Malabito
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Voigtlander 28mm f/1.5 Nokton Review | |
LeicaHermesBP wrote:
RustyRus wrote:
LeicaHermesBP wrote:
RustyBug wrote:
If the ISO was the same (640), the shutter speed was the same (1/60) and the aperture was the same (although reported as different in exif) f/1.4 ... then, there's nothing to really be "tricked" that I can think of.
This kind of behavior in falloff is the exact thing I was referencing in my post above (p.8 #7), wrt to Voigtlander's signature characteristic vignetting being more pronounced (i.e. the smaller size of the lens than the Lux), such that the rated f/1.4 is limited to a very small, central portion of the scene. Therein lies some of the difference that seems (would like to see the blank wall, more shots, etc. to confirm transmission variance) to be a greater margin of difference than many of the other attributes in the Nokton vs. Lux comps.
Thanks for reply. The reported aperture for CV was 2.0 as I used the 28 Summicron profile in LR, although that application did not play any role in the darker image.
If this less light transmission is inherent in this lens, the consequence is that a CV 28mm Nokton user needs to increase the brightness or shadow significantly more than a Leica 28mm Lux counterpart. As for my above examples, both images were already adjusted '+0.85' for brightness. And still, in order to match the Lux, I've to up the brightness of the CV to '+1.60', which introduced more noise as a consequence.
I understand this may affect cameras with lesser ISO capabilities (think M8, M9, or even M240 to some extent), while M10 and above users may not find this an issue.
However, pound for pound, the CV is like 1/8th of the 28 Lux price, which, to many, is a no-brainer. Think about this, how many times will we shoot in poor backlit situations (as above)? And if we understand the limitations of the CV, the user can simply increase the exposure during shooting in order to avoid pushing the brightness and shadows in post-processing.
Umm- Correct me if I am wrong here-
The images should be darker- 12-20% darker. The difference between 1.4 and 1.5 is 12-20% or something like that. Not ready for math but we should see a noticeable difference in light between lenses at different apertures. There is a reason its an f 1.5 lens vs a 1.4
Hi, thanks for the insight wrt the 1.4 vs 1.5 difference. Perhaps it does play a role. But when I started this Leica vs CV thingy, was because of my experience with the 50 APO Lanthar vs Leica 50 APO. I had both lenses before, and shot side by side, the APO Lanthar was showing darker images in every scene, and even YouTube reviewers can confirm this. And in this case, it is f2 vs f2, so I hope you all get what I am trying to mean. Is the F2 transmission in the APO Lanthar really F2? Not forgetting that lens is bigger than the Leica version.
So my starting point for comparing Leica and CV is to find out whether is this phenomenon also present in the CV 28 Nokton? Before I tested I told myself even if CV 28 Nokton is really darker than Leica counterpart, the 1/8 price and the weight savings is definitely worth it. I am sure we all will not have sleepless night over this small issue. 
Light transmission is not measured in fstops, it's measured in tstops, even though in photography fstops is used for both, (this just to make things easier), is not really the same.
In video is important given you film scenes with different lenses, therefore tstops are important. In photography given the high iso capabilities of cameras and current dynamic range tstops are irrelevant and don't make a lens better or worst. So no just cause a lens has a tstop closer to its fstop measurement doesn't mean it's better. Pushing the exposure .5 ev to match exposures don't really make a difference.
|
