Slight aside, any CV enthusiasts on this thread try the new 35/2? Hard to find any info...this new 21/3.5 and 21/1.4 look great, and I have the 35 1.7. Looking for crops and impressions
In addition to flatter field curvature, one thing that may yet tempt me to try this in place of my Loxia is the fact that (apparently) you get focal distance read out in-camera, which is an unfortunate omission with the Loxias.
Can someone please confirm that is the case, and also if so, whether it is however rather coarse (e.g. skipping from 1m to 2m) as has been the case with other lenses I have tried that offered this (Batis 18 and Sony zooms). Still, might be helpful for quicker focus stacks in low light.
How does the CV 21 do at close distances? I know the 40 struggled a bit. Starting to think about replacing the Loxia 25 for a bit more character, but I really like the Lox’s close up rendering.
Mathieu18 wrote:
How does the CV 21 do at close distances? I know the 40 struggled a bit. Starting to think about replacing the Loxia 25 for a bit more character, but I really like the Lox’s close up rendering.
Excellent performance at MFD thanks to its floating element system. (Something the 40/1.2 lacks)
I could see it. I never compared them closely before though I’ve owned both but the CV 40 is right there with the stopped down Loxia 35, which got me wondering. Only part holding me back is I don’t really care to go as wide as 21 though it doesn’t bug me either, and I like a smaller gap than 2x. With the 40 being a little g 40... guess I want the CV 28 like Fred and others.
rps_23 wrote:
I doubt you'd regret the swap.
Personally, I feel like the Voigtlander takes all the good stuff that the Lox 25 gives you, and gives you more.
Aztatlan wrote:
How’s the focus breathing on this compare to the Loxia?
I'm interested to hear about the focus breathing too. If it breathes less, then combined with (approximate) in-camera focus distance readout and flatter field curvature, it may be a worthwhile changeover for me after all because those things all make focus stacking easier.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Excellent performance at MFD thanks to its floating element system. (Something the 40/1.2 lacks)
I had to double check, and you’re of course right, the Voigtländer 21/1.4 does indeed have a floating element design. Good catch Fred, you’re eroding my will power as well.
/dream on
Now, if Cosina makes a Nokton 75/1.5 FE version of their M-lens and a 28/1.4 with floating elements, we could have
Voigtländer 21/1.4, 28/1.4, 40/1.2, 50/1.2 and 75/1.5
/dream off
These lenses aren’t overly heavy, so they are realistic to carry.
rvh23 wrote:
I'm interested to hear about the focus breathing too. If it breathes less, then combined with (approximate) in-camera focus distance readout and flatter field curvature, it may be a worthwhile changeover for me after all because those things all make focus stacking easier.
The Loxia does breathe quite a bit, although I have not found it too troublesome for focus stacking (usually in Zerene.) But less is always better! I don't think I'd use the digital scale though, far too imprecise to rely on for focus stacking IMO.
Aztatlan wrote:
I don't think I'd use the digital scale though, far too imprecise to rely on for focus stacking IMO.
Yes, but you can improve accuracy quite a lot by looking at how many increments the distance-slider 'rectangle' moves at each indicated distance. E.g. on my CV12, there are about 5 or 6 slider steps in the "2m" range. Not as nice as having an actual number, but workable at a pinch.
Where I really appreciate in-camera distance readings is when I have the camera positioned in places where seeing the lens is difficult or precarious.
Does anyone know whether this coarseness of the distance readings is due to lens or camera limitations?
rvh23 wrote:
Yes, but you can improve accuracy quite a lot by looking at how many increments the distance-slider 'rectangle' moves at each indicated distance. E.g. on my CV12, there are about 5 or 6 slider steps in the "2m" range. Not as nice as having an actual number, but workable at a pinch.
Where I really appreciate in-camera distance readings is when I have the camera positioned in places where seeing the lens is difficult or precarious.
Does anyone know whether this coarseness of the distance readings is due to lens or camera limitations?
For me, steps like you describe are perhaps a necessary evil when using FBW lenses (which is why I try and avoid them for landscape) but for a lens with a mechanical distance scale I’ll take that any day. Yeah sometimes it can be hard to read the scale (light or precarious positioning) but I’ve always made do. That’s also why I like hard stops, ideally if it’s calibrated accurately you can always nail infinity and then just blindly bracket the rest of the shots to get close enough.
I’d love a digital distance scale that was actually precise and repeatable but sadly that doesn’t seem likely on Sony.
Finally im now set up back at home and can get to some images. I got the lens about 3 weeks ago but too busy with a show to really post anything. Right out of the gate , im in love
