Jman13 wrote:
So my Voigtlander 21/1.4 is here, and as I mentioned I'm adapting it to my Nikon bodies. This lens is VERY finicky about the adapter thickness when used on Nikon. I tried with my Megadap adapter, which works great with my AF lenses, though it is slightly thinner than the perfect flange distance. And the Nokton was ABYSMAL on it. Sharp center, massive field curvature that meant the edges were utter trash if focused on the center until about f/5.6, and then they were only fairly bad.
Put it on my Fotodiox E to Z adapter, which I have but generally don't use because it isn't nearly as good at AF as the Megadaps. That adapter is thicker and with the Nokton, makes the infinity stop dead-on infinity. (and interestingly it was too thick for the Loxia, which couldn't reach infinity on that adapter, though I think a lot of that is the super-thick gasket, which meant it didn't mount well on this adapter either, due to it's slightly recessed construction).
On the Fotodiox, the 21/1.4 is great. Probably not quite as good as it would be on a Sony body, but sharp in the center wide open, reasonable edges, a bit soft in the outer midzone due to the wavy nature Fred mentioned. Stopped down to f/2.8, and it's quite good, even in the corners at 45MP, and very good on 24MP. At f/4-f/5.6 it's essentially perfect. Crazy how much very minor flange distance variations seem to make such an enormous difference in image quality with this lens.
Some quick shots testing it out a bit. First and last at f/1.4, second at f/8.
I love my CV 21 f1.4 but I think I shot it at f1.4 only once, for the northern light few months ago. I have a Sony PZ 16-35. I am keeping the CV mainly for the sunstar, quite a chunk of metal to carry around though. For some reason I never jelled with the Loxia 21, owned it several times.
Recently compared the Voigtlander 21mm f/1.4 to the Sony 20mm f/1.8. I really wanted to keep the Voigtlander as I appreciated the manual focus and build/quality of the lens. However, the Sony just out performed it. In terms of resolution, particularly corners, the Voigt just does not compete with the sony in wider apertures. People talk about character of a lens, but all those character renderings can be adjusted in lightroom. But you can’t adjust resolution and blurriness and that is why I decided to keep the sony and send back the voigt.
This shot is from this morning. About 20 minutes before sunrise and it was pretty dark, but just enough light to shoot. I decided to shoot this scene wide open at f1.4 since...why not?!
finn69 wrote:
Recently compared the Voigtlander 21mm f/1.4 to the Sony 20mm f/1.8. I really wanted to keep the Voigtlander as I appreciated the manual focus and build/quality of the lens. However, the Sony just out performed it. In terms of resolution, particularly corners, the Voigt just does not compete with the sony in wider apertures. People talk about character of a lens, but all those character renderings can be adjusted in lightroom. But you can’t adjust resolution and blurriness and that is why I decided to keep the sony and send back the voigt.
Welcome to this forum, and thanks for your thoughts on the sharpness of these two lenses.
But I still feel that I have to disagree that bokeh, the transition of sharpness and smooth or uneasy background can be adjusted with reasonable (or any) effort in post.
In addition, to me the slightly paler and clearly bluer color cast of the Sony 20mm/f1.8 G (and matching it to my other lenses) is often enough trouble, that I try avoid it‘s use. It is a personal preference to be out shooting and not toiling behind a PC working on adjustments. To me, the less postprocessing a lens needs, the better. Others really enjoy the process of postprocessing and it is their part of this hobby.
For my aim of restricted and rather focussed postprocessing the Zeiss’s Batis line and Voigtländer’s respective lens lines have shown to be very similar and well matched, wheras the color of some Sony lenses is unfortunately all over the place. Color is probably the reason that the otherwise very sharp Sony 20/1.8 has only been designated a G and not a GM lens and why it is less expensive than the true GM lenses (the latter are actually matched accross the line).
In the end sharpness, where the Sony 20/1.8 excels, is just one part of a very complex equation. There are clear reasons for both the Sony 20/1.8 and for the Voigtländer 21/1.4 and it depends where one‘s focus is. Above there are several f1.4 shots of the Voigtländer and keeping an eye on transitions, color, background bokeh and not withstanding sunstars you may catch the point I‘m making.
Knut. wrote:
Welcome to this forum, and thanks for your thoughts on the sharpness of these two lenses.
But I still feel that I have to disagree that bokeh, the transition of sharpness and smooth or uneasy background can be adjusted with reasonable (or any) effort in post.
In addition, to me the slightly paler and clearly bluer color cast of the Sony 20mm/f1.8 G (and matching it to my other lenses) is often enough trouble, that I try avoid it‘s use. It is a personal preference to be out shooting and not toiling behind a PC working on adjustments. To me, the less postprocessing a lens needs, the better. Others really enjoy the process of postprocessing and it is their part of this hobby.
For my aim of restricted and rather focussed postprocessing the Zeiss’s Batis line and Voigtländer’s respective lens lines have shown to be very similar and well matched, wheras the color of some Sony lenses is unfortunately all over the place. Color is probably the reason that the otherwise very sharp Sony 20/1.8 has only been designated a G and not a GM lens and why it is less expensive than the true GM lenses (the latter are actually matched accross the line).
In the end sharpness, where the Sony 20/1.8 excels, is just one part of a very complex equation. There are clear reasons for both the Sony 20/1.8 and for the Voigtländer 21/1.4 and it depends where one‘s focus is. Above there are several f1.4 shots of the Voigtländer and keeping an eye on transitions, color, background bokeh and not withstanding sunstars you may catch the point I‘m making....Show more →
I agree the Voigtlander 21 f/1.4 has beautiful color and contrast. Perhaps finn69's sample of the Voightlander was subpar. I tried two samples of Sony's 20mm f/1.8 and both were decentered - although corner sharpness was fairly even and similar, midfield sharpness varied from one side to the other (I guess the corner-correcting aspheric elements were properly centered but some other(s) in there weren't). And like Knut. says the Sony lacks great color - it's cool and muted.
This is a great thread! Quite grateful to Fred and others for feedback on these lenses.
Im considering the 24 GM 1.4 or the Voightlander 21MM.
I bought the Voightlander 35 mm APO Lanthar aspherical lens on the review and examples from Fred and comments from others, and am very happy. Excellent lens, great experince, and I love the sharpness and resolution. Paired with my a7RV the images are good!
I was initially looking at the 24GM 1.4, but not think perhaps the 21 Voightlander may be a better buy, though I think both is the right answer, at some point.
Im shooting landscapes, not much astro. I will shoot some astro, so thats the only hang up between the two.
I wonder if the 24GM is the more well rounded option...
