photonoclast wrote:
I wonder about copy variation in all these tests. I apparently lucked into a stellar copy of the color-skopar. I honestly can't see any evidence of the reported mid-zone dip in any real photos. It's super sharp across the frame at f5.6, and plenty good enough wide open. If I were you I'd make my decision based purely on your need for f1.4 vs your desire for ultrasmall - that's the tradeoff, and I doubt you'd see any important difference beyond f4 or at least f5.6.
Yeah, that's a legitimate question. At the very least, we know that when Fred says a lens is well-centered that it is, but there's certainly more to copy variation than centering.
photonoclast wrote:
I wonder about copy variation in all these tests. I apparently lucked into a stellar copy of the color-skopar. I honestly can't see any evidence of the reported mid-zone dip in any real photos. It's super sharp across the frame at f5.6, and plenty good enough wide open. If I were you I'd make my decision based purely on your need for f1.4 vs your desire for ultrasmall - that's the tradeoff, and I doubt you'd see any important difference beyond f4 or at least f5.6.
Yeah, I’m going to stick with my Color-Skopar. At that focal length I don’t need a large aperture and the small size is super nice.
p.52 #5 tremendous volume. I'd love a 21/2 as well, always enjoyed that focal length. Cosina talk up bokeh for the 21/1.4, but there is a slot there between f1.4 and f3.5, maybe at half the weight difference, around 400 grams like the Loxia 21mm.
BastianK wrote:
That is sadly not how lens design works.
I dunno, care to explain how it works?
Well i would be quite happy with the lox 21 if my copy was actually decent. That was appreciably smaller and i don't use f1.4 all that often. Prefer the colours and sunstars of that too but i don't fancy my odds in finding a decent copy plus the lens has been out for nearly 10 years.
sselhtrim wrote:
I dunno, care to explain how it works?
Well i would be quite happy with the lox 21 if my copy was actually decent. That was appreciably smaller and i don't use f1.4 all that often. Prefer the colours and sunstars of that too but i don't fancy my odds in finding a decent copy plus the lens has been out for nearly 10 years.
It's hard to believe that the Loxia 21/2.8 has such a large variation, but it's true. I had a great copy, sold it, and could never find another one that performed similarly.
Keep in mind it’s on film, but I did several comparison shots against the much more expensive Leica 21 Summilux. Here are a couple. After I developed these guess which one I kept. 😂. Leica M7 + Kodak 50D.
lifeandmylens wrote:
Keep in mind it’s on film, but I did several comparison shots against the much more expensive Leica 21 Summilux. Here are a couple. After I developed these guess which one I kept. 😂. Leica M7 + Kodak 50D.
As a 21 Lux owner (since 2011 when it was the only fast 21mm option), I could have saved you the cost of buying or renting one and told you that there is no technical advantage to the Lux over the VM.
Major technical points against the Lux: strong mid-zone dip, strong wide aperture purple fringing/LoCA, strong coma, weird filter size. I guess the strong LoCA is more noticeable on digital considering it's not in your film examples?
I do like its wide open 'look' especially at near MFD, but that's also rather limited at 70cm and not a compelling enough reason. As your comparison shows, the two look very similar at close distance.
