma 18-50 zoom at f/5.6. If the zoom is good enough for your needs at the edges, the Voigtlander primes will also be. If you must have total edge sharpness at 100% zoom on a 40mp sensor, the Voigtlanders will leave you wanting. Be prepared to deal with bigger lenses. The other area where sharpness limits can be seen is shooting wide open. Here the Noktons produce less sharpness and fine detail resolution. But with PP sharpening, the resulting overall image is always sharp in the middle (stop pixel peeping) and the slightly dreamy rendering gives the images a different feel. And sometimes I'm getting an added bonus of 3D rendering.
For me, I care less about sharpness at 100% than I do about overall image quality & size.
As to overall image quality, I find the Voigtlanders produce some images that have a special "something" that I don't get from the Fuji primes and especially not from the Sigma zoom. Often it is a combination of vignetting which shines a spotlight on centered subjects plus a bokeh rendering that is less than textbook. I also see a bit more contrast and color fidelity from the Voigts. Colors are a tad warmer and richer. Oh, and all of them (save the 50mm Nokton) will produce nice sunstars that Fuji can only dream of. And I like sunstars.
The 27mm Ultron is a bit of an outlier. It maintains more contrast and sharpness wide open then the Nokton's do, but sharpness at the edge of the field is no better. Once again, small size comes at a price. With a hard-stop at infinity focus, the 27 is a great landscape lens. Set it to f/5.6, hard-stop infinity and just shoot.
For me the benefits of the Voigts outweigh the costs. The optical limits are very livable and have no negative impact on final images. They are my first-call lenses for most of my manual focus photography.
p.1 #2 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
I am not good in manual focus unless I am shooting landscapes with a TSE lens. So AF for me. When I had XF, I liked what 56mm f1.2 and APD versions could do.
Can you show examples differences between Voigtlander and Fuji? I wouldn't compare any prime to zooms. I don't know XF but Sigma has excellent primes for FF. Heck some even work very good on my GFX.
p.1 #3 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
I feel the same way. I have the 18/23/27/35/50. I use them on my X-E4 and X-T5 for photo and video. I love how the results can be variable in a way. I have XF lenses that have been collecting dust lately. Not to be cliche, but the Voigtlanders inspire me to get out and take pictures. The 18/27 with my X-E4 is such a great small lightweight everyday combo. Between the character, usability and perfect infinity focus on both of them, it actually caused me to sell my Leica M kit. The bigger but small-still 23/35/50 lenses mainly get used on my X-T5. The more I use the Voigtlanders the quicker and more accurate I get at manual + EVF focusing. Fujifilm already makes some really inspiring cameras and this is just icing. They may not be for everyone, but for me I am loving it.
p.1 #4 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
bobby350z wrote:
I am not good in manual focus unless I am shooting landscapes with a TSE lens. So AF for me. When I had XF, I liked what 56mm f1.2 and APD versions could do.
Can you show examples differences between Voigtlander and Fuji? I wouldn't compare any prime to zooms. I don't know XF but Sigma has excellent primes for FF. Heck some even work very good on my GFX.
Examples? I'll look through my test folder to see if I can find a good example of the differences.
p.1 #5 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
completely agree with you. visited tokyo last time and traded both my xf14mm and xf35mm1.4 for the Voigt 18mm and 27mm. Not a regret! I even wish they release more pancake size lens with different focal length.
p.1 #6 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
Sadly, I've deleted almost all my A/B test photos. I did find this set though. Voigt 23 f/1.2 vs Fuji 23 f/1.4 R. Both shot wide open. Yes, the Fuji is sharper, but I find the Voigt renders with more 'depth'. The face seems a tad thinner in the Voigt image and background separation is better not only due to blur but vignetting.
X-T5VOIGTLANDER NOKTON 23mm F1.2 lens23mmf/1.21/180s125 ISO0.0 EV
X-T5Fujifilm Fujinon XF23mmF1.4 R lens23mmf/1.41/125s125 ISO0.0 EV
p.1 #7 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
The Voigtlander has more of a FF vibe imo.
darwinphoto wrote:
Sadly, I've deleted almost all my A/B test photos. I did find this set though. Voigt 23 f/1.2 vs Fuji 23 f/1.4 R. Both shot wide open. Yes, the Fuji is sharper, but I find the Voigt renders with more 'depth'. The face seems a tad thinner in the Voigt image and background separation is better not only due to blur but vignetting.
p.1 #8 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
darwinphoto wrote:
Sadly, I've deleted almost all my A/B test photos. I did find this set though. Voigt 23 f/1.2 vs Fuji 23 f/1.4 R. Both shot wide open. Yes, the Fuji is sharper, but I find the Voigt renders with more 'depth'. The face seems a tad thinner in the Voigt image and background separation is better not only due to blur but vignetting.
You would expect that because it's 1/2 stop faster.
Sirui makes a 23 f1.2 AF lens, I'm not sure I see the point in the Voigtlander over that, unless you really enjoy manual focusing.
I had the Voigtlander 23 f1.2. Just couldn't get into it. It did not go well with my style of shooting. I did not like the difficulty of nailing focus with such a wide aperture. Ended up taking months to sell, at a pretty big discount from purchase price. So that's another thing to consider, if you are looking for resale value, these are probably not going to hold up that well.
Trying to decide what my next move is ... Fuji 23 vs Sigma 23 vs Sirui 23 vs Viltrox 23.
p.1 #9 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
I wish V-C would make their lenses in AF. Yes I understand they'd be larger and cost more, but that would work for me. My big nit is at my age with my old eyes, manually focussing via an EVF is a hassle and slow at best. Fine for landscape but not walk-around travel/street which is what I'd want their glass for...
p.1 #10 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
darwinphoto wrote:
Sadly, I've deleted almost all my A/B test photos. I did find this set though. Voigt 23 f/1.2 vs Fuji 23 f/1.4 R. Both shot wide open. Yes, the Fuji is sharper, but I find the Voigt renders with more 'depth'. The face seems a tad thinner in the Voigt image and background separation is better not only due to blur but vignetting.
Wow! One of the best direct examples of Voigtlander rendering in comparison to modern AF lens. Thz for posting this images
I'm impressed by Voigtlander rendering, rally.
Even to the point, that I'm starting to thinking to add CV 23/1.2 into my bag as a everyday lens..
p.1 #11 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
darwinphoto wrote:
Sadly, I've deleted almost all my A/B test photos. I did find this set though. Voigt 23 f/1.2 vs Fuji 23 f/1.4 R. Both shot wide open. Yes, the Fuji is sharper, but I find the Voigt renders with more 'depth'. The face seems a tad thinner in the Voigt image and background separation is better not only due to blur but vignetting.
Welcome to the cult...er um...I mean world of Cosina Voigtlander. That's a good demonstration. Both look like nice images but I definitely like the CV 23/1.2 version and its characteristic 3D like rendering. I have the 23/1.2 as well...actually I have all 7 of the X-mount CV lenses because I like their characteristics and the wonderful manual experience they provide while being able to pass data and communicate with Fujifilm bodies.
They definitely have a different learning curve and require me to slow down a bit but the results and experience are well worth it. I also have the updated XF 23/1.4 R LM WR and the XF 33/1.4 R LM WR which are both quite a stellar lenses but most times I reach for my CV 23/1.2 and 35/1.2 over them. They are so small and portable and produce a really nice image wide open and if its a little softer than I want at that time I just stop down a bit. Since having acquired the CV 27/2...it has become my most used lens of all my lenses. It just about lives on my camera due to its size (I travel a lot) and excellent predictable rendering.
---------------------------------------------
gear-nut wrote:
I wish V-C would make their lenses in AF. Yes I understand they'd be larger and cost more, but that would work for me. My big nit is at my age with my old eyes, manually focussing via an EVF is a hassle and slow at best. Fine for landscape but not walk-around travel/street which is what I'd want their glass for...
Have you tried the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 and Touit 50mm f/2.8 macro. They are relatively compact for AF lenses and also have a unique characteristic rendering especially the 32mm. I got mine last year for a ridiculously low price in like new condition. I really like them as well and often bring the 32mm along with me on my travels for when I want an AF lens on my camera since its so small.
p.1 #12 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
BeatX wrote:
Wow! One of the best direct examples of Voigtlander rendering in comparison to modern AF lens. Thz for posting this images
I'm impressed by Voigtlander rendering, rally.
Even to the point, that I'm starting to thinking to add CV 23/1.2 into my bag as a everyday lens..
Gee, thanks!
I'm a big fan of 23mm. It is my main focal length. My brain thinks in that mode, my sees with that angle of view. For that reason, my fav Fuji lens is the 23mm f/1.4 R. I delayed getting the Voigt 23mm fearing it would not be good enough to displace the XF 23. So far, fear has proven false. I'm still not listing my XF 23 for sale just yet because my copy is exceptionally good. But I find I'm not reaching for it anymore.
p.1 #13 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
gear-nut wrote:
I wish V-C would make their lenses in AF. Yes I understand they'd be larger and cost more, but that would work for me. My big nit is at my age with my old eyes, manually focussing via an EVF is a hassle and slow at best. Fine for landscape but not walk-around travel/street which is what I'd want their glass for...
I've had some pretty good luck with using focus peaking. I've shot quite a few pic of my wife while we are out walking. She'll walk ahead of me maybe 20 feet and I'll take pics. We're both moving, I'm shooting wide open. Spin the focus ring, when the focus peaking goes red, click. My hit rate is probably 50% and I've gotten some pretty cool images. Doing the same with AF lenses is better, of course, but even then, I didn't hit 100%.
p.1 #14 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
Gabe13 wrote:
Have you tried the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 and Touit 50mm f/2.8 macro. They are relatively compact for AF lenses and also have a unique characteristic rendering especially the 32mm. I got mine last year for a ridiculously low price in like new condition. I really like them as well and often bring the 32mm along with me on my travels for when I want an AF lens on my camera since its so small.
I realize this wasn't to me, but I too like the Zeiss. I preferred it over the XF 32 f/1.4 for sharpness, contrast, close-focus, & overall rendering. I sold it and have replaced it with the Voigt 35mm f/1.2 which I just enjoy using more. I did not own them at the same time though so I have no way to compare them head to head. I suspect the Zeiss would win on the contrast / clarity front and the Voigt would for character and enjoyment to use.
p.1 #15 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
Yeah until I got the Zeiss, I had been regretting letting go of the XF 35/1.4. Been happy with the Zeiss and love its small and compact size, its wonderful IQ/rendering, and that it doesn't extend. It's always nice to have one AF lens with me on my travel because there are times that its convenient to have it.
I agree with your suspicions as that is what I notice in general. Although, it might be interesting to see how the CV compares at f1.8 since by that aperture things are tightening up image wise. Maybe one of these days I'll see.
p.1 #16 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
The Voigt lenses have a less modern look than the Fuji glass, to simplify it as much as possible. I think that's the biggest factor.
First gen Fuji XF lenses already (in most cases) have much more character and an "older" look than most other first-party lenses released in the last decade. The newer XF lenses have gotten far more corrected and "modern" looking in comparison. This has been discussed many times.
Most of the Voigt glass is less-corrected than even the early XF options- so if modern AF glass is what you're used to, then the images from them will have a very different look and feel for sure. There's very few options when it comes to current production lenses designed for smaller sensors without a perfect/clinical/over-corrected look.
I personally *really* like the early XF lenses a LOT. The little 18/2 has such a wonderful look, and great handling on a small body like the XE4. I wish I hadn't sold that combo a few months back haha!
p.1 #17 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
How is the focus travel on those manual Voight lenses? I’m thinking of an X-Pro2 with the 35/2 Voightlander accompany my X100F which I use in MF most of the time. I shot a Leica M8 with Voightlander and Leica glass ages ago and while I’d love an M240 or M262, I can’t justify the cost. Looking for that MF experience with the rangefinder style. Trying to slow things down around here.
p.1 #18 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
TN_nato wrote:
How is the focus travel on those manual Voight lenses? I’m thinking of an X-Pro2 with the 35/2 Voightlander accompany my X100F which I use in MF most of the time. I shot a Leica M8 with Voightlander and Leica glass ages ago and while I’d love an M240 or M262, I can’t justify the cost. Looking for that MF experience with the rangefinder style. Trying to slow things down around here.
It's similar to the newer close focus Voigtlander Leica lenses, if you've tried those.
p.1 #19 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
maly149 wrote:
It's similar to the newer close focus Voigtlander Leica lenses, if you've tried those.
One hundred percent of manual focus lens shooters will tell you that manual focusing is faster than autofocus, and it is true in many cases. So, what exactly are you planning to slow down here?
I did not like a very short travel distance on CV 18/2.8 for X system. Your useful range of movement outside of closeup is like 2mm (I don't know the real number, but it is short). But I just love CV 35/2 and 50/2 for Nikon Z, for example.
p.1 #20 · Voigtlander's "thing" is becoming more clear to me.
TN_nato wrote:
How is the focus travel on those manual Voight lenses? I’m thinking of an X-Pro2 with the 35/2 Voightlander accompany my X100F which I use in MF most of the time. I shot a Leica M8 with Voightlander and Leica glass ages ago and while I’d love an M240 or M262, I can’t justify the cost. Looking for that MF experience with the rangefinder style. Trying to slow things down around here.
With CV 35/2 APO-Ultron the entire focus throw is about 270 degrees since it's a macro that can focus particularly close. At the long end the focus throw from 2m to infinity is fairly short. I have no problems focusing with it personally. I do wish hard infinity could be used for infinity shots though, which is not the case with this lens. It's perfectly usable only with the 18/2.8 and 27/2. All the other CV X-mount lenses have some "buffer" allowing focus a bit beyond optimal infinity.
That's a good demonstration. Both look like nice images but I definitely like the CV 23/1.2 version and its characteristic 3D like rendering. I have the 23/1.2 as well...actually I have all 7 of the X-mount CV lenses because I like their characteristics and the wonderful manual experience they provide while being able to pass data and communicate with Fujifilm bodies.