Is the Voigtlander 21/1.4 Nokton E-mount the new king of the hill at 21mm?
In terms of resolution and contrast, the Voigtlander 21/1.4 Nokton performs very similarly if not better than the Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8 which is something no other E-mount lens was able to achieve until now. It's longer and 166g heavier than the Loxia but in exchange, it's capable of gathering 4 times more light.
Compared to the Sony FE 24/1.4 GM, the CV 21/1.4 is sharper at the center at wider apertures and is capable of higher contrast but can't compete with the FE 24/1.4 GM's smooth rendering, especially at mid-distance. Wide open, It's also not as sharp away from center compared to the GM. The FE 24/1.4 GM is flat field from wide open while both Loxia 21/2.8 and Voigtlander 21/1.4 have some field curvature. The former is inwards and the latter is wavy.
Pros
Solid all-metal construction with tight manufacturing tolerance
Superb resolution and contrast at all distances, including MFD, thanks to its floating element system
Voigtlander signature color and contrast
Very good flare performance
Distance encoder provides 5-axis IBIS
Round bokeh balls with clean inner structure. (No onion ring pattern)
Great coma performance starting at f/2.2
Low distortion (Barrel, easy to correct)
Precise manual focus and well damped focusing rotation
12-blade straight aperture allows 12-point well-defined sunstars starting at f/1.8
Well controlled LoCA at f/2 (best at f/2.8) and above average lateral CA suppression
Reasonably priced compared to the competition
Cons
Pronounced vignetting wide open that never truly goes away (over 3 stops at f/1.4)
Wavy field curvature
Rendering can be a big harsh/structured at mid-distance, especially off-axis
Noticeable coma (sagittal flare) at f/1.4
In my opinion, Voigtlander offers the best native 21mm glass on the market today. With proven performance, you'd be hard-pressed to dethrone the Loxia 21/2.8 from the top slot, but the Voigtlander 21/1.4 slightly outperforms the Loxia 21/2.8 in many aspects.
The bottom line, Voigtlander is on a winning streak - offering high IQ lenses for the E-mount without breaking the bank. (or our backs! )
Is the Voigtlander 21/1.4 Nokton E-mount the new king of the hill at 21mm?
In terms of resolution and contrast, the Voigtlander 21/1.4 Nokton performs very similar if not better than the Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8 which is something no other E-mount lens was able to achieve until now. It's taller and 166g heavier than the Loxia but in exchange, it's capable of gathering 4 times more light and field curvature is super low.
Compared to the Sony FE 24/1.4 GM, the CV 21/1.4 is sharper at the center at wider apertures and is capable of higher contrast but can't compete with the FE 24/1.4 GM's smooth rendering, especially at mid-distance. Wide open, It's also not as sharp away from center compared to the GM.
Pros
Solid all-metal construction with tight manufacturing tolerance
Superb resolution and contrast at all distances, including MFD, thanks to its floating element system
Voigtlander signature color and contrast
Very good flare performance
Distance encoder provides 5-axis IBIS
Very low field curvature
Round bokeh balls with clean inner structure. (No onion ring pattern)
Great coma performance starting at f/2.2
Low distortion (Barrel, easy to correct)
Precise manual focus and well damped focusing rotation
12-blade straight aperture allows 12-point well-defined sunstars starting at f/1.8
Well controlled LoCA at f/2 (best at f/2.8) and above average lateral CA suppression
Reasonably priced compared to the competition
Cons
Pronounced vignetting wide open that never truly goes away (over 3 stops at f/1.4)
Rendering can be a big harsh/structured at mid-distance, especially off-axis
Noticeable coma (sagittal flare) at f/1.4
In my opinion, Voigtlander offers the best native 21mm glass on the market today. With proven performance, you'd be hard-pressed to dethrone the Loxia 21/2.8 from the top slot, but the Voigtlander 21/1.4 slightly outperforms the Loxia 21/2.8 in many aspects.
The bottom line, Voigtlander is on a winning streak - offering high IQ lenses for the E-mount without breaking the bank. (or our backs! )
As always, thanks for the informative, thorough and exhaustive review Fred. I’ll keep my GM 24 as its smaller, better corrected for astro and autofocus, but CV has put out a great lens. I like this coupled with the 21/3.4 as a light weight trade-off.
GMPhotography wrote:
So now I’ll be faster with a CV 12, CV21 1.4 and a CV 50 1.2
That’s my manual focus kit
. I’m feeling it maybe all I really need
I thought you had a Loxia 85 too? My manual kit are made up with CV 15, 21 f1.4 and 40 f1.2. Just sold the CV 12, not using it much. Even the CV 15 gets little use but I like to have something wider than 21mm just in case.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
As always, thanks for the informative, thorough and exhaustive review Fred. I’ll keep my GM 24 as its smaller, better corrected for astro and autofocus, but CV has put out a great lens. I like this coupled with the 21/3.4 as a light weight trade-off.
Hopefully they make a fast native 28
You're welcome! The 24 GM is definitely stronger for astro with lower vignetting and more than a stop better coma correction but it's not as wide as the CV 21/1.4. You said the GM is smaller but it's actually bigger. (link)
Still, I agree it's hard to justify owning both lenses since they share the same speed and are close in FL, but I also think they produce images with distinctive looks.
Fred Miranda wrote:
You're welcome! The 24 GM is definitely stronger for astro with lower vignetting and more than a stop better coma correction but it's not as wide as the CV 21/1.4. You said the GM is smaller but it's actually bigger. (link)
Still, I agree it's hard to justify owning both lenses since they share the same speed and are close in FL, but I also think they produce images with distinctive looks.
Sorry, I misspoke—I meant the GM is lighter, not smaller. I prefer 21 to 24 and to me the difference is very noticeable, it’s just the GM has a softer rendering in terms of structure and color/contrast with AF. My major uses are environment portraits and astro, so the GM is a no-brainer.
I have a Contax G 21 PCX’ed for my uber-light landscape lens that’s a little wider than 24mm, otherwise I’d have purchase CV 21/3.4.
At 15mm or wider, what do you recommend for landscape? (Small size, flare resistance, MF, across the frame sharpness stopped down)?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Sorry, I misspoke—I meant the GM is lighter, not smaller. I prefer 21 to 24 and to me the difference is very noticeable, it’s just the GM has a softer rendering in terms of structure and color/contrast with AF. My major uses are environment portraits and astro, so the GM is a no-brainer.
I have a Contax G 21 PCX’ed for my uber-light landscape lens that’s a little wider, otherwise I’d have purchase CV 21/3.4.
At 15mm or wider, what do you recommend for landscape? (Small size, flare resistance, MF, across the frame sharpness stopped down)?
I really like the CV 15/4.5 III E-mount. It takes filters, has great flare resistance and produces great colors. It's equipped with a 10-blade aperture which renders very defined 10-point sunstars. I usually stop it down to f/7.1 to reduce vignetting but it's already very sharp from center to the very edges from wide open. (if you get a copy without the corner smearing issue)
The 16-35/2.8 GM is also great at 16mm but it's not so small.
Fred Miranda wrote:
You're welcome! The 24 GM is definitely stronger for astro with lower vignetting and more than a stop better coma correction but it's not as wide as the CV 21/1.4. You said the GM is smaller but it's actually bigger. (link)
Still, I agree it's hard to justify owning both lenses since they share the same speed and are close in FL, but I also think they produce images with distinctive looks.
Your 24GM is good for astro. Mine produces elongated stars in the periphery, has a lot of CA, and is not good for astro. I read a review where the reviewers copy was similar to mine.
scrappydog wrote:
Your 24GM is good for astro. Mine produces elongated stars in the periphery, has a lot of CA, and is not good for astro. I read a review where the reviewers copy was similar to mine.
I have a similar experience on the copy I rented. Lots of coma wide open, usable only from around f/2.2 and my term of reference is the 16-35 GM. Still a light sucker and brilliant for all the rest.
Honestly what pushed me over the edge besides it being quite good was having a MF wide lens that was really fast. I have the 12 and the 3.5 both slow so now having a fast 21 and 50 makes more sense
.
So I feel that maybe better having two out of three that are 1.4 or faster
Fred Miranda wrote:
I really like the CV 15/4.5 III E-mount. It takes filters, has great flare resistance and produces great colors. It's equipped with a 10-blade aperture which renders very defined 10-point sunstars. I usually stop it down to f/7.1 to reduce vignetting but it's already very sharp from center to the very edges from wide open. (if you get a copy without the corner smearing issue)
The 16-35/2.8 GM is also great at 16mm but it's not so small.
The GM looked impressive on the wide end, but not quite my style Have you shot the cv 12 versus cv 15?
) 
