Fred Miranda wrote:
I could also highlight as a positive point that this lens shows lower optical vignetting compared to other Cosina 50mm lenses. Although Cosina generally does not prioritize this characteristic, which can appear as cat's eye bokeh, the CV 50/2.2 Color-Skopar performs better in this aspect, despite having slightly higher fall-off compared to other lenses...
I've seen your results with film, and it's impressive how lenses that show considerable vignetting on digital can have normal vignetting on film. You’ve inspired me to take out my M-P with the CV 50/2.2. 👍
Just developed the roll that I used to test vignette shots - blank wall, all apertures - so will see how it actually vignettes on film. At least from close to MFD.
Desmolicious wrote:
Just developed the roll that I used to test vignette shots - blank wall, all apertures - so will see how it actually vignettes on film. At least from close to MFD.
Thanks Huss. I will link it to the review.
Just a quick note: I ended up with four copies of this lens -- three in black (including the original prototype) and one in silver. All four are well-centered and perfectly adjusted to the rangefinder. This strong track record suggests that the optical design has excellent production tolerance.
Here's a quick comparison of the CV 50/2.2 Color-Skopar and CV 50/2 APO-Lanthar, both wide open, focusing on vignetting fall-off. Both lenses perform similarly, but the Color-Skopar shows slightly more vignetting when wide open. No corrections.
The lens build and feel is fantastic. Sucks that mine isn't optimal. So I've pretty much lost all motivation to use it.
The vignetting is a HARD pill to swallow. Even at f/5.6.
I'm not even sure I should risk the QC lottery again and buy a second lens. The vignetting alone is nearly enough to persuade me to not replace it. If I could return the lens I would.
Judging by the performance of the "good side" of my lens, it's a solid performing lens on the M11. I think close enough to that of the Summicron that I would consider it a fair comparison. The Summicron (and Planar) still has the edge, and both produce a cleaner draw and a brighter image especially off centre. The Skopar is very sharp centrally, and at close focusing distances it retains excellent sharpness where the Summicron can't keep up. The Skopar also has no focus shift which is a great bonus compared to both Summicron and Planar.
Below are two images at f/4 with the same shutter speed. Top is Skopar (uncoded), bottom Summicron, (uncoded)
The lens build and feel is fantastic. Sucks that mine isn't optimal. So I've pretty much lost all motivation to use it.
The vignetting is a HARD pill to swallow. Even at f/5.6.
I'm not even sure I should risk the QC lottery again and buy a second lens. The vignetting alone is nearly enough to persuade me to not replace it. If I could return the lens I would.
Judging by the performance of the "good side" of my lens, it's a solid performing lens on the M11. I think close enough to that of the Summicron that I would consider it a fair comparison. The Summicron (and Planar) still has the edge, and both produce a cleaner draw and a brighter image especially off centre. The Skopar is very sharp centrally, and at close focusing distances it retains excellent sharpness where the Summicron can't keep up. The Skopar also has no focus shift which is a great bonus compared to both Summicron and Planar.
Below are two images at f/4 with the same shutter speed. Top is Skopar (uncoded), bottom Summicron, (uncoded)
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've found that using the Leica "Summicron 1:2/50 Leitz lens" in-camera code greatly reduces vignetting for this lens.
Yeah, that is the profile I've chosen to use when I do shoot the lens coded. But I don't think I will code it physically because I'm unlikely to use the lens. For now it's packed away in the box.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here's a quick comparison of the CV 50/2.2 Color-Skopar and CV 50/2 APO-Lanthar, both wide open, focusing on vignetting fall-off. Both lenses perform similarly, but the Color-Skopar shows slightly more vignetting when wide open. No corrections.
Would the test be more fair if the exposures at the center of the frame were matched? I feel like the Skopar is benefitting by being able to have a brighter center of the frame.
Ok, so my vignette test did not pan out as my scans showed I need a new light pad. The lighting has become uneven/splotchy - which while doesn't show on 'real' images, does when it is a blank wall.. Negatives look fine, so may rescan.
Below instead are more shots taken outside at apertures 5.6-11, and the two of the Daisy and Riley are at 2.2. I have shown all of them complete/uncropped - the edges are the film holder edges. No profiles (real film!) etc.
So this is how the lens actually looks on film.
Desmolicious wrote:
Ok, so my vignette test did not pan out as my scans showed I need a new light pad. The lighting has become uneven/splotchy - which while doesn't show on 'real' images, does when it is a blank wall.. Negatives look fine, so may rescan.
Below instead are more shots taken outside at apertures 5.6-11, and the two of the Daisy and Riley are at 2.2. I have shown all of them complete/uncropped - the edges are the film holder edges. No profiles (real film!) etc.
So this is how the lens actually looks on film.
Based on the samples so far, it’s evident that vignetting is much less of a concern with film cameras, and this seems true for the CV 28/2.8 Color-Skopar as well. I don’t mind that vignetting is the lens’s only drawback since it can be easily adjusted in post-processing. In fact, I often appreciate a bit of vignetting in my images.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Based on the samples so far, it’s evident that vignetting is much less of a concern with film cameras, and this seems true for the CV 28/2.8 Color-Skopar as well. I don’t mind that vignetting is the lens’s only drawback since it can be easily adjusted in post-processing. In fact, I often appreciate a bit of vignetting in my images.
Yup on film the vignette is of little concern. It vignettes more on digital than a Summicron but that can be easily adjusted for. However it does not focus shift nor flare like a Summicron - both things which can NOT be adjusted for!
I tried to do a close up comparing the Skopar with the Leica 50mm 1.4 at close range and when I convert in Adobe Bridge to PS I get a message saying you cannot image US currency. How do you process?
Fred Miranda wrote: Minimal Focus Distance: Resolution and Contrast
The Voigtlander 50mm f/2.2 Color-Skopar is impressively versatile focusing down to 0.5m. It provides excellent close-up focus with sharp resolution and contrast even at its minimum focus distance (MFD), despite lacking a floating element design or aspherical elements. For this test, I focused the lens at its MFD of 0.5 meters as well as at 0.65 meters, which is the MFD for the rangefinder coupling.
A notable feature is its consistent sharpness across the entire aperture range, particularly when tested at the rangefinder-coupled distance of 0.65 meters. Although there is a slight improvement in resolution and contrast with each aperture stop, the differences are relatively minor.
Overall, this lens performs great at close range, delivering sharp, detailed images with very good contrast.
The following sequence illustrates its performance from wide open at f/2.2 to f/5.6. The lens was initially focused at f/2.2, and subsequent changes to f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6 were made without refocusing, demonstrating minimal to no focus shift.
50mm 1.4 summilux (newest version) at about 0.5m vs the 50mm 2.2 Skopar. Shot in RAW opened in Bridge and no additional adjustments in PS
OK I had two bills.. the one dollar bill was upper left corner and the larger bill in the center. I focused on the circle.
I cannot show you the whole shot because I did not realize PS won't let you process whole money shots
Skopar f2.2 Center
LEICA M11Apo-Telyt-M 1:3.4/135 lens135mmf/3.51/60s200 ISO0.0 EV
Summilux f2.4. Center
LEICA M11Summilux-M 1:1.4/50 ASPH. lens50mmf/3.41/60s200 ISO0.0 EV
Skopar f2.8 Center
LEICA M11Apo-Telyt-M 1:3.4/135 lens135mmf/4.01/50s200 ISO0.0 EV
Summilux f2.8 center
LEICA M11Summilux-M 1:1.4/50 ASPH. lens50mmf/4.81/50s200 ISO0.0 EV
Skopar f5.6 center
LEICA M11Apo-Telyt-M 1:3.4/135 lens135mmf/8.01/12s200 ISO0.0 EV
Summilux f5.6 center
LEICA M11Summilux-M 1:1.4/50 ASPH. lens50mmf/9.51/10s200 ISO0.0 EV
mark1958 wrote:
50mm 1.4 summilux (newest version) at about 0.5m vs the 50mm 2.2 Skopar. Shot in RAW opened in Bridge and no additional adjustments in PS
OK I had two bills.. the one dollar bill was upper left corner and the larger bill in the center. I focused on the circle.
I cannot show you the whole shot because I did not realize PS won't let you process whole money shots
Thanks for sharing the test, Mark!
It seems that both the Voigtlander 50/2.2 Color-Skopar and the Leica 50/1.4 Lux perform better when stopped down to f/2.8 or smaller at 0.5m. However, in my test, the Color-Skopar performs well even when used wide open at 0.7m.
When I took some medium distance shots like 10 to 15 feet and did a comparison, the Skopar and Lux were very comparable. was surprised.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for sharing the test, Mark!
It seems that both the Voigtlander 50/2.2 Color-Skopar and the Leica 50/1.4 Lux perform better when stopped down to f/2.8 or smaller at 0.5m. However, in my test, the Color-Skopar performs well even when used wide open at 0.7m.
mark1958 wrote:
When I took some medium distance shots like 10 to 15 feet and did a comparison, the Skopar and Lux were very comparable. was surprised.
It's certainly impressive for the Skopar, considering that the 50mm f/1.4 Lux is known for its sharpness at f/2 and beyond.
The Summilux benefits from the work Leica put in on the floating lens group, which assist it at shorter focal distances, out to about your medium distance.
Its midfield behavior is very different to the Color-Skopar's curvature pattern at (reportedly) all focus distances. After the dip, the wide edges rise to actually match the centre at f1.4. Smaller apertures enable DOF to cover it up and by f5.6 it's stellar.
