Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #11 · Any thoughts on how the Sony RXIRI - III 35mm f2 Zeiss lens compares in IQ to the Voigtlander M 35 mm f1.5? | |
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Good post, I always appreciate a good comp. What sticks out to me--and I have owned the three 35mm's used in this comp, is how much wider the RX1 is than the others. While not new info for me, still striking when I look at the framing. And, that causes the RX1 to have thicker/more DOF. The ZF and GM look much more similar in terms of diffusion of bokeh with the foliage behind the bottles with their narrower FOV at f2. Thanks for posting Jim.
At @wolfloid@ I shot RX1's on and off, since the original was out. I also owned the CV 35/1.5. The major differences when I consider them, probably in this order:
- the RX1 has smoother bokeh in all situations at similar aperture and no real cat's eye. You really just can't get rough bokeh or cat's eye out of the lens, no matter of compromising the scene. The CV has a ton of cat's eye, which some may like but I generally do not. It also has FC, which can make corners pop back into focus.
- The MFD performance on the RX1 is fantastic and EXTREMELY useful, at least for my type of shooting. Not only is the magnification much greater, but the resolution and contrast across the frame are superb. The Nokton gets a hair softer as we get closer, and outside the center of the frame you're loosing IQ.
- Secondary for many but the coma correction is better on the RX1--makes for a pretty good astro option, assuming you have the battery life for it.
- Vignetting is noticeably higher on the CV 35/1.5 being an RF lens.
- I always find the MF on the RX1 mediocre (at best).
- The RX1 is wide 35mm, while the CV is a narrow 35mm. The difference in FOV will be noticeable.
- Lastly, the RX1 just has those Zeiss colors and contrast--for some a big deal. Some may prefer CV's. Either way, to me, that is large differentiator.
Ultimately, like everything with the RX1, there is no apples-to-apples comparison. Both of the lenses are great and different....Show more →
Such a great summary Nehemiah!
I also made that point that when comparing 35mm lenses with the Sonnar 35/2, the latter will show less blur when shot at same distance due to its much wider FOV. I think it's closer to 30mm than 35mm. Perhaps right in the middle. (32.5mm)
To add a bit more to what you mentioned, the CV 35/1.5 produces much more defined sunstars, uses a true mechanical helicoid, and shows noticeably higher SA compared to the Sonnar. The Voigtlander also doesn't maintain even resolution across the field (higher field curvature), while the Sonnar is essentially flat and delivers strong mid-field resolution (even wide open), which isn't the case with many 35mm lenses. The CV shows stronger optical vignetting (cat's eye, swirling) as you noted but also produces way more more tonal vignetting. Because of this, I don't think the two have similar rendering even when framing is matched. The Voigtlander’s transitions can feel more structural, while the Sonnar remains perfectly smooth regardless of subject distance.
Lenses that come closest to the RX1R’s Sonnar 35mm f/2 in terms of rendering are the FE 35mm f/1.4 GM at f/2 and, in my opinion, the Thypoch 35mm f/1.4 at f/2 as well. (I’m comparing them at f/2 so the blur is more similar and the optical vignetting lines up more closely with the Sonnar.). The main drawback is that, being f/1.4 designs, they're quite a bit larger and also interchangeable lenses, unlike the fixed Sonnar.
|
