Voigtlander

[cme4brain]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think perhaps it might. I have the CV21 and would not swap it. The results are excellent in a range of subjects - significantly better than are shown in Sean's reviews. The reason, possibly, is that I don't take shots of flat surfaces, so the elements that appear in the centre and corners are not usually in the same plane. And I tend not to use it a full aperture. After reading the latest review, I took today a range of tests with this lens at f/4 and f/8 of the same object (the window of a house) at about 150 metres range, five shots at each aperture, placing it in the centre of the frame, then at each corner.

 

The results are quite interesting, but I have no other 21mm lens to compare it with. At f/4 the definition is very good in the centre, quite good in the corners, with the exception of top left, which is a bit softer. At f/8, it's still very good on centre, and the corners are well up to standard. If anyone's interested, I can post the 100% crops (all ten if you wish) if someone will tell me how to extract a 100% crop from the whole frame (do I just take a screen shot?)

 

David

 

 

I have the exact same experience! My CV 21mm Skopar seems, to me anyway, sharp in the corners, unlike Sean Reids excellent review. It is a great lens and I will keep it instead of swapping it for the 21P lens I think. He also had more than one example of th lens to test and apparently had a similar finding (softness in the corners) that he did not find in the new 21P "M" mount. Perhaps there were some quality control issues that Voigt has now addressed in the 21P (hense the good Sean review), and our examples of the 21mm LTM Skopar are good ones.

[Advertisement]

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

[sean_reid]

I have the exact same experience! My CV 21mm Skopar seems, to me anyway, sharp in the corners, unlike Sean Reids excellent review. It is a great lens and I will keep it instead of swapping it for the 21P lens I think. He also had more than one example of th lens to test and apparently had a similar finding (softness in the corners) that he did not find in the new 21P "M" mount. Perhaps there were some quality control issues that Voigt has now addressed in the 21P (hense the good Sean review), and our examples of the 21mm LTM Skopar are good ones.

 

Three samples so far - but maybe they were all made in one large production batch. We can say, for sure, that some examples of the 21 Skopar are soft in the corners. I'm eager to see an example of the lens which is not.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[DavidStone]

Three samples so far - but maybe they were all made in one large production batch. We can say, for sure, that some examples of the 21 Skopar are soft in the corners. I'm eager to see an example of the lens which is not.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

I just looked back at your original review of the 21mm RF lenses. I'd forgotten that the corner of the frame chosen for the test shots was the upper left - and it's the upper left corner on mine which, when I peered into the corners, has noticeably lower resolution than the other three. But I wouldn't want to read too much into this.

 

In trying to post the 100% crops of my ten test shots, time and the technology defeated me, but while admiring the patience and dedication of those who do such test reports as yours, which have to contain a maximum of information, I'm one of those who would be quite happy with the Kobalux, which I didn't previously know about. I'm not that bothered about ultimate resolution, especially at 100% on the screen, which represents a print size that I would never normally make.

 

I'll post below a couple of shots taken with the CV21, the indoor shot at 1/25th at f/4 and the outdoor at 1/500th at f/8. Each of these would make a good 20"x16" print, which is as big as I would normally go. The brick buildings seem to have aquired a moiré pattern which is not in the original file or the print.

 

David

DecoExh.pdf

Aarhus.pdf

[cme4brain]

Three samples so far - but maybe they were all made in one large production batch. We can say, for sure, that some examples of the 21 Skopar are soft in the corners. I'm eager to see an example of the lens which is not.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Here is my informal test of my copy of the Voigt 21mm LTM Skopar shot of a brick wall, ISO 160, f/4.0, converted JPEG from the DNG File, adobe Photoelements 5.0, all defaults taken. First is the full frame shot, second is the 100%crop of the left upper corner, third is the 100%crop of the right lower corner. I did my best to level and parallel the camera (not on a tripod). I did not take several pix to test focus variation from my middle aged eyes.

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!

[bradreiman]

the above test could be softer in the right because of the distance to the wall.trapazoiding of the bricks indicate the right side of the wall is farther away and at f4 it could be falling out of the DOF range

[jaapv]

68mm but need to trim a little to let it seat nicely. 69mm would be ideal but can't find 69mm cap.

 

The Digilux2 has a 69 mm filter size, so the cap might fit. It is a jam-jar lid type.

[cme4brain]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

the above test could be softer in the right because of the distance to the wall.trapazoiding of the bricks indicate the right side of the wall is farther away and at f4 it could be falling out of the DOF range

 

You are absolutely correct about the right lower corner. I was shooting the church brick wall (in shadow) and wanted to hurry before 10 people asked me what I was doing. Of note is the fact that the left upper corner is sharp (to my eyes), and this was the problematic area in Sean Reid's testing (I think).

[sean_reid]

You are absolutely correct about the right lower corner. I was shooting the church brick wall (in shadow) and wanted to hurry before 10 people asked me what I was doing. Of note is the fact that the left upper corner is sharp (to my eyes), and this was the problematic area in Sean Reid's testing (I think).

 

It wasn't just one corner, they were all soft.

 

To all,

 

Lloyd sent me a quick sample picture made at F/4 with his 21 Skopar. The camera isn't squared to the wall he photographed, etc. but it does suggest that his copy of the lens shows good corner resolution, even wide open. I'd be curious to test that specific lens but even Lloyd's casual test seems to indicate much better corner performance than the three 21 Skopars I've tested so far.

 

My working hypothesis, for now, is that some of the 21 Skopars show good resolution across the M8 frame and some do not.

 

For those who are testing their own lenses (as I test for res.), some suggestions:

 

1) Ideally the subject tested should be a flat surface (I tend to use the sides of old railway cars).

 

2) The camera should be fully squared to the subject, vertically and horizontally.

 

3) Focus bracketing, as I've discussed in my articles, is very important.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[skueh]

Keep in mind that we've worked with two different samples of the lens. <G> Also, unless one does careful focus bracketing with both lenses (on a tripod) it's very difficult to draw reliable conclusions about their resolution. The contrast differences are noticeable, however, and the lack of RF coupling on the CV 15 is problematic for anyone who is critical about focus/resolution (more critical than I would be in my own work).

 

My review of the ultra-wide RF lenses includes the CV12, CV15, WATE and Zeiss 15.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean,

I am new to the forum and a new M8 owner. You mentioned that "the lack of RF coupling on the CV 15 is problematic for anyone who is critical about focus/resolution." Can you elaborate a little bit on this, specifically on the luck of RF coupling?

Thanks.

 

Sze-Han

[cme4brain]

Sean,

I am new to the forum and a new M8 owner. You mentioned that "the lack of RF coupling on the CV 15 is problematic for anyone who is critical about focus/resolution." Can you elaborate a little bit on this, specifically on the luck of RF coupling?

Thanks.

 

Sze-Han

 

Welcome to the forum. The CV 12mm, 15mm, and the older 25mm lenses (I think) are not RF coupled, therefore the rangefinder patch does not move when you focus the lens. You have to estimate the distance to your subject, and then set that distance on the CV 12mm or 15mm lens barrel (you think your subject is 10 feet from you, turn the lens barrel until the 10 foot mark (if there is one) is aligned to the focus mark). This works most of the time because the tremendous depth of field even at a wide open aperture in such wide angle lenses will allow a sharp picture most of the time. However DOF is not a substitue for an accurate focus, and I would also like to see these lenses rangefinder coupled.

[sean_reid]

Sean,

I am new to the forum and a new M8 owner. You mentioned that "the lack of RF coupling on the CV 15 is problematic for anyone who is critical about focus/resolution." Can you elaborate a little bit on this, specifically on the luck of RF coupling?

Thanks.

 

Sze-Han

 

 

Lloyd explained this quite well. Unless one is carrying a measuring tape, focus on the CV 15 is done by estimation. Depth of field helps cover for any mistakes in that estimation but if one is very critical about exact focus on a certain plane then estimated distance isn't going to be an accurate enough method. Most people are getting great results with the CV 15 but they're also being somewhat flexible as to the distance at which the plane of exact focus is located.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Welcome to the forum. The CV 12mm, 15mm, and the older 25mm lenses (I think) are not RF coupled.

 

Just a note that the new 25P (review coming very soon) is RF coupled.