Voigtlander 35/1.2 II -- specifically on colors

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hoping to substantiate this vague impression [...], I went out yesterday with the Summilux-R 35 mm on my girlfriend's A7 and the Voigtländer 35 mm 1:1.2 on my A7R ...

Your hope is in vain. Using two different cameras, this exercise is entirely pointless. You should start over the comparison but this time, with one camera only.

[alan.y]

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

 

I was really jetlagged so my earlier response to you was unnecessarily snappy, my apologies.

 

I was aware of what you're saying about telecentric designs being better suited to the Sony sensors. That stuff has been repeated ad nauseum since the A7's came out. In all that complaining, the CV 35/1.2 was one deemed to work reasonably well with the Sony cameras, hence my interest in it. The CV 35 does not suffer from the horrible corner/edge purpling and smearing seen from other RF lenses.

 

I've also repeatedly said that the CV is not "bad." The entire premise of the post was to explore why even though it's technically very good (as it is, even on the A7R), the colors it gives (on the A7R) strike me as lacking something of the R's character and pleasingness even aside from the extra vignetting possibly caused by the flange distance issue. (And I'm not really sure that the CV really does vignette worse on the A7R than on M cameras barring automatic corrections on the latter.)

 

As to who is to blame, whether I am in the end to blame, etc.--this line of thinking is unnecessary. You've put those terms in my mouth. I never set out to "blame" anyone or anything. On the A7R I like the CV's ergonomics and performance, but I now reach for the heavier, more awkward R because of a subjective, not fully articulate appreciation of its rendition. (I'll note in passing that the R suffers from coma in a way the CV doesn't.) I was hoping to have both in one package on the A7R because that's the camera I have now, and it seems not to be happening.

 

What this has taught me is that the sheer mention of the A7R triggers reflexive reactions in some Leica M users. For you, who apparently have chosen to misread my post willfully, pairing RF lenses with the A7R is fundamentally wrong, and that should never have been done in the first place. That may be. My finances are such that I can't afford an M right now, but I'm certainly open to it.

Edited July 31, 2014 by alanjung

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[zlatkob]

In your examples, the colors from the CV35/1.2 + A7R look very good to me. I'm not seeing anything that is loud or unsubtle.

[gyoung]

Daring to suggest using anything other than Leica produces a degree of paranoia in some around here, who are in denial that anyone could make a lens or camera which might do a job better than leica products.

:-)

 

Gerry

[manolo]

alanjung, I agree with you that the R 35 1.4 has some very special color that was also very appealing to me; in fact, it was my favorite R lens. If you find that the cv lens is a good substitute (or any other candidate), please us know, as I have only been using the M system since the M8 and still miss this lens (that I sold when I made the switch to a rangefinder system).

[Hamad]

Just placed an order for 35mm Voiglander 1.2 Version ll. quite excited to get my hands on and start shooting with it. Have to say the 1.2F stop got me craving for it and the price tag is just too good. Read reviews and seen photos of it here in this form and i love the feel of it and the way the photos come out. will keep you all posted with samples once i shoot. thank you

[rramesh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Great choice. You will like it.

[wlaidlaw]

I found the Voigtlander 35/1.2 a disappointing lens. Even after it had made two trips back to base to correct focusing problems, it was lowish contrast, both macro and micro plus rather flare prone. This was particularly noticeable, as I was using it on my M8 at the time and often got pink semi-circular artefacts from the UV-IR filter. I decided to get rid of it and a friend who took almost solely black and white film, said the lower contrast was ideal for his purposes. I then set out on the lengthy business of trying to find a 35/1.4 ASPH Summilux which 1) focused correctly and 2) did not aperture shift out of the DoF on stopping down. I gave up on trying to find an alloy bodied black one with the preceding specs and eventually found an example of the considerably heavier brass/chrome version which was nearly correct. I had it adjusted to have a tiny amount of front focus wide open at 2 metres, within the DoF, so that what small amount of aperture shift it does have, does not interfere with with imaging. That was 10 years ago and I am still delighted with it. It has excellent contrast but not so high that unlike the later FLE version, you don't have a big problem with purple fringing on high contrast edges, like tree branches against a bright sky. The only downside is its weight, which is considerable. 

 

Wilson

Edited March 11, 2018 by wlaidlaw

[rramesh]

The CV 35 1.2 on an M9 is just perfect. Wonderful colors, just the right amount of contrast. My observations.

1. No focus shift, focus problems or unwanted flare.
2. Yes it is a little large and heavy, but it is f/1.2.
3. It's draw matches well with my 28 Cron and 50 Lux.
4. Expensive hood but not as expensive as the 12566 on my 28 Cron.

[ktmrider2]

I have the first version of the 35f1.2 and yes, it is large and heavy but that should not come as a surprise as that is exactly everyone's first comment.  And it is not like Voightlander is trying to sell it as a petite model.  It works great on my film M's (M2 and M5) and it balances well on my MP240.  I like it and teamed with the 35f2.8 C Biogon, I cannot think of a better combo for the money.

 

I debate selling both and putting the money into a 35f1.4 Biogon from Zeiss but just can't see it.  Yes, it would make my life simpler (one lens instead of two) but would remove flexibility for travel.  

[Ecar]

I have the first version of the 35f1.2 and yes, it is large and heavy but that should not come as a surprise as that is exactly everyone's first comment.  And it is not like Voightlander is trying to sell it as a petite model.  It works great on my film M's (M2 and M5) and it balances well on my MP240.  I like it and teamed with the 35f2.8 C Biogon, I cannot think of a better combo for the money.

 

I debate selling both and putting the money into a 35f1.4 Biogon from Zeiss but just can't see it.  Yes, it would make my life simpler (one lens instead of two) but would remove flexibility for travel.  

 

Keep it. It's a very underrated lens IMO.