While mounting a filter may help to avoid getting ring flares in some situations, it doesn't solve the issue completely. As seen below in the wide open shot, there is indeed a red ring, which disappears when stopping down. There is only a small red spot with "wings" left at f/2.8.
MikeRZ67 wrote:
Great pictures, Lars!
Did you add/remove vignetting on any of those?
In your set (but also in general in the thread) the vignetting seems to be much more noticeable on some pictures at same aperture than others.
Thanks.
No, I didn't add or subtract vignetting in any of the images. However, I do agree that the image with the bushes (one covered, one bare) appears to have stronger vignetting. I think it may look so because of relative underexposure; the sun shining on bright snow.
BastianK wrote:
That an f/1.4 lens creates more blur than an f/1.5 lens in the center.
I question whether that is the reason. The difference between the Summilux and Nokton should show this behavior too, but it doesn't, as far as I have seen in the comparisons Fred has posted in this thread. I think there is a focus distance difference at play in your test shots (in addition to optical vignetting and field curvature).
And this is only the tip of the iceberg, as this is only ~2 m distance.
The Thypoch is always among the best in terms of bokeh rendering, same league as Sigma 28mm 1.4 Art and Nikon AF-S 28mm 1.4E.
RustyRus wrote:
This image doesn't make a lot of sense to me- It appears the Nokton image has far more in focus, behind it and in the corners-
If compare the letters above the statue- the sign to the far left and the chair etc in the building, all are far more in focus- If it was just the edges I could understand field curvature being to blamed but not directly behind the subject. What am I missing?
Whether there is perhaps slightly different focus between the two, it's IMO pretty obvious from images posted by others in this thread that the VM exhibits field curvature towards infinity at the image periphery.
LarsHP wrote:
I question whether that is the reason. The difference between the Summilux and Nokton should show this behavior too, but it doesn't, as far as I have seen in the comparisons Fred has posted in this thread. I think there is a focus distance difference at play (in addition to optical vignetting and field curvature).
I think I already said something about using the Leica lens as a benchmark before...
Some people are really trying to find the trees while not noticing they are already in the forest.
I shared this picture to show the more than obvious field curvature differences.
Even if the focus was 2mm different at a 2m distance it would be completely irrelevant to the point I made.
rscheffler wrote:
Whether there is perhaps slightly different focus between the two, it's IMO pretty obvious from images posted by others in this thread that the VM exhibits field curvature towards infinity at the image periphery.
Pretty sure Fred mentioned that, and how the curvature changes direction depending on focus distance.
BastianK wrote:
I think I already said something about using the Leica lens as a benchmark before...
Some people are really trying to find the trees while not noticing they are already in the forest.
I shared this picture to show the more than obvious field curvature differences.
Even if the focus was 2mm different at a 2m distance it would be completely irrelevant to the point I made.
I mentioned the Summilux because it's an f/1.4 lens, not for other reasons, and as I have made clear, I do recognize that most of the difference is field curvature and optical vignetting.
My point, which I consider valid, is that a longer focus distance will enhance the difference you present with the two images.
LarsHP wrote:
My point, which I consider valid, is that a longer focus distance will enhance the difference you present with the two images.
That is correct.
When it comes to the bokeh rendering, at close distances the optical vignetting is a big factor, whereas field curvature is mostly irrelevant.
At longer distances it is the other way round.
Let me share the optical vignetting patterns of three lenses and in contrast to that what their bokeh rendering looks like at longer distances.
I start with the Laowa 28mm 1.2 - a lens with low optical vignetting but sadly unfavourable field curvature.
Next is the Voigtländer VM 28mm 1.5 - much higher optical vignetting, but same field curvature issues.
And last the Thypoch Simera 28mm 1.4 - more optical vignetting than the Laowa, but huge difference in field curvature.
BastianK wrote:
I think I already said something about using the Leica lens as a benchmark before...
Some people are really trying to find the trees while not noticing they are already in the forest.
I shared this picture to show the more than obvious field curvature differences.
Even if the focus was 2mm different at a 2m distance it would be completely irrelevant to the point I made.
I think many of us don't feel that Thypoch is the benchmark either man- The 28 Lux is a much better benchmark to start with over a brand new lens that you are appearing to use as the benchmark here- They are the OEM 28 1.4
Would be great to compare all 3 but its a bit surprising that you invalidate the 28 Lux comparisons but push so hard on the Thypoch comparisons.
Everyone is seeing the trees in the forest, you just wont allow any one to not see the one tree you are looking at.
RustyRus wrote:
I think many of us don't feel that Thypoch is the benchmark either man- The 28 Lux is a much better benchmark to start with over a brand new lens that you are appearing to use as the benchmark here- They are the OEM 28 1.4
Would be great to compare all 3 but its a bit surprising that you invalidate the 28 Lux comparisons but push so hard on the Thypoch comparisons.
Everyone is seeing the trees in the forest, you just wont allow any one to not see the one tree you are looking at.
I think we're confusing "benchmark lens" with "reference lens". I like to use the Lux as a reference lens since a lot of M shooters are familiar with its performance, both positive and negative.
RustyRus wrote:
Would be great to compare all 3 but its a bit surprising that you invalidate the 28 Lux comparisons but push so hard on the Thypoch comparisons.
Fred's comparisons are great. I will definitely mention them in my VM 28mm 1.5 review to advise people not to buy the Leica lens. Unless they want to use one of my affiliate links, in that case: by all means, go for it!
Its just very sad for me that people are so blind trying not to see the differences and looking for excuse after excuse and most of these excuses start with "but the Leica Summilux".
And if you followed what I wrote about the Thypoch you might have noticed there is a lot I truly hate about it.
But it still corrects CA better than the VM, has better off center sharpness and way way less field curvature. And also a better T and f/stop than the VM.
Being able to point out good and bad aspects of something without caring who made it when and where is called being objective.
And in all the scenes I compared the bokeh rendering of the six 28mm lenses the VM ranks worst for me in every single one.
So if the VM and the Leica perform very similar here - which I truly believe after Fred's comparisons - this might not be a great argument for either of them.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I think we're confusing "benchmark lens" with "reference lens". I like to use the Lux as a reference lens since a lot of M shooters are familiar with its performance, both positive and negative.
BastianK wrote:
Fred's comparisons are great. I will definitely mention them in my VM 28mm 1.5 review to advise people not to buy the Leica lens. Unlike they want to use one of my affiliate links, in that case: by all means, go for it!
Its just very sad for me that people are so blind trying not to see the differences and looking for excuse after excuse and most of these excuses start with "but the Leica Summilux".
And if you followed what I wrote about the Thypoch you might have noticed there is a lot I truly hate about it.
But it still corrects CA better than the VM, has better off center sharpness and way way less field curvature. And also a better T and f/stop than the VM.
And in all the scenes I compared the bokeh rendering of the six 28mm lenses the VM ranks worst for me in every single one.
So if the VM and the Leica perform very similar here - which I truly believe after Fred's comparisons - this might not be a great argument for either of them....Show more →
Fair enough man- I enjoy your reviews and look forward to your comparison!
BastianK wrote:
Fred's comparisons are great. I will definitely mention them in my VM 28mm 1.5 review to advise people not to buy the Leica lens. Unlike they want to use one of my affiliate links, in that case: by all means, go for it!
Its just very sad for me that people are so blind trying not to see the differences and looking for excuse after excuse and most of these excuses start with "but the Leica Summilux".
And if you followed what I wrote about the Thypoch you might have noticed there is a lot I truly hate about it.
But it still corrects CA better than the VM, has better off center sharpness and way way less field curvature. And also a better T and f/stop than the VM.
Being able to point out good and bad aspects of something without caring who made it when and where is called being objective.
And in all the scenes I compared the bokeh rendering of the six 28mm lenses the VM ranks worst for me in every single one.
So if the VM and the Leica perform very similar here - which I truly believe after Fred's comparisons - this might not be a great argument for either of them....Show more →
Does the Thypoch focus accurately via RF on the M10?
For me, the bokeh of the Voigtlander is fine. This lens will be more of a night/low light lens and the 28/2.8 Skopar would be used for daytime. Bokeh for a 28 is not as important for me. I like the size of the VM 28/1.5 and I am sure that I will be happy with the sunstars which is why it would mainly be a low light lens. The Thypoch is certainly an interesting lens as well, and I will probably try it someday. As always, it is great to have choices. I am still conflicted as to what to do with my VM 28/2 Ultron because it is such a nice, sharp lens and is also very compact. I do appreciate your reviews Bastian, they are one of my go to's for lens reviews.
Desmolicious wrote:
Does the Thypoch focus accurately via RF on the M10?
A simple question yet not simple to answer.
I haven't received a final production model of the 28mm yet. The pre production's RF coupling has not been calibrated and I didn't bother trying to do that myself.
The 35mm is well calibrated, but it has a bit of a focus shift (not more than the 35mm 1.4 FLE though).
BastianK wrote:
Its just very sad for me that people are so blind trying not to see the differences and looking for excuse after excuse and most of these excuses start with "but the Leica Summilux".
Does that include not trying to see the physical size difference?
I think that folks are trying to understand the magnitude of difference that is IN RELATIONSHIP to the Summilux ... which includes the quid pro quo of physical size utilized in the lens design to achieve a given attribute ... of multiple different attributes.
Since, the Summilux was first to the party, it stands to reason that it be the first reference point that folks compare with, as it was the baseline.
I realize you have a really strong opinion about the $$$ of Leica lenses, and you aren't shy to tell folks about it ... meanwhile glossing past the elephant in the room regarding the physical size difference of the Typoch. For some folks, that isn't something they want to gloss over. For others, it is.
And, then there is the point that has been made about taking on the strategy of having TWO different 28mm lenses ... rather than a single lens. Hmmm, what's the cost in terms of weight, size and $$$ for the two lens strategy vs. the Summilux.
Personally, I've not made the determination for which lens (to be mounted on M mount, i.e. not Sony adaptations, etc.). Currently my 28mm is in the form of the Q2, which obviously incorporates a 2nd body strategy. Strategies will vary from person to person. But, it does strike me (and others) that there is a strong anti-Lux coming from what is supposed to be an objective presentation ... that greatly discounts the physical size difference. Hmmm, one Lux vs. the Typoch and a Voigt.
We all have our own perspectives, and do appreciate the presentation of objective information ... but, I think that it is reasonable to acknowledge that folks can, will and do reference the baseline lens (i.e. the Lux). It seems that an objective reference to the baseline, has been misinterpreted as coming from blinded fan-boys. When, that isn't the case (imo) from what I sense that most folks are asking when they reference the Lux. More of this, less of that, diff of this, diff of that ... but those diff's do stem from an established baseline, at least that's how some proceed with objective reference. And, the Lux established the baseline years before the others came to the show ... so, yeah, there's some legacy in the baseline being on folks mind. I don't find any fault with them for that, it is what it is ... the baseline.
What I apriciate with Bastians reviews are his strictly unbiased attitude towards companies whom produce gear! This truly impresses me not to follow personal preferences, thank you for following this road Bastian!
