marcelography wrote:
Another 40/1.2 lover here tempted by the 35/1.5 mostly due to its size and (mostly) weight.
Went for the type I aluminium considering the weight even, can't wait to check it out in my hands. I really like how compact it looks, tried a 35/2 Ultron at a shop and quite loved the size/weight, so I think it'll be a tough duel - which to keep? I quite enjoy the 40mm FOV and how it renders, but the weight while shooting has been a bit of an issue (covid messed up my elbow joints, bizarrely).
I have been reading criticism of how the lens renders in the midframe area, which is kinda soft indeed on some examples... but haven't found a direct comparison yet between it and the 40/1.2 to help with the decision....Show more →
Where did you buy it from in UK? Park?
I also have 40/1.2 and thinking of buying this lens, all due to weight.
Please share your findings when you get the lens (and if you won't be pleased, I can buy it form you )
Ha! Although I type in UKish I live in Brazil, visiting a friend in Dallas this week and picking up the lens there (these things never make their way to shops here) so I got it from BH Video (a used copy, grade 10 but hoping it doesn't have any BUTs...). Will be trying it on a Sony A7iii as I'm also getting the Tamron 20-40/2.8 for it, but as soon as I get back home I'll do a side by side comparison on the M10 if I indeed keep it.
Though in the UK I'd check Red Dot Cameras and The Classic Camera for the lens, both usually have new & used Voigtlander gear. Red Dot Cameras lets you try the lens, Classic Camera doesn't. Actually got my 40/1.2 from Classic Camera. Maybe Aperture UK should be worth checking as well.
lifeandmylens wrote:
I just got the 40 to compare it with. If I kept the 40 1.2, it might replace the 35 1.5 and the 50 1.2. I also have the 28 II, but the gap from 28 to 35 is quite small. However, the 35 1.5 is a fantastic size for the IQ. I plan to play with them on the m11 and see how they feel.
Sure here is a quick photo of the lens on a A7RV. Pardon the soft focus, I just used the back screen of an A7C to focus and take this quickly.
Last cheeky request - could you please put it on A7C? I would love to see how it looks on it
marcelography wrote:
Ha! Although I type in UKish I live in Brazil, visiting a friend in Dallas this week and picking up the lens there (these things never make their way to shops here) so I got it from BH Video (a used copy, grade 10 but hoping it doesn't have any BUTs...). Will be trying it on a Sony A7iii as I'm also getting the Tamron 20-40/2.8 for it, but as soon as I get back home I'll do a side by side comparison on the M10 if I indeed keep it.
Though in the UK I'd check Red Dot Cameras and The Classic Camera for the lens, both usually have new & used Voigtlander gear. Red Dot Cameras lets you try the lens, Classic Camera doesn't. Actually got my 40/1.2 from Classic Camera. Maybe Aperture UK should be worth checking as well....Show more →
Aperture does not sell new Voigtlander stuff.
I've tried new lenses on at Classic Camera. Unless it's a new thing that they don't let you try it...
New member here. I’ve read the forum now and then for a few years and always impressed by the rigour of the tests and the knowledgeable discussions so I’ve worked up the courage to ask a question!
Last February I bought a Leica M11 and a 50mm Summicron. I have now decided to get a Voigtlander 35mm - a small one to slip in a pocket more easily than the Summicron and a CV because i can’t afford a Leica. I went to my local dealer (The Classic Camera) with the intention of getting the Color Skopar but it was too small for my fingers to use so walked out with the Nokton 35mm f1.5. I got the Type 2 but decided to swap it for the Type 1 and haven’t yet taken the Type 2 out of the box.
So far, so good. My question though relates to coding. Is there any advantage in coding the lens? I’m not bothered about Exif data and I saw with interest the tests earlier in the thread of the difference made when saying the lens was one of several different Leica lenses. But does this need to be done on the lens/camera or is it as good/better just to tell your processing software what lens you want it to be treated as (I use Capture One)? I appreciate that the in camera JPEGs wouldn’t benefit if you don’t apply coding, it it worth the bother?
There are no Leica 6-bit lens codes for Voigtlander lenses. What you can do is to map it to the nearest Leica lens. So for the Voigtlander 35 1.5 it would be the Leica Summilux 35 which will show up in EXIF data.
You can also select it manually on the newer Ms but it will be a hassle as you need to remember to do it each time you change lenses.
Besides EXIF, it also corrects for edge colorisation and vignette. This impact is most on wide angle lenses i.e. 35 or wider.
rramesh wrote:
There are no Leica 6-bit lens codes for Voigtlander lenses. What you can do is to map it to the nearest Leica lens. So for the Voigtlander 35 1.5 it would be the Leica Summilux 35 which will show up in EXIF data.
You can also select it manually on the newer Ms but it will be a hassle as you need to remember to do it each time you change lenses.
Besides EXIF, it also corrects for edge colorisation and vignette. This impact is most on wide angle lenses i.e. 35 or wider.
I like the fact that it corrects for color shading but wish we had the option to turn off "black shading". The M9 is the only camera that gives the option to turn it off.
Ianforber wrote:
New member here. I’ve read the forum now and then for a few years and always impressed by the rigour of the tests and the knowledgeable discussions so I’ve worked up the courage to ask a question!
Last February I bought a Leica M11 and a 50mm Summicron. I have now decided to get a Voigtlander 35mm - a small one to slip in a pocket more easily than the Summicron and a CV because i can’t afford a Leica. I went to my local dealer (The Classic Camera) with the intention of getting the Color Skopar but it was too small for my fingers to use so walked out with the Nokton 35mm f1.5. I got the Type 2 but decided to swap it for the Type 1 and haven’t yet taken the Type 2 out of the box.
So far, so good. My question though relates to coding. Is there any advantage in coding the lens? I’m not bothered about Exif data and I saw with interest the tests earlier in the thread of the difference made when saying the lens was one of several different Leica lenses. But does this need to be done on the lens/camera or is it as good/better just to tell your processing software what lens you want it to be treated as (I use Capture One)? I appreciate that the in camera JPEGs wouldn’t benefit if you don’t apply coding, it it worth the bother?...Show more →
You should do some test shots with and without coding. I've found that yes, coding reduces vignetting and edge color shifts (for more problematic lenses), but it also subtly affects overall color balance of images with a given lens. For example the Light Lens Lab 35 Cron replica, if I use it uncoded, it's somewhat colder than if coded.
The new VM35/1.5 has a fair amount of vignetting so if you're not keen on this, coding it as one of the Summilux or Summicron versions (you should try all options), should result in something suitable. Best also to do the test against an even white surface to more easily detect any color shifts that are either removed by the coding profiles, or added (some lenses require more correction than others, and using those profiles with a lens that requires less correction will result in color shift due to overcorrection). Something like a wall, overcast sky, etc. Ideally you want to focus the lens at infinity because that will move the rear element and exit pupil closest to the sensor which is when edge color shifts become more apparent.
Near performance compared to the Sigma 35i on stock Sony:
For reference, I set up a tripod about 8 feet away from a bookshelf. Mounted a Sigma 35i which is good across the frame WO. Then the new CV 35/1.5 @ f2 with the focus on the center. Then the CV 35/1.5 @ f2 with the focus on the edge. Even at this distance, you can see the Sigma is better across the frame, and when we change the focus point on CV 35/1.5, we change sharpness, trading the better edge and better midframe for worse center, I am assuming FC from the sensor stack. I am going to mount the CV 35/1.5 on a modded sensor tomorrow I think.
Some samples and immediate observations from casual shooting:
Some samples from very limited shooting in bad light. Processed normally for me--interested in what real world photos look like. The only thing I left off is LoCal correction (there is a fair bit WO in high contrast). Not really seeing or feeling as much SA as I recall with the 35/40/50 1.2's. Very high central sharpness and contrast--really like the colors on the newer CV glass. These are all on stock Sony.
Sunstars start at f2 and are decently defined.
Flare resistance is excellent--better than some other modern CV's. You can induce minor ghost if you really push.
Ergonomically great--one of those lenses where things just pop into focus in the EVF--very easy to manual focus.
You can make the bokeh look a bit nervous and ugly, even centrally (sensor stack indepedant) if you try. Mostly pleasant though.
Not a character lens--very balanced feel to the files. Very little magic, though I do like them. Just a solid transparent feel when processing. Very much an all-around successor to the 35/1.7 in my opinion. While not perfect, my initial thought it that I am impressed and will easily prefer this lens over the ZM 35/1.5 and 35 Lux's, esp. given size and price....Show more →
Fantastic examples of this lens on stock Sony. Makes me want that lens even more
Here are a few (rendering) comparisons for anyone interested in seeing this lens vs the Zeiss Distagon 1.4 ZM.
All on a tripod with m11, focused using EVF. Will post more later. Unedited, adobe default with no lens corrections. Focus was the tulip that overlaps TV.
Nice series--thanks for posting. The scenes are not over complex though rendering-wise. I would put something in difficult lighting, with a transition zone and some branches in the corner, at mid distance.
In sets 1 and 3, it was easy for me the pick out the Zeiss. Set 2 I don't see much of a difference.
marcelography wrote:
Another 40/1.2 lover here tempted by the 35/1.5 mostly due to its size and (mostly) weight.
Went for the type I aluminium considering the weight even, can't wait to check it out in my hands. I really like how compact it looks, tried a 35/2 Ultron at a shop and quite loved the size/weight, so I think it'll be a tough duel - which to keep? I quite enjoy the 40mm FOV and how it renders, but the weight while shooting has been a bit of an issue (covid messed up my elbow joints, bizarrely).
I have been reading criticism of how the lens renders in the midframe area, which is kinda soft indeed on some examples... but haven't found a direct comparison yet between it and the 40/1.2 to help with the decision....Show more →
Have you received it? Do you like it? Is it winning with 40/1.2?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
...The scenes are not over complex though rendering-wise. I would put something in difficult lighting, with a transition zone and some branches in the corner, at mid distance...
"Let's see how it performs if I take a bad photo with it."
I know such tests are important, especially for those that cannot control their environment (wedding photographers, etc.), but I take them with a grain of salt since these are the conditions I intentionally avoid when taking a photo.
highdesertmesa wrote:
"Let's see how it performs if I take a bad photo with it."
I know such tests are important, especially for those that cannot control their environment (wedding photographers, etc.), but I take them with a grain of salt since these are the conditions I intentionally avoid when taking a photo.
Me too. The tests are appreciated, interesting and not academic (which I was I sometimes do them too), but they also don't deeply inform my view of a lens at this point.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Me too. The tests are appreciated, interesting and not academic (which I was I sometimes do them too), but they also don't deeply inform my view of a lens at this point.
I'm only a year or two into even realizing "transition zone rendering" is thing to look for. In the Fujifilm forum, I remember having to decipher exactly what the problem was that some had with the GF 110 rendering at f/2 – "The transition zone is 'rough'". Me: "What? Oh. Ok. Why are you even looking there and pondering the finer points of a contextually-insignificant part of the image?" The same people would praise the GF 50 wide open at f/3.5 as having a really nice transition zone. But I would look at those photos and think, "Yeah, but the image is no better or worse for it, and the f/3.5 bokeh in general is nothing to write home about." One of those YMMV things I guess.
rscheffler wrote:
You should do some test shots with and without coding. I've found that yes, coding reduces vignetting and edge color shifts (for more problematic lenses), but it also subtly affects overall color balance of images with a given lens. For example the Light Lens Lab 35 Cron replica, if I use it uncoded, it's somewhat colder than if coded.
The new VM35/1.5 has a fair amount of vignetting so if you're not keen on this, coding it as one of the Summilux or Summicron versions (you should try all options), should result in something suitable. Best also to do the test against an even white surface to more easily detect any color shifts that are either removed by the coding profiles, or added (some lenses require more correction than others, and using those profiles with a lens that requires less correction will result in color shift due to overcorrection). Something like a wall, overcast sky, etc. Ideally you want to focus the lens at infinity because that will move the rear element and exit pupil closest to the sensor which is when edge color shifts become more apparent....Show more →
I’ve been doing some tests and, on balance, prefer it coded as a 35mm f1.4 Asph. Thank you all for the info.
By the way, I notice on my copy that the lens focus mechanism takes it past the 0.5 marking on the lens. Is this normal or just a copy by copy variance? I’m not bothered either way as it makes no difference to the use of the lens.
Ianforber wrote:
By the way, I notice on my copy that the lens focus mechanism takes it past the 0.5 marking on the lens. Is this normal or just a copy by copy variance? I’m not bothered either way as it makes no difference to the use of the lens.
I think it focuses down to something like 1.49. 1.5 is close enough for marking and it should not make any difference to your photo taking.
)
