rvh23 wrote:
The Laowa's size is fine with me .However, I have evaluated it quite extensively (4 copies) and I find at 42mp it doesn't reach the corner IQ I want (both sharpness at wider apertures and coma) . So for now at least I carry the Sigma 14/1.8 despite its size, but would love to see something smaller in the future if it can get close to the Sigma's performance. I'm not sure we can ever expect a Loxia 15 at 2.8, but maybe CV is the alternative.
If you went through 4 copies of the Lawoa 15mm f2 I'm not even sure what to say about that. I had 3 different copies at different times and did not see alot of variation personally. But I don't concern myself much about 200% crops at extreme corners either. I try to keep things fairly simple. Sigma i'm sure is great but not even an option for me, waay to big. 99 % of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two images anyway. But hey, that is what's great about photography. Different people can like different things and it's all good
kdrk888 wrote:
Thanks Fred! Hmmm... I was ready to put the Loxia on the B&S board but this comparison may have changed my mind. I saw a bit of ring flare from both the CV and the GM in the second set too.
Keep in mind that although the Loxia 21/2.8 has great flare resistance, it's not immune to ghosting or veiling. It really depends on the angle and intensity of the light.
The Loxia 21/2.8's sunstar also gets very elongated after f/5.6 compared to lenses with 12 blades like the new Voigtlander. (I've noticed this when comparing the 40/1.2 vs 50/1.2 E-mount as well)
Here are 3 samples where the Loxia didn't do so great:
Fred Miranda wrote:
Keep in mind that although the Loxia 21/2.8 has great flare resistance, it's not immune to ghosting or veiling. It really depends on the angle and intensity of the light.
The Loxia 21/2.8's sunstar also gets very elongated after f/5.6 compared to lenses with 12 blades like the new Voigtlander. (I've noticed this when comparing the 40/1.2 vs 50/1.2 E-mount as well)
Here are 3 samples where the Loxia didn't do so great:
Thanks Fred for the effort. I guess it really depends on the angle like you said. I saw ring flare in one of the Loxia shots this time.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
If you went through 4 copies of the Lawoa 15mm f2 I'm not even sure what to say about that. I had 3 different copies at different times and did not see alot of variation personally. But I don't concern myself much about 200% crops at extreme corners either. I try to keep things fairly simple. Sigma i'm sure is great but not even an option for me, waay to big. 99 % of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two images anyway. But hey, that is what's great about photography. Different people can like different things and it's all good...Show more →
Not wanting to distract from the CV thread, but I agree, generally I've found the Laowa pretty consistent and only one of the 4 copies I tried performed noticeably worse as it was decentered. My reason for testing multiple copies was that I kept reading about how great people thought the Laowa was, even equal to the Loxia 21 according to some. However, I didn't see that in my own tests, so I checked multiple copies to see if maybe copy variation was the problem - but as you also found, it wasn't.
Although I am more critical than most wrt corner performance, you don't need 200% to see the difference between the Laowa and the Sigma (or Loxia) in the corners if you are shooting at 42mp. See my posts here for example. I am not saying the Laowa is a bad lens at all - for many (most?) applications it's great. But, I don't set my criterion according to what 99% of people can or cannot see - I set it according to what I see.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Keep in mind that although the Loxia 21/2.8 has great flare resistance, it's not immune to ghosting or veiling. It really depends on the angle and intensity of the light.
The Loxia 21/2.8's sunstar also gets very elongated after f/5.6 compared to lenses with 12 blades like the new Voigtlander. (I've noticed this when comparing the 40/1.2 vs 50/1.2 E-mount as well)
Here are 3 samples where the Loxia didn't do so great:
I've seen my Loxia 21 produce longer arms than I want on very rare occasions too, so if the CV doesn't do that it's a plus. But overall, what is your assessment wrt flare resistance comparing the two? Is the CV as good as the Loxia? If so, there seems to be little reason for you to keep the Loxia if you want the faster aperture.
rvh23 wrote:
I've seen my Loxia 21 produce longer arms than I want on very rare occasions too, so if the CV doesn't do that it's a plus. But overall, what is your assessment wrt flare resistance comparing the two? Is the CV as good as the Loxia? If so, there seems to be little reason for you to keep the Loxia if you want the faster aperture.
My assessment checking at least dozen side by side comparisons between them is that the Loxia produces slightly less ghosting. In a few situations the Voigtlander did better or equal but the bottomline it that both lenses are flare resistant and keep a very high level of contrast in backlit situations. Ghosting may need to be cloned in post for both lenses.
The reason to choose the Loxia is size and weight (45% lighter) but the Voigtlander is more versatile in low light and not much bigger.
Ergonomics is subjective but I prefer the aperture ring in the front instead of near the mount and the de-clicking feature is much easier to operate on the Voigtlander.
My thoughts from the excellent examples Fred has provided is that for landscape where I stop down to F5.6 or smaller, the Loxia seems to perform as well as the CV and has slightly better flare resistance. It also has 10 pointed sun stars which I like marginally better than 12. The length of the stars can be adjusted by changing apertures in the rare occasion where they are so large as to be obtrusive. In sum, for the landscape shooter to me there is little reason to change from Loxia.
Having said the above, where the CV is intriguing is in the lower light advantages--especially given the lack of FC. I can see really liking having more light in say a cathedral interior where I cannot use a tripod and the light is not ideal. Close up use and good bokeh is interesting, but hardly my normal use case for an ultrawide. I keep hoping for a 28mm where the fast speed and close up abilities would be more appreciated (by me) but perhaps I am being closed minded about the additional creative options for a 21mm fast lens.
I own a good copy of the Loxia 21 and am happy with its results for my primary use case (landscape). Thus, I am unlikely to be an early adopter of this new CV. I also don't like the oddball filter size of the CV. Still, I may succumb at some point for travel or otherwise as it seems like a very fine lens.
I am still unable to decide whether to take the CV or the Sony 24.
Pros for the Sony:
- Only very light vignetting compared to the CV
- Great sharpness across the frame @ 1.4 (In my opinion fully usable for landscapes and a very big plus)
- probably smoother bokeh?
Cons for the GM:
- overall sharpness is worse (but not by much)
- no sunstars at lower apertures
Pros for the CV:
- Sharpness in the Center @ 1.4
- beautiful sunstars (compared to the GM)
- Surpasses the GM in overall sharpness from F/4.0 onwards
- probably better built quality and feeling
Cons for the CV:
- corners don't match the GM from F/1.4 - F/2.8
- really heavy vignetting
- don't know much about the bokeh - is it good?
The question is, if I will ever need sharp corners @ 1.4? With landscapes it is probably always possible to go at least to F/2.8 where both lenses are equally sharp (CV sharper in the center).
If I look at the pictures from Fred, I find, that the CV has a real "bite" to it in terms of sharpness. Like, the GM is already really sharp but the CV is just crazy sharp!?
Not possible with my current budget
What's nice about 21mm focal length is, that it probably pairs really well with a 28 1.4
Maybe, the next CV or Sony lens will be 28 1.4.
ratherSoftEdge wrote:
I am still unable to decide whether to take the CV or the Sony 24.
Pros for the Sony:
- Only very light vignetting compared to the CV
- Great sharpness across the frame @ 1.4 (In my opinion fully usable for landscapes and a very big plus)
- probably smoother bokeh?
Cons for the GM:
- overall sharpness is worse (but not by much)
- no sunstars at lower apertures
Pros for the CV:
- Sharpness in the Center @ 1.4
- beautiful sunstars (compared to the GM)
- Surpasses the GM in overall sharpness from F/4.0 onwards
- probably better built quality and feeling
Cons for the CV:
- corners don't match the GM from F/1.4 - F/2.8
- really heavy vignetting
- don't know much about the bokeh - is it good?
The question is, if I will ever need sharp corners @ 1.4? With landscapes it is probably always possible to go at least to F/2.8 where both lenses are equally sharp (CV sharper in the center).
If I look at the pictures from Fred, I find, that the CV has a real "bite" to it in terms of sharpness. Like, the GM is already really sharp but the CV is just crazy sharp!?
Nobody can make this decision for you.
A bigger impact on your images will have 4 factors not accounted for, here: 1. difference in FOV, as the 21 is definitely wider than 24 2. microcontrast (and color rendering) on the Voigtlander is better 3. AF vs MF, for YOUR application. 4. weather sealing- that only counts if you are really shooting in the rain / snow / sand and have a compatible, weather sealed body.
There is another one, if you are doing video or focus stacking, which is quite important for me. Focus breathing. And I would really like to see how the 2 lenses compare in regards to focus breathing - but I haven't seen that, in any review, so far.
ratherSoftEdge wrote:
I am still unable to decide whether to take the CV or the Sony 24.
Pros for the Sony:
- Only very light vignetting compared to the CV
- Great sharpness across the frame @ 1.4 (In my opinion fully usable for landscapes and a very big plus)
- probably smoother bokeh?
Cons for the GM:
- overall sharpness is worse (but not by much)
- no sunstars at lower apertures
Pros for the CV:
- Sharpness in the Center @ 1.4
- beautiful sunstars (compared to the GM)
- Surpasses the GM in overall sharpness from F/4.0 onwards
- probably better built quality and feeling
Cons for the CV:
- corners don't match the GM from F/1.4 - F/2.8
- really heavy vignetting
- don't know much about the bokeh - is it good?
The question is, if I will ever need sharp corners @ 1.4? With landscapes it is probably always possible to go at least to F/2.8 where both lenses are equally sharp (CV sharper in the center).
If I look at the pictures from Fred, I find, that the CV has a real "bite" to it in terms of sharpness. Like, the GM is already really sharp but the CV is just crazy sharp!?
That's a fair assessment, although the Voigtlander is great across the field at f/1.4. (The GM does perform better off-axis though)
I have not yet compared their rendering (GM 24/1.4 vs CV 21/1.4) but it's obvious to me that the GM has much smoother rendering so perhaps not as corrected for SA. The Voigtlander's OOF rendering can be a bit harsh at mid-distance and I'm sure coma won't be as well controlled as the GM.
I will post size-by-side rendering comparisons.today.
ratherSoftEdge wrote:
I am still unable to decide whether to take the CV or the Sony 24.
Pros for the Sony:
- Only very light vignetting compared to the CV
- Great sharpness across the frame @ 1.4 (In my opinion fully usable for landscapes and a very big plus)
- probably smoother bokeh?
Cons for the GM:
- overall sharpness is worse (but not by much)
- no sunstars at lower apertures
Pros for the CV:
- Sharpness in the Center @ 1.4
- beautiful sunstars (compared to the GM)
- Surpasses the GM in overall sharpness from F/4.0 onwards
- probably better built quality and feeling
Cons for the CV:
- corners don't match the GM from F/1.4 - F/2.8
- really heavy vignetting
- don't know much about the bokeh - is it good?
The question is, if I will ever need sharp corners @ 1.4? With landscapes it is probably always possible to go at least to F/2.8 where both lenses are equally sharp (CV sharper in the center).
If I look at the pictures from Fred, I find, that the CV has a real "bite" to it in terms of sharpness. Like, the GM is already really sharp but the CV is just crazy sharp!?
Well, the CV is not better built. The GM has weather sealing. It probably has that "cheap" modern lens feel but I imagine the build must be robust similarly like the GM 135. The CV has more micro-contrast/bite, though you can add that in post with something like the Topaz Sharpen AI. I would say they're about the same and it really depends if you really want AF around this range or not. The CV is cheaper in the States.
hiepphotog wrote:
Well, the CV is not better built. The GM has weather sealing. It probably has that "cheap" modern lens feel but I imagine the build must be robust similarly like the GM 135. The CV has more micro-contrast/bite, though you can add that in post with something like the Topaz Sharpen AI. I would say they're about the same and it really depends if you really want AF around this range or not. The CV is cheaper in the States.
GM lenses use an aluminum-magnesium composite chassis that makes them lighter and sturdy at the same time. However, imo, the Loxia and Voigtlander lenses "feel" better built from their full metal construction and mechanical focus/aperture.
So, I think they are both well-built but using different materials. If weather sealing is crucial, the 24/1.4 GM could be the best option.
What's the deal with Topaz Sharpen AI? I already like their DeNoise AI.
Fred Miranda wrote:
GM lenses use an aluminum-magnesium composite chassis that makes them lighter and sturdy at the same time. However, imo, the Loxia and Voigtlander lenses "feel" better built from their full metal construction and mechanical focus/aperture.
So, I think they are both well-built but using different materials. If weather sealing is crucial, the 24/1.4 GM could be the best option.
What's the deal with Topaz Sharpen AI? I already like their DeNoise AI.
It doesn't sharpen the entire scene (the bokeh is pretty much left intact). Their normal sharpening mode (the other two are to deal with out of focus and shake) is a quick way to enhance micro-contrast without artifacts; I like what it can do better than LR, Nik and Focus Magic. The slight Denoise in the Sharpening tool works great to clean up pictures at base ISO, though for high ISO not so much. I imagine just like the Denoise, you do need a great graphic card to run these quickly.
I agree that CV and Loxia lenses "feel" better than GM lenses, but in my experience the GM lenses are not fingerprint magnets like all metal constructions. They are also not prone to scratches the way Loxia CV lenses are. The GM weather sealing is another very important feature the manual lenses lack. With that being said, I absolutely love the look and feel of the Loxia line. The smaller CV lenses are also gorgeous.
Fred Miranda wrote:
GM lenses use an aluminum-magnesium composite chassis that makes them lighter and sturdy at the same time. However, imo, the Loxia and Voigtlander lenses "feel" better built from their full metal construction and mechanical focus/aperture.
So, I think they are both well-built but using different materials. If weather sealing is crucial, the 24/1.4 GM could be the best option.
What's the deal with Topaz Sharpen AI? I already like their DeNoise AI.
I paid the subscription just to show you this . For some pictures, it's like a miracle.
nazdravanul wrote:
Zeiss has changed. And not necessarily in a good way. The new designs - Milvus, Loxia, Batis - don’t have the same impeccable ergonomics, don’t exude the same quality, and sometimes the look of the images is not that special, anymore. Technically correct, good rendering, good color, but sometimes no “Wow factor” in the new designs. Some of them have it, some not.
The new Voigtlanders, for me, are the “old” / new Zeiss - fabulous build quality and MF ergonomics, and a lovely blend of character and technical performance. There is that unquantifiable “magic dust” in those lenses ) (basically warmer colors and loads of microcontrast with realy nice OOF transitions).
I’ve had all the Loxias and a couple of Batis lenses (40 and 135). They are all getting replaced by a mix of GM (I sometimes need AF) and Voigtlander lenses.
