Jump to content

Voigtlander 35/1.2 II -- specifically on colors


alan.y

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm posting in this sub-forum because my eventual goal is to replace my Summilux-R 35 with an M lens that gives me the same color rendition, and want to draw on the expertise here.

 

I've been very happy with my Voigtlander 35/1.2 II on Sony A7R except that the colors it gives have always struck me as loud and unsubtle, as compared those from my R35. In particular primary colors seem to be exaggerated. I don't know if the following makes any sense, but colors from the CV seem to tend towards primaries, and then primaries tend to seem more saturated. As a result the images tend to seem flat and brassy as compared to those from the R35. I'm attaching a few images that illustrate what I mean. I've read through several threads here but don't think color has been addressed specifically (as opposed to resolution and bokeh, which I am fine with.)

 

Hoping to substantiating this vague impression (or disabusing myself of a nonsensical illusion based on impatience, lack of skill, or accidents), I went out yesterday with the Lux-R 35 on my girlfriend's A7 and the CV on my A7R, took 45 pairs of photos in RAW, using identical WB and aperture settings, and more or less identical focus points and compositions. I developed the RAW files on Lightroom using the Medium Contrast default profile and, to adjust for the greenish cast of the R35 and the reddish cast of the CV, auto white balance (this will be a point of inquiry below).

 

My preliminary conclusion is that the CV has more vignetting even up to f/4 (again this is on my A7R), which adds a bit of drama and contributes to my impression of unsubtlety, as well as slightly higher contrast (as evidenced by farther spread away from the center on the histograms). In some of the photos the colors from the CV do seem more vibrant, but not at all in others. I'm attaching the pairs that do seem to show this extra vibrancy on the CV.

 

But here's where my very limited technical know-how ends. I'd like to ask for advice on how to evaluate subtlety and richness of color, as well as talk about it, more rigorously. How should I process the 45 pairs of RAW files, and then how should I turn that data into something analyzable?

 

As I mentioned above, ultimately my question is whether I need to buy a Leica M 35 lens to get "Leica colors" (if again it makes sense to speak of such). To that end any comparative experience between the CV 35 and M 35's regarding the issue of color would be appreciated.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by alanjung
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And here are some comparisons. Again, shot raw and shot with specified WB, processed in Lightroom using "Medium Contrast Curve" profile and auto WB. In each case, first Summilux-R 35 and then CV.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple more...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last ones.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last ones.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by alanjung
Link to post
Share on other sites

And here are some comparisons. Again, shot raw and shot with specified WB, processed in Lightroom using "Medium Contrast Curve" profile and auto WB. In each case, first Summilux-R 35 and then CV.

 

I see difference in white balance and exposure but also the plane of focus is quite different in these... See the man sitting on the box and the number on the front bumper of the bus.

I would do a 'click' white balance on something in the image that is supposed to be neutral, usually grayis or white, I can recommend Adobe Camera Raw or Photo Ninja for really good neutral colors from Leica M9 and M8.

Using 'auto wb' is not the way forward IMHO

Then, I would be more interested in making sure my lenses as a set deliver a uniform result if used for a series of images if that is my intension, not going into artistic imaging here J

In my photography I see far more differences due to light changing that from the lenses themselves. Especially light from light bulbs etc.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to match colour rendition, shoot a colour profile for each lens. However, it is more a matter of post-processing than of lens input.

You'll never get "Leica Colours" (whatever that might be) on a Sony camera. However,you can process the colours to your taste.

Edited by jaapv
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also very sensitive to colors, and value them more than other lens qualities.

It is difficult to judge colors on a non-wide gamut display (I am traveling at the moment) therefore I see no big difference in your examples apart from a slight greenish cast in the Lux shots. By the way, if you are like me and do not use a wide-gamut display, that should be your next purchase.

 

My reflex 35 was a Summicron-R (which I still own). I never used a Summilux-R.

The CV v1 that I own is a great lens but I also end up with very aggressive primaries, probably due to the fact that I often compensate in post for the lower contrast wide open.

I don't mind the final effect, but sometimes I need to desaturate.

 

The best 35 I have ever owned as far as pure colors are concerned is definitely the Summilux-M 35 FLE. I don't know if it will give you the colors you are searching for, but I strongly recommend you give it a try.

Edited by CheshireCat
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you everyone for your thoughtful input.

 

I think I was reacting in large part to the CV's stronger vignetting (at least on my A7R), which cues "drama" and "unsubtle" in my mind. I tried comparing the images with a specified WB point as suggested above, and indeed it's very hard to tell the color rendition of the lenses apart.

 

I still have the impression that the Lux R 35 does better in very strong sunlight. The CV tends to yield aggressive primary colors that look unattractive if left alone but inauthentic and insubstantial if dialed down in post, as in the first 2 attachments. I'm not really skillful in processing, so that could be a factor, but I don't think I get photos like that with the Lux.

 

But in other lighting conditions I've been quite happy with the CV (the last 3 attachments).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The colours do look a bit much if you have not enhanced them at all

 

 

 

I find Leica lenses largely fall into two camps, the centre sharp and dreamy double gauss design and the generally higher contrast more crisp, detailed and neutral ASPH type.

 

Of course there are many other factors and some modern gauss designs like the summarits are designed with a character closer to the ASPHs but still distinct IMHO. However additionally I find generally the Leica signature neutral wide open with sharp centres and a bluish tint very characteristic.

 

Typically Zeiss lenses have a warmer tint with a slight bias towards yellowish.

 

I have not used voigtlander but it seems to be similar to zeiss if not more so which makes sense as they are the same company.

 

As has been mentioned above you can change anything with a mixture of WB and colour profile but I generally find the A7 series has blander colours then Leica and flatter micro-contrast (whatever that means), possibly as Leica is trying to achieve more of a slide film contrasty look with its sensors.

 

I much prefer the Leica looks but that's just me. Sometimes a photo looks amazing with the 50mm Noctilux f1 v4, kind of a standard bearer for the sharp centre and dreamy colours look, but sometimes with the Summilux or APO with their ultra modern neutral, edge to edge sharpness look.

 

Personally I only use M lenses on M bodies and Sony lenses on the A7 but appreciate the current limited line up in the Sony A7 space at the moment. I hear a 35mm f1.4 is coming in the next year.

Edited by colonel
eirds
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The colours do look a bit much if you have not enhanced them at all

It's not just that the colours are very saturated, but that when I desaturate them, I end up with emaciated, untrue images. I can't quite pinpoint what it is, and my limited tests above don't show anything, but it's really quite palpable and inconsistent in use. I guess for now I just have to accept that as a limited, subjective truth...

 

Again, I like many things about the CV. But for me the photos from the Lux-R 35 and 80 just have that something extra... They come out just right. The weight and bulk are a disadvantage, but one I'm willing to deal with.

 

I recently took the R lenses on a trip to Xinjiang, China and am quite happy with the images I got:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/314851-a7-r-images-leica-lenses-open-28.html

 

As has been mentioned above you can change anything with a mixture of WB and colour profile but I generally find the A7 series has blander colours then Leica and flatter micro-contrast (whatever that means), possibly as Leica is trying to achieve more of a slide film contrasty look with its sensors.

It's possible that the CV just doesn't like the 36MP Sony sensor. Certainly the vignetting, possibly made worse by Sony's microlens array design, doesn't help.

 

I've never used a Leica M camera but I look forward to experiencing RF.

Edited by alanjung
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's possible that the CV just doesn't like the 36MP Sony sensor. Certainly the vignetting, possibly made worse by Sony's microlens array design, doesn't help.

 

I've never used a Leica M camera but I look forward to experiencing RF.

 

You seem to be wanting to blame the lens, but you could re-phrase your comment to say 'it's possible the 36mp Sony sensor is very poor with lenses 35mm and wider from other manufacturers'. Which it is because this is a camera problem, not a lens problem, the vignetting is not the lens, the colour is not the lens, and of course the post processing is not the lens.

 

The problems of the A7R are well known with rangefinder lenses, it wasn't made for them even though they can be fitted, so this is about misguided expectations of the camera rather than any inherent faults with rangefinder lenses.

 

Steve

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be wanting to blame the lens, but you could re-phrase your comment to say 'it's possible the 36mp Sony sensor is very poor with lenses 35mm and wider from other manufacturers'. Which it is because this is a camera problem, not a lens problem, the vignetting is not the lens, the colour is not the lens, and of course the post processing is not the lens.

 

The problems of the A7R are well known with rangefinder lenses, it wasn't made for them even though they can be fitted, so this is about misguided expectations of the camera rather than any inherent faults with rangefinder lenses.

 

Steve

 

"It's possible that the CV just doesn't like the 36MP Sony sensor. Certainly the vignetting, possibly made worse by Sony's microlens array design, doesn't help."

 

I don't see how the above can be construed as "blaming the lens." Nor do I find it any more logically sound to blame the camera, which as you say is not designed for RF lenses. What you seem to want to say is that I, a user with "misguided expectations," am to blame, which is a kneejerk response from someone who hasn't bothered to read the thread. I was careful to note "(on my A7R)" at every mention of the CV's stronger vignetting (than the Lux R 35).

 

If the more pleasing rendition I'm subjectively finding from the Lux-R relative to the CV were ultimately due to a better sensor-lens pairing (which would be news to me; aside from corner sharpness and smearing), then the helpful critique would be not to rehearse what is well-known, but to post comparisons of images from the Lux-R (or another Leica 35) and the CV on an M240, or between the CV on an M240 and the CV on the A7R.

 

It's simply not true that the A7R is "very poor" with all RF lenses wider than 35mm. The A7R+35/1.2 combo is not poor at all. And in Ron Scheffer's tests even the Lux M 50 Asph has smeared edges and corners on the A7R. My CV 21/1.8 is acceptable on the A7R, with purplish corners at large apertures but not much smearing.

 

I'm also unconvinced that the CV 35/1.2, with its 0.5m MFD, can be said to be meant for RF alone and not mirrorless.

Edited by alanjung
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's simply not true that the A7R is "very poor" with all RF lenses wider than 35mm. The A7R+35/1.2 combo is not poor at all. And in Ron Scheffer's tests even the Lux M 50 Asph has smeared edges and corners on the A7R. My CV 21/1.8 is acceptable on the A7R, with purplish corners at large apertures but not much smearing.

 

Lenses are designed with different optical paths, some will be better on the A7R, some not so good. But if you have not read the vast numbers of tests and moans on the internet about the A7R, and the poor results from the majority of wider angle rangefinder lenses, then you have been reading much lately. ,

 

The two lens you are comparing are of two different designs and have different mount to sensor/film distances on their native camera's. There are few wider angle rangefinder lenses that work convincingly (without needing further technical adjustments in post processing) on the A7R than SLR lenses, which do work much better. This is because the further away the native flange to sensor distance is the straighter the light path onto the sensor, so to some extent SLR lenses are veering more towards being telecentric just as their digital cousins are. Rangefinder lenses are the opposite, they are intended to have a closer flange to sensor distance, meaning that unless they are a dedicated telecentric lens (such as digital wide angle lenses), then the light path into the corners will be at an acute angle, causing light loss (vignetting) and distortion (smearing). So it is misguided to cherry pick one or two wide angle rangefinder lenses that do work reasonably well and extrapolate that to imply all lenses should work, and those that don't are therefore 'bad'. The very reason relatively few M users have gone out and bought an A7R is because of this problem, and while lenses such as the WATE do work well it is because it is not a traditional rangefinder design.

 

So if your CV lens doesn't work well it isn't a fault of the lens, it wasn't designed for that camera. It isn't a fault of the camera, it wasn't designed for that lens. It is the fault of the person bringing them together. The true test of the CV lens is on a digital rangefinder camera (using the correct coding) and how truly bad it is will be revealed,... or not, as is the case because it is a fine lens.

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...