It's certainly visible on film but I've found the purple side is less visible. My modified A7RII gets very little purple fringing because it has reduced deep-blue sensitivity. It has a loose ribbon cable inside but I might crack it open today since the rain has finally stopped and I was going to test the 35/1.5 against the Distagon today anyway.
I like his reviews, and his images. He really wanted to like the CV 35/1.5, and is overall quite complimentary, but ended up thinking the mid zone softness till 2.8 was a deal breaker.
His copy was also decentered a bit, but the weaker mid zone is evident in Fred’s infinite crops too. Aside from a weaker 1.5 - 2.8 performance and less micro contrast, this new CV is a pretty impressive option being ergonomically wonderful, smaller, great flare resistance, smooth draw and low price. Good work by Voigt!
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I like his reviews, and his images. He really wanted to like the CV 35/1.5, and is overall quite complimentary, but ended up thinking the mid zone softness till 2.8 was a deal breaker.
His copy was also decentered a bit, but the weaker mid zone is evident in Fred’s infinite crops too. Aside from a weaker 1.5 - 2.8 performance and less micro contrast, this new CV is a pretty impressive option being ergonomically wonderful, smaller, great flare resistance, smooth draw and low price. Good work by Voigt!
Why do you want to trade yours for an FLE or Distagon?
Interesting that he's seeing severe focus shift up close. This contradicts Fred's observations. I will conduct a similar test today.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I like his reviews, and his images. He really wanted to like the CV 35/1.5, and is overall quite complimentary, but ended up thinking the mid zone softness till 2.8 was a deal breaker.
His copy was also decentered a bit, but the weaker mid zone is evident in Fred’s infinite crops too. Aside from a weaker 1.5 - 2.8 performance and less micro contrast, this new CV is a pretty impressive option being ergonomically wonderful, smaller, great flare resistance, smooth draw and low price. Good work by Voigt!
Desmolicious wrote:
Why do you want to trade yours for an FLE or Distagon?
Initially, I was pretty excited about the lens, but the more I have shot it, the more I feel images are just a little bit boring. I also assumed some of the optical performance was because of the Sony sensor stack, but even when shooting on a modded sensor now, mid zone is not great. And I would like better performance across the frame WO. Doesn’t have to be ZM level, just better.
The price/specs/ergo/size impresses me though. Honestly, never been entirely happy with any of that fast current m 35mm’s—so I’ve cycled through them all, some a couple times. ZM is too big (love the images) 35 Lux is too spendy (mostly love the images) the CV 35/1.2iii lacks the colors, contrast and pop I like (otherwise impressed) and this new one is similar. I’ll probably just keep my 35/2 Ultron, 35 Lux pre-asph and 35i combo, while picking up other options as needed/interested.
There is no perfect m 35mm for me. Too picky I guess. All are compromises I can’t quite jell with like in other FL’s/lenses.
I just used the ZM Distagon again, and it really is spectacular. If only it wasn't so big!
I keep thinking I should sell it, then I use it, and think wow.
Funny I did an informal comparison with my ZM yesterday and came away really impressed with the Voigtlander. Yes the ZM is very slightly sharper, has very slightly smoother bokeh and slightly less loCA but it's really subtle on my M10-R and absolutely not worth the size difference. How thick is the overall sensor stack on your modded Sony?
Desmolicious wrote:
I just used the ZM Distagon again, and it really is spectacular. If only it wasn't so big!
I keep thinking I should sell it, then I use it, and think wow.
thrice wrote:
Funny I did an informal comparison with my ZM yesterday and came away really impressed with the Voigtlander. Yes the ZM is very slightly sharper, has very slightly smoother bokeh and slightly less loCA but it's really subtle on my M10-R and absolutely not worth the size difference. How thick is the overall sensor stack on your modded Sony?
thrice wrote:
Funny I did an informal comparison with my ZM yesterday and came away really impressed with the Voigtlander. Yes the ZM is very slightly sharper, has very slightly smoother bokeh and slightly less loCA but it's really subtle on my M10-R and absolutely not worth the size difference. How thick is the overall sensor stack on your modded Sony?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Would you mind to post?
thrice wrote:
Very informal mind you...
Looking at the grass it's almost like the ZM has deeper DOF at equivalent apertures. Either way close enough for me.
IDK... I see a pretty significant difference in the plane of focus, especially in the grass. The ZM is sharp with good contrast. The VM is mush in comparison, particularly in the mid zone. Which is what Jack didn't like about it in his review. But makes me wonder, stopped down a bit and should be OK? Fred's tests seem to indicate this.
I ran the above images through the find edges filter and made this GIF from a crop of the lower right image area:
The photos aren't labeled but IMO it's obvious which is which.
---------------------------------------------
rramesh wrote:
If you didn’t indicate with which lens you took which picture, none would be wiser.
At web res, yes. If you view the full res files, you can clearly see a difference. The find edges filter applied to the images shows that the ZM has higher contrast in the plane of focus and the VM lower contrast and what therefore seems like a wider/deeper plane of focus.
Here's what I think of the VM so far based on everyone else's photos (yes, armchair quarterback review)...
What are you willing to compromise? The VM delivers based on size, weight, price, ergonomics and generally very good optical performance/characteristics (especially considering size and price point).
The tradeoffs seem to be fairly typical fast lens non-APO LoCA/fringing, SA at nearer distances, vignetting, mid zone drop in sharpness at and near wide open (may also be distance dependent) and perhaps not quite as great color fidelity (in some eyes).
To me, the VM seems like a strong generalist lens. Great stopped down while still adequately covering (if not excelling at) lower light situations in a really small, minimal OVF blocking package. The increase in SA at nearer distances might be a positive feature in respect to people photos (of course depends on your preferences). Compared to some other 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 lenses, it has smoother rendering at these distances. Coincidence? I think we agree that more SA tends to smooth bokeh and this might be an intentional choice by Cosina (and keeps it at a lower price point in a simpler design without FLE compensation).
But the downside to being a good generalist, is it doesn't really have anything that blows you away. It's not as sharp/contrasty at wider apertures like the ZM, Lux ASPH FLE and VM35 APO. Nor is it quite a 'character' lens like the VM35/1.4 and therefore also the various flavors of 35 Lux non-ASPH. Or going more extreme, the new MS Optics 36/1.3 Apollon with very interestingly imperfect character...
rscheffler wrote:
But the downside to being a good generalist, is it doesn't really have anything that blows you away. It's not as sharp/contrasty at wider apertures like the ZM, Lux ASPH FLE and VM35 APO. Nor is it quite a 'character' lens like the VM35/1.4 and therefore also the various flavors of 35 Lux non-ASPH. Or going more extreme, the new MS Optics 36/1.3 Apollon with very interestingly imperfect character...
What blows one away most often is not the lens, rather what is captured with it. In my time, I have seen great photos taken with cheap lenses, and really crappy ones taken with the most expensive Leica lenses.
Plus most of the time, in real life scenarios, you just take the shot with the lens that is mounted, at that moment.
The VM 35mm f/1.5 is value for money for a 1.4/1.5 lens if one is looking for a well corrected all purpose 35mm M-mount lens.
Incidentally, I think Jack needs to return his lens and redo his review with a proper copy. Like the review by Fred with multiple copies of the lens for comparison.
thrice wrote:
Very informal mind you...
Looking at the grass it's almost like the ZM has deeper DOF at equivalent apertures. Either way close enough for me.
rscheffler wrote:
But the downside to being a good generalist, is it doesn't really have anything that blows you away.
It's funny, that captures how I've been feeling about my new VM35/2 Ultron (which I bought based on nehemiahphoto's recommendation), but I think it might be a better generalist than the 35/1.5 because it's quite sharp wide open and I don't see any of that midfield softness. It can be too contrasty for my taste but that is easily dialed down in post, and I've really grown to like it as an all-purpose lens. It does the job reliably and has enough character at larger apertures to make it interesting. Jack Takahashi has a review of it here: https://jacktaka.com/voigtlander-35mm-f2; you can compare the images with those from his review of the new 35/1.5 that nehemiahphoto linked to a few posts up.
My Canon 35/1.8 LTM blows me away almost every time I use it and is one of my favorite lenses ever, but with its 1950s-era coatings it's just not as reliable and the bokeh can be distractingly busy and swirly in some situations. The VM35/2 Ultron is built like a tank, has a great hood, and is a more practical choice as my everyday lens. I'm keeping it (and the Canon). I also have two other 35s in my arsenal but they're much bigger and don't get used as often.
