james3shin wrote:
Many thanks for the comparison - just validated my decision even further
This CV does look really great. It's definitely a better technical performer than the 21 Lux (which is now somewhat 'old' in design).
As someone who was crazy about 21mm M lenses and at one time owned 4 at the same time (well before this CV reached the market). I'm now down to the 21 Lux and 21 SEM and use the SEM far more often, even in lower light situations. The only two things the SEM can't do is light gathering when you really need it and providing a shallow depth of field look. If you value these two features, then the CV is definitely the lens to get. The fact that the CV is such a great performer in general, means it could effectively be your only 21. The 'elephant' in the room is its size and weight. Given you can use the M10 in live view, it can make up for viewfinder blockage (of course the frame lines don't cover 21, but you can still guesstimate framing pretty well through the OVF). Balance on the camera may be a bit off and not really 'in harmony' with the M system design, but that's a subjective thing. It will also take up a fair amount of camera bag space, which will depend on how much stuff you usually like to bring along.
For some reason size and weight of this 21 does not bother me much. Of course I leave that useless lens hood in the box. Just use a metal wide lens hood on it and it is fine. But I never use OEM hoods anyway. I got my third CV 15 over the years and cut those petals off again. Choppy 3 .
So now both lenses take 62mm. Since petals removed on the 15 I use a 58-62 step up. Hides the cut for one and makes use of my 62 filters
I did something really different on the 15 on the cut which is a dremmel cut I put Shugru in the space between lens and step up and cleans that up nice.
GMPhotography wrote:
For some reason size and weight of this 21 does not bother me much. Of course I leave that useless lens hood in the box. Just use a metal wide lens hood on it and it is fine. But I never use OEM hoods anyway. I got my third CV 15 over the years and cut those petals off again. Choppy 3 .
So now both lenses take 62mm. Since petals removed on the 15 I use a 58-62 step up. Hides the cut for one and makes use of my 62 filters
I did something really different on the 15 on the cut which is a dremmel cut I put Shugru in the space between lens and step up and cleans that up nice. ...Show more →
The VM version's square hood is pretty cool and very compact but I'm not sure if it's sold separately or if it works with the E-mount lens.
expwmbat wrote:
Does the VM with close focus adapter or the E-mount version focus closer?
DJK
The VM's MFD is 0.5m and the E-mount's is 0.25m natively.
The VM + close focus adapter focuses closer than the E-mount when using the full 4mm extension. (need to calculate this)
The E-mount is 80g heavier than the VM mount. (likely because of the de-clicking feature)
When using the Voigtlander M-E adapter, the VM is still 30g lighter than the E.
When using the Voigtlander Close-focus M-E adapter, the VM is 45g heavier than the E.
rscheffler wrote:
This CV does look really great. It's definitely a better technical performer than the 21 Lux (which is now somewhat 'old' in design).
As someone who was crazy about 21mm M lenses and at one time owned 4 at the same time (well before this CV reached the market). I'm now down to the 21 Lux and 21 SEM and use the SEM far more often, even in lower light situations. The only two things the SEM can't do is light gathering when you really need it and providing a shallow depth of field look. If you value these two features, then the CV is definitely the lens to get. The fact that the CV is such a great performer in general, means it could effectively be your only 21. The 'elephant' in the room is its size and weight. Given you can use the M10 in live view, it can make up for viewfinder blockage (of course the frame lines don't cover 21, but you can still guesstimate framing pretty well through the OVF). Balance on the camera may be a bit off and not really 'in harmony' with the M system design, but that's a subjective thing. It will also take up a fair amount of camera bag space, which will depend on how much stuff you usually like to bring along. ...Show more →
Yeah I'm a little worried about not having 21mm frame lines. I'm going to give the Visoflex another spin. I didn't particularly enjoy using it previously but I did like being able to flip the visoflex and get low to the ground without having to lay prone.
james3shin wrote:
Yeah I'm a little worried about not having 21mm frame lines. I'm going to give the Visoflex another spin. I didn't particularly enjoy using it previously but I did like being able to flip the visoflex and get low to the ground without having to lay prone.
I also have a preference for compact lenses on the Leica and the Voigtlander 21/1.4 Nokton is on the big/heavy side. No question it's a marvelous lens but you have to ask yourself if you would be dragging it around. The Visoflex is another bulkiness addition if you want precise framing. I much prefer using a compact OVF viewfinder and focus using the rangefinder patch but find myself using the CV 21/3.5 more than the f/1.4.
james3shin wrote:
Quick question: is the M-mount version 6-bit coded by chance?
I don’t see any coding on my 21/1.4. Here’s a site, though, that will show you how to code it. Apparently, the newer VM glass has a groove on the mount which can be used for this purpose. (I see that on my 75/1.5 also.)
imoretti wrote:
I don’t see any coding on my 21/1.4. Here’s a site, though, that will show you how to code it. Apparently, the newer VM glass has a groove on the mount which can be used for this purpose. (I see that on my 75/1.5 also.)
Keep in mind, however, the 6-bit codes are only for Leica M mount lenses. There is not code for the Voigtlander lenses. You could use the code for a similar Leica M lens, but the extent that they are different in distortion and vignetting (or anything else in the code, correction of color fringing on the edges, CA, etc.) then the code will be correcting for the wrong lens and potentially messing up the image. Often you would be better using a profile for the Voigtlander lens that either you make yourself or that is provided by the software manufacturer.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Keep in mind, however, the 6-bit codes are only for Leica M mount lenses. There is not code for the Voigtlander lenses. You could use the code for a similar Leica M lens, but the extent that they are different in distortion and vignetting (or anything else in the code, correction of color fringing on the edges, CA, etc.) then the code will be correcting for the wrong lens and potentially messing up the image. Often you would be better using a profile for the Voigtlander lens that either you make yourself or that is provided by the software manufacturer....Show more →
Ah duly noted. I do see that Adobe added the e-mount version of the 21mm to Lightroom. I'd hope they would add the M-mount soon enough.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Keep in mind, however, the 6-bit codes are only for Leica M mount lenses. There is not code for the Voigtlander lenses. You could use the code for a similar Leica M lens, but the extent that they are different in distortion and vignetting (or anything else in the code, correction of color fringing on the edges, CA, etc.) then the code will be correcting for the wrong lens and potentially messing up the image. Often you would be better using a profile for the Voigtlander lens that either you make yourself or that is provided by the software manufacturer....Show more →
Are 6-bit adjustments cooked into DNG files or a JPEG correction only?
Just like with a Sony body, I much prefer turning these adjustments OFF and deal with lens corrections in post.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Are 6-bit adjustments cooked into DNG files or a JPEG correction only?
Just like with a Sony body, I much prefer turning these adjustments OFF and deal with lens corrections in post.
If you have lens detection activated then the image will be corrected for vignetting and color drift in camera, so if you don't want this then turn off lens detection. There are no other corrections performed in-camera as far as I know.
joakim wrote:
If you have lens detection activated then the image will be corrected for vignetting and color drift in camera, so if you don't want this then turn off lens detection. There are no other corrections performed in-camera as far as I know.
DNG or only JPEG?
Jun 24, 2020 at 01:33 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
joakim wrote:
If you have lens detection activated then the image will be corrected for vignetting and color drift in camera, so if you don't want this then turn off lens detection. There are no other corrections performed in-camera as far as I know.
I thought distortion was adjusted in camera as well, but perhaps I am wrong? And I am pretty sure they are baked into the DNG files, but again I could be wrong. My experience is the codes work pretty well for the Leica M lenses they were designed for (and I don't mind them for those lenses, although having not correction and applying it in post would be fine with me too), but I wouldn't want to use them for a Voigtlander lens when the correction was designed for a Leica lens.
