millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.30 #9 · Sony (APS-C) Images Thread | |
There certainly can be a lot of sample variation with voigtlander lenses. On Sean Reid's site he obtained 3 extra copies of the 21 and I think the 25 as well, and they all varied across the board which corners where soft. Best sample he found had 3 out of 4 sharp and I think the soft corner was an upper one so if its sky, probably not a big deal.
I've only tried one of the CV 25, the newer m-mount and found it pretty bad in all the corners and it didn't improve stopped down either, as such, I went for the Zeiss 25 which was pretty night and day better (as it should be given it cost twice as much)
The Zeiss just has a lot less color shifts as well, about half as much of the frame as your samples show.
Of the 21 and 25, the 21 is certainly the better lens as far as he CV line goes.
Not a bad NEX lens I agree, if one can get around the color shifts, but I didn't see much smearing which is good. Smearing can't be corrected, color shifts can after all.
I didn't have as good of results with my copy of the VC 28 skopar either as I found that it had a bit of smearing, but not much in the way of color shifts. It was great on my M8 though and pretty good on the M9, though a little softer in the corners wide open. Then again its not a 28 Elmarit ASPH in terms of performance, nor price. It was a much better lens than the newer 28 Ultron which just has poor corner performance all at fstops, has some focus shift with a rangefinder and is just a bit too big/heavy for my liking.
You might want to give a second try to the Sony wide angle convertor though, might have some sample variation as well. I've found it to be surprisingly sharp, and have read some even claim its better than the 16mm on its own, which is saying something as I find the 16 not bad at all.
Its just such serious bang for the buck that its hard to recommend anything else, as for $114 you've got a 18mm equiv f2.8 lens that can AF, is small and light, and optically as good as my 12CV was (I had the newer m-mount version btw)
If the 12mm was a better performer I could overlook the cost, but for the images it produces and issues it has, not to mention its size and weight, I can't see it being worth 7x the price of the Sony converter.
It does however look really cool on the camera, as does the 15
Given most RF users seem to be getting rid of the non coupled versions of the 12 and the 15, there could be some decent deals out there, and maybe for $500 it could be worth considering but then again, going from Sean Reid's review, the newer m-mounts are sharper, so a non coupled CV12 still might not really be the smartest buy for even $500.
I think the bottom line though when it comes to any discussion or even images posted from CV glass is that you've really got to try it yourself though, as everyone is going to get different results because these lens can just vary so much.
Zeiss and Leica are pretty good across the board (at least all copies I've had) and if it works for one, it should work well for another.
I would be curious to see more about how the Zeiss 21 f2.8 or the f4.5 versions work on NEX though.
I know on the M9 the f4.5 version is said to have some pretty bad color shift issues, so I wouldn't have high hope on the NEX sensor but the f2.8 version could be decent.
uhoh7 wrote:
well millsart has direct experience and knows what he's talking about....
But I have to say, while I have not got good profiles yet for cornerfix, the CV 21 is a mainstay for me.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5148/5574696406_2fc3fb8e51_b.jpg
I have not pixel peeped it, but it seems reasonably sharp
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5054/5572396366_f257e347b6_b.jpg
I think he's right about the 16--which is why I would not consider the cv 15, but the 12 is another matter.
Do a search on flickr "nex 12mm" and you will see a bunch of excellent shots, besides the normal "test shots". The lens is obviously not ziess sharp, but certainly not so soft you really notice it.
Now perhaps the wide adapter for the 16 would get you the same or better results, but since the EFL of the 16 is 24mm, something wider is awfully nice.
I bought a sigma alpha mount 8-16, which shoots very well on the nex, but you can't carry it.
over at DP, John Bean in the UK is shooting very well with his 25 also---his shots certainly do not "look" soft.
I can say the the CV 28 f/3.5 is plenty sharp (shocked me), though still of course shifts color.
There is sharp, and there is SUPER sharp, like the 45 contax zeiss, or the cv 50 1.5. Only a few lenses really hit that standard below 28mm....Show more →
|
with a few exceptions I was too slow for. This might be a better investment.
).