k-h.a.w wrote: Luvwine wrote:
Choppy seems to have higher contrast--more Zeiss like than I would have expected from CV. Too bad there is not more detail in the upper left and right corners as I sometimes wonder about field curvature/depth of field and plane of focus when comparing near ground corners. Still, it does look like there is likely a bit more detail (not just contrast) in the extreme corners on choppy. Would like to see something like this comparison at infinity. The tests on the kolari mod do indicate a slight improvement in corner sharpness over a stock A7r2, so does not surprise me to see choppy win in the extreme corner especially given that it is a prime lens.
Thanks Luvwine. As far as I can tell at this moment, Choppy has the following advantages over my WATE:
* Higher contrast, micro- contrast across the entire image, sharper detail.
* Quite useable corners, (even at f/4.5) and particularly at f/5.6. WATE best be used at f/8.
* Significantly smaller geometrical distortion than the large mustache distortion of the WATE at 16-21mm.
* A factor of 6x lower new purchase price.
If others can add to this list, please be my guest, including advantages of the WATE.
Thanks again, K-H.
Hi KH,
Of course the WATE offers 3 focal lengths and everything in between. The WATE offers the Leica look while the CV 15III may show more the Zeiss look.
By the way for the WATE have you tested the lens on a Kolari Modified A7 series camera to see if the corners will hold up at f5.6?
Also, have you used the LR adjustments for the WATE profiles for the different focal lenghts to see if there is an improvement in the moustache distortion at different focal lengths? I have never used my for architectural subject matter at this point, only for nature.
Thanks.
Rich
May 15, 2016 at 03:26 PM
Previous versions of naturephoto1's message #13561107 « Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount »
