rscheffler wrote:
I would not trade the 50 Lux for the Voigtlander 50/1.2 primarily for the reason of size. Image quality difference seems to be minimal between the two, in respect to overall sharpness.
do you mean viewfinder blockage? i'm pretty sure the lux asph will stick out roughly 1cm more from the camera, but block less due to being thinner (should double check that, i've handled both but not next to each other). the difference between tabbed and untabbed is a big one for rangefinder use too.
image quality aside the lux has a different look wide open, which i prefer in most situations.
rscheffler wrote:
I would need to test other copies to determine whether or not mine is worse in the mid-zone area.
I would not trade the 50 Lux for the Voigtlander 50/1.2 primarily for the reason of size. Image quality difference seems to be minimal between the two, in respect to overall sharpness. The Lux will have some advantage in respect to lack of purple fringing at wider apertures in high contrast transition areas. The 50/1.2 will have nicer bokeh rendering of specular OOF highlights in the f/2.5-5.6 range (where the Lux has a 'ninja star' shape to the aperture opening).
But my reasoning above is as a Leica user, not a Leica and Sony user. It could be that the 50/1.2 transitions between the two systems somewhat better than the 50 Lux ASPH, in respect to image degradation caused by the Sony sensor stack. That, however, also depends on what you primarily shoot and how critical across-frame performance is for you....Show more →
The Leica also have a floating element which translates to better MFD performance.
rscheffler wrote:
I would not trade the 50 Lux for the Voigtlander 50/1.2 primarily for the reason of size. Image quality difference seems to be minimal between the two, in respect to overall sharpness.
sebboh wrote:
do you mean viewfinder blockage? i'm pretty sure the lux asph will stick out roughly 1cm more from the camera, but block less due to being thinner (should double check that, i've handled both but not next to each other). the difference between tabbed and untabbed is a big one for rangefinder use too.
image quality aside the lux has a different look wide open, which i prefer in most situations.
I agree the Lux has a great look wide open that is a bit different from the recent Voigtlander lenses. Regarding size, the specs for the Lux are about 53x53mm long and diameter. The 50/1.2 is 49mm long and 63mm diameter. I'm guessing there will be more blockage from the 1.2 and will also depend on what kind of hood is used, if any. But from photos I've seen of it on M bodies, it just looks really beefy compared to the Lux. Add the LH-10 hood and it should look a fair amount larger. Both apparently are about the same weight.
Yes, good point about the focusing tab, of which I'm a fan. Forgot about that one.
Once again, for the money, the Voigtlander option is very, very compelling. I don't think it's really giving up much technical performance to the Lux.
---------------------------------------------
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Leica also have a floating element which translates to better MFD performance.
True. I think it's a factor that makes it a bit more fussy to adapt to Sony if the adapter thickness is off. At MFD I have never found the Lux ASPH to be an amazing lens, in respect to outright sharpness and contrast, at least not wide open. IMO it softens a bit due to SA, but is a nice look .
Spent some time checking out the Voigtlander 50 F1.2 w/ LH-8 hood out on the street on both A9/A7r3 and M10 and comparing to the Lux 50 ASPH. Still going through many images. Some initial thoughts:
The Voigt can be very sharp at 1.2. I like this since I'm the type that if I pay for fast I want to use the lens wide open. See eye lash test images attached.
Voigt 50 1.2 feels good and looks nice on the A9/A7r3. Good combo IMO. Surprisingly I was getting about 70-80% AF hit rate using the TAP adapter for both the Voigt and the Lux. No sure if recent camera firmware updates has anything to do with these Tap results. Not sure but I'll take it!
I was once again reminded, not really much difference between 1.2 and 1.4
Couple of right eye lash test images. (Top) Voigt 50 F1.2 @ 1.2 vs (Bottom) Lux 50 ASPH @ 1.4 Used Eye AF w/ TAP adapter on the A7r3. Both images adjusted for Fluorescent WB otherwise SOOC
Received mine this morning, loving the colours (very similar to Leica Summilux), the lack of heavy vingeting is nice. But the sharpness and contrast wide open is awesome!
The aperture ring is also better than the 40mm.
Voigtlander are really upping their game it seems.
On a side note, the focal length seems quite different to the Lux.
SharpContrast wrote:
Received mine this morning, loving the colours (very similar to Leica Summilux), the lack of heavy vingeting is nice. But the sharpness and contrast wide open is awesome!
The aperture ring is also better than the 40mm.
Voigtlander are really upping their game it seems.
On a side note, the focal length seems quite different to the Lux.
From the interpretation of the diagrams, it looks like that Cron IV & V are pretty much comparable with LOX. CRON asph should be much better. About colors... this i do not know, but it looks like Classic Cron and Lox should be pretty much the same. With the advantage of being native for LOX.
For landscape, definitely LOX looks amazing, even more from your comparison.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hanay,
Strictly for landscapes, it's hard to beat the Loxia 50/2. It's lighter, native and outstanding across the field starting at f/5.6.
Both 40/1.2 and 50/1.2 Noktons can definitely be used for landscapes at f/5.6 or f/8 but the corners do not match the Loxia even at small apertures.
Here is a comparison between the Loxia 50/2 vs 50/1.2 Nokton (Both at f/8)...The lighting is different since these images were not captured on the same day.
Oh man I want this lens so bad (black preferably). Good thing I didn't rush into buying the FE 40mm Nokton after I sold my VM version, as 50mm such much more my focal length I love to use. The 40mm was nice, but it seemed always a bit like a compromise to me. And now I've been missing the look I could get with the Nokton, as my Zeiss 55 is such a boring lens in comparison. For me, this is the ultimate 50mm. And a perfect pair for the upcoming 110mm (and 21mm).
And they are getting feedback at PK about whether to make it match the previous E mount lenses, or have a "classic" look i.e. match the M mount version.
Odd. Why would they not want their E mount lenses to look similar? I actually prefer the classic look with the chrome ring myself, but uniformity makes sense (and the chrome ring sometimes requires you to use a filter or a lens hood to avoid the possibility of reflections off it)
Fred Miranda wrote:
The main reason to stay black imo. I wonder if the corners will look even better on the E-mount version.
In the unlikely event that anyone's confused by my post, which seemed to suggest that you shoot through a lens cap (like I was always doing in the days of true rangefinders) I of course mean hood...
Couple shots stopping at Joshua Tree National Park. My wife and her right hand girl wanted to see the park. Group is at F4 the rest wide open. I have more just got in the house. Just some fun shooting
