I have a Zeiss 21 and love it! Was looking to pick up a Zeiss 50 when the Voigtlander 58 caught my eye. Besides the small difference in FL, someone describe the differences in their IQ, etc. I have a D3s with 24-120//f4 I use a lot but really love the color, rendition, 3D, etc with the Zeiss! Have heard the Voigtlander lens are very similar to Zeiss.
Zeiss 50/1.4 and CV 58/1.4 are very similar in design. I have ZE 50 but I probably would have get CV 58 instead if you could get it on Canon mount. Voigtlander is sharper at all apertures and it has less CA.
Sami Ruusunen wrote:
Zeiss 50/1.4 and CV 58/1.4 are very similar in design. I have ZE 50 but I probably would have get CV 58 instead if you could get it on Canon mount. Voigtlander is sharper at all apertures and it has less CA.
Actually, the Zeiss is sharper than the Voigtlander, but it's not a large difference. Both are superb lenses. The designs are not that close, the Voigtlander actually resembles the Rokkor 58 more than a straight Planar (all of these are 7/6 designs, so variance is in the optimizations more than anything)
The Voigtlander's a gorgeous lens but lacks the microcontrast of the Zeiss, the Nokton is also noticeably longer. Colour is also a little more muted than the Zeiss.
I've owned the Nokton, the older C/Y 50/1.4 Planar and shot with the ZF. I preferred the Zeiss's but still liked the Nokton enough not to sell it in favour of the ZF.
I meant to mention that the CV 58 is a little over half the price of the Zeiss at B&H - $400 is a very economical lens compared to most lens in this category.
mawz wrote:
Actually, the Zeiss is sharper than the Voigtlander, but it's not a large difference. Both are superb lenses. The designs are not that close, the Voigtlander actually resembles the Rokkor 58 more than a straight Planar (all of these are 7/6 designs, so variance is in the optimizations more than anything)
really, you are first person i've heard say this. is the zeiss sharper at all apertures or just f/2.8-f/16? is it sharper close up as well as far?
Sami Ruusunen wrote:
Zeiss 50/1.4 and CV 58/1.4 are very similar in design.
Well, most 50mm standard lenses are very similar in design.
Sami Ruusunen wrote:
I have ZE 50 but I probably would have get CV 58 instead if you could get it on Canon mount. Voigtlander is sharper at all apertures and it has less CA.
I don't believe this is true, in my experience. I have both the ZF 50 and the CV 58m. I do not find the CV to be sharper, and the CV shows more CA, especially wide open.
Lotusm50 wrote:
I don't believe this is true, in my experience. I have both the ZF 50 and the CV 58m. I do not find the CV to be sharper, and the CV shows more CA, especially wide open.
I dont shoot test charts so I just need to believe those who do, forexample photozone. According to their tests, CV is much sharper and has much less CA.
Lotusm50 wrote:
I don't believe this is true, in my experience. I have both the ZF 50 and the CV 58m. I do not find the CV to be sharper, and the CV shows more CA, especially wide open.
i'm curious about this, do you have any 100% crops from both. the wide open crops i've seen (at close focus distances) from the voigtlander looked quite good while the ones i've seen from the planar looked significantly worse than what i've seen from my rokkor 50/1.4 and takumar 50/1.4. the stopped down landscape shots i've seen with the planar look superb though (haven't seen any from the voigtlander).
Sami Ruusunen wrote:
I dont shoot test charts so I just need to believe those who do, forexample photozone. According to their tests, CV is much sharper and has much less CA.
But you shouldn't believe photozone, if you shoot anything other than resolution charts. At what distance are those charts shot, for a 50mm? Does anyone know?
If the Planar 50/1.4 has more CA than the Voigtländer, I want to see proof in real-world shots. To hell with those PZ bar charts. I've wasted enough time with them in the past.
Sami Ruusunen wrote:
I dont shoot test charts so I just need to believe those who do, forexample photozone. According to their tests, CV is much sharper and has much less CA.
I don't shoot test charts, either, and everything I've seen from photozone does not inspire any measure of confidence in their tests, methodology, or assessments.
Sami Ruusunen wrote:
I dont shoot test charts so I just need to believe those who do, forexample photozone. According to their tests, CV is much sharper and has much less CA.
Photozone's testing shows the Zeiss as consistently sharper, not the Nokton. The Nokton is only sharper in the centre at f1.4 and f2, but the Zeiss outperforms it at the edges at all apertures and across the entire frame at f2.8 and smaller. And that's on APS-C, not FF. Note that even then it's a fairly small advantage to the Nokton in the centre at wide apertures while the Zeiss has a much larger advantage at the edges until f2.8.
My own use confirms this, the Nokton is simply not in the same league for cross-frame performance at any wide aperture and while it gets pretty damned good from f2.8 down, the Zeiss at that point is ahead everywhere.
Lotusm50 wrote:
I don't shoot test charts, either, and everything I've seen from photozone does not inspire any measure of confidence in their tests, methodology, or assessments.
that is certainly not the greatest loCA performance, difficult to judge sharpness there. do you have a similar shot from the zeiss? photozone seems pretty consistant in their measurements, they just only test at very near distances. i'm not always sure how they get from their measurements to their conclusions though.
sebboh wrote:
photozone seems pretty consistant in their measurements, they just only test at very near distances. i'm not always sure how they get from their measurements to their conclusions though.
Consistently inappropriate, methodologically flawed, and irrelevant.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Consistently inappropriate, methodologically flawed, and irrelevant.
but consistent, which means you can make some comparisons between 2 lenses of the same focal length, if you have any interest in what photozone measures.
my views on the zeiss and voigtlander lenses are based on 100% crops not photozone and are biased by what i would be interested in using a 50/1.4 to shoot (hint: not landscape).
again, do you have any crops to show from the zeiss taken at f/1.4-2 at portrait distance to mfd that show it being sharper than the voigtlander?
sebboh wrote:
but consistent, which means you can make some comparisons between 2 lenses of the same focal length, if you have any interest in what photozone measures.
consistently wrong doesn't mean it still has value, and doesn't mean you can still make valid comparisons. Consistently wrong just means it is always wrong.
Tests shot at a few meters will always favour the lens that performs better at close focus range and we know that is not the strong point of the 50 planar, I do know that at longer distances the planar is fantastic.
sebboh wrote:
that is certainly not the greatest loCA performance, difficult to judge sharpness there. do you have a similar shot from the zeiss? photozone seems pretty consistant in their measurements, they just only test at very near distances. i'm not always sure how they get from their measurements to their conclusions though.
It wasn't intended to judge sharpness, just to show its loCa performance. I did my comparison almost 2 years ago, not sure where that stuff is any more. Anyone who, for whatever misguided reason, thinks the CV58 is better than the ZF, I am happy to sell you mine. Mind you, they are close and the CV is less expensive, so the CV could be seen as the better value.
Maybe I am looking at this question the wrong way, but I see the two as different uses. The Zeiss is a great sharp traditional lens great for nearly any purpose but on the sterile side (said with much love of Zeiss glass). The CV has always struck me as a more impressionistic lens, like the Rokkor 58 or Nikon 35/1.4 AiS (but sharper) or an Oly 85/2.
I would not buy the lenses for the same purpose but instead choose based on use.
Lotusm50 wrote:
It wasn't intended to judge sharpness, just to show its loCa performance. I did my comparison almost 2 years ago, not sure where that stuff is any more. Anyone who, for whatever misguided reason, thinks the CV58 is better than the ZF, I am happy to sell you mine. Mind you, they are close and the CV is less expensive, so the CV could be seen as the better value.
from the pictures i've seen i would say the cv is a better portrait and close up lens, never having used either i could be wrong. i've always been tempted to try out the cv because i like that focal length better as well, but am unwilling to spend more than $100 on any ~50/1.4 lens unless i can tell it will be a noticeable improvement over my smc tak.
sebboh wrote:
but am unwilling to spend more than $100 on any ~50/1.4 lens unless i can tell it will be a noticeable improvement over my smc tak.
I think you'll find that very few 50mm lenses are a "noticeable" improvement over your SMC tak (BTW, I have one of those as well). All 50mm's from reputable manufacturers are really pretty good. It depends on what you're using it for, some 50's might be a little better for some uses (as optimization/design tradeoffs can vary between manufacturers) and some notions of "better" are clearly subjective and go beyond normally measurable parameters.
