I was also giving a slight nod to the CV 65 (for landscapes) for broader depth of field at the same aperture (for those that don't focus stack like me), I think it gives you about a stop advantage. Also I would imagine it has better sunstars, although I haven't tested.
I I didn't mean to apply that there was a huge difference in application. The macro capability of the CV is nice.
But I've sort have become enamored with the Sigma at wider apertures. And I often second guess taking the CV along due to its weight.
Fred Miranda wrote: tsdevine wrote:
The light was changeable, but it's snowing today and I had to work with what I was given. I tried to shoot in the windows where the lighting was stable. The EXIF is intact, you can verify the aperture. Shutter speed worked out to be the same between each lens (different though in the different framings.) The CV vignettes more.
Not sure it makes sense to stop the lens down to try to make the depth of field more equal. It seems to be apples to oranges to me.
For landscape sharpness, I think the CV wins. But for bokeh and rendering, I like the Sigma.
Petegh wrote: tsdevine wrote:
Yes, you can definitely see he expanded depth of field. Notice that on the 50 APO too.
philip_pj wrote:
Thx, Tim. One of the things I absolutely love about the mid FL Voigtlander APOs is the extended DOF wide open, the smooth context front to back. And the highlight sparkle. And the tonal separation. And the resulting image depth conveyed.
I'm having a hard time believing those were both shot at the same aperture: the Voigt looks like it has an extra stop of depth-of-field! I spose there might have been a slight change in light between shots, so you can't really use the shutter speed as a guide to the lenses' real T-stop; that said, did they have the same shutter speed Tim?
The Sigma has the smoother bokeh, but how much of that is due to the extra defocus? It might be worth stopping down the Sigma a bit Tim until we get equivalent depth of field - would make the comparison more apples-to-apples.
Overall though, to be able to trade blows with a reference lens like the Voit 65, the Sigma 65 does very, very well here.
At the very least, this comparison is a stark reminder of how real-world depth-of-field can vary between lenses: perhaps great rendering requires some sacrifice in depth-of-field?
At wide apertures, my copy of the 65/2 DG DN is definitely not as sharp as the CV 65/2 APO off-axis but I would not be surprised if they performed similarly at center.
The extreme edges need some stopping down to be excellent while the CV is already there at f/2 and f/2.8. For landscapes at f/4 and smaller, I don't think they would be too different at infinity.
So, I'd say both are great for landscapes but for everything else, it will depend if you prefer the option of 1:2 macro with visually no axial CA or AF with better rendering in a more compact and lighter lens.
Feb 07, 2021 at 02:31 PM
Previous versions of tsdevine's message #15493856 « Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses »
