Steve Spencer wrote:
The Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 is still in the running, however, but as odd as it may seem I think the like the bokeh from the lux pre-asph better than the Voigtlander. As the pre-asph stops down it seems to have very nice bokeh and I am not overly offended by the funky bokeh wide open. The Voigt on the other hand has nice bokeh at times, but exactly the kind of bokeh I don\'t like at others, so I am torn. I got a long time to decide, however. I probably won\'t pick up a 35 for the A7 until I am sure I want to keep it, and for me that means about a year after I get it. Steve Spencer wrote:
it doesn\'t look like the loxia 35 f/2 will be a solution for me either. At this point I think I am most likely to get a 35 lux pre-asph for something small and keep the ZE when I want to shoot wide open with good bokeh. The Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 is still in the running, however, but as odd as it may seem I think the like the bokeh from the lux pre-asph better than the Voigtlander.
Hi there, sorry to jump in mid-conversation. I\'ve been on a mini personal quest to determine whether my dislike of the Voigtlander 35/1.2 is justified (and finding very little agreement from others). I have the CY D35, Leica R Lux 35, and an ASPH pre-FLE 35. All these have much more pleasing and gentle rendition than the CV.
I used 3 copies of the CV on my A7R. While the resolution and ergonomics were quite good (not too light like Leica M\'s, no need to focus with my knuckle/finger tip), I simply couldn\'t get along with the image. It seemed to lack microcontrast, have too much macrocontrast, and often yield bizarre brassy chemical colors. The somewhat stronger vignetting (than the Contax and Lux R) also adds an unnecessary sense of drama. The signature is unmistakably contemporary, which I dislike.
Here\'s a photo to illustrate what I mean by bizarre colors. This was shot RAW, AWB, and processed in Lightroom using the Medium Contrast Profile and nothing more. No amount of adjustment would fix it. Granted the vintage 35\'s also can get tripped up by challenging light, but this wasn\'t particularly challenging, and the result is one of the worst I\'ve ever seen from any lens.
If I decrease saturation, the image simply looks hollow and untrue, and as is it is exaggerated and untrue. So for me the CV very often (in my case, almost always) manages to come up with images that are paradoxically both hyperbolic and lacking.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 is still in the running, however, but as odd as it may seem I think the like the bokeh from the lux pre-asph better than the Voigtlander. As the pre-asph stops down it seems to have very nice bokeh and I am not overly offended by the funky bokeh wide open. The Voigt on the other hand has nice bokeh at times, but exactly the kind of bokeh I don\'t like at others, so I am torn. I got a long time to decide, however. I probably won\'t pick up a 35 for the A7 until I am sure I want to keep it, and for me that means about a year after I get it. Steve Spencer wrote:
it doesn\'t look like the loxia 35 f/2 will be a solution for me either. At this point I think I am most likely to get a 35 lux pre-asph for something small and keep the ZE when I want to shoot wide open with good bokeh. The Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 is still in the running, however, but as odd as it may seem I think the like the bokeh from the lux pre-asph better than the Voigtlander.
Hi there, sorry to jump in mid-conversation. I\'ve been on a mini personal quest to determine whether my dislike of the Voigtlander 35/1.2 is justified (and finding very little agreement from others). I have the CY D35, Leica R Lux 35, and an ASPH pre-FLE 35. All these have much more pleasing and gentle rendition than the CV.
I used 3 copies of the CV on my A7R. While the resolution and ergonomics were quite good (not too light like Leica M\'s, no need to focus with my knuckle/finger tip), I simply couldn\'t get along with the image. It seemed to lack microcontrast, have too much macrocontrast, and often yield bizarre brassy chemical colors. The somewhat stronger vignetting (than the Contax and Lux R) also adds an unnecessary sense of drama. The signature is unmistakably contemporary, which I dislike.
Here\'s a photo to illustrate what I mean by bizarre colors. This was shot RAW, AWB, and processed in Lightroom using the Medium Contrast Profile and nothing more. No amount of adjustment would fix it. Granted the vintage 35\'s also can get tripped up by challenging light, but this wasn\'t particularly challenging, and the result is one of the worst I\'ve ever seen from any lens.
Sep 04, 2014 at 09:48 AM
Previous versions of aly324's message #12558076 « The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread »
