Voigtlander COLOR-SKOPAR 28mm F2.8 Aspherical VM

[Huss]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, Steven said:

Not to me. If I’m scale focusing, I want to precisely what my range is. If I want to focus precisely, I use my RF patch. I don’t take out my meter and make sure it matches my scale. 

That doesn't make any sense.  Because what is the point of precisely knowing your range if you do not precisely know your distance?  The whole deal w zone focus. 

[Product Details]

More about Voigtlander 28 mm F2.8 Ultron Color Skopar

Available at Amazon and B&H Photo Video

[Huss]

13 hours ago, Steven said:

Sadly that’s not how I use lenses. Sometimes I need to change exposure to compensate for a light change and not change focus. Especially when I’m shooting streets, zone focusing at a pre set distance and need to move from f5.6 to f11 fast when I cross from sun to shadow. 

It definitely is not a speedy lens to use if you need to change exposure constantly.  Unless you are wider open and use the shutter speed dial to change exposure.

[earthmover]

Some film shots (Vision3 250D) from recent trip to Malmo, Sweden. Really love this lens for travel, tiny, light and joy to use.

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!

[Huss]

4 hours ago, earthmover said:

Some film shots (Vision3 250D) from recent trip to Malmo, Sweden. Really love this lens for travel, tiny, light and joy to use.

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!

Lovely!  Also love the look from that film.  One that I have not yet tried (I think it is ECN2 process?).

[hdmesa]

22 hours ago, Steven said:

Sadly that’s not how I use lenses. Sometimes I need to change exposure to compensate for a light change and not change focus. Especially when I’m shooting streets, zone focusing at a pre set distance and need to move from f5.6 to f11 fast when I cross from sun to shadow. 

Changing aperture to change exposure seems counter intuitive to zone focusing, which is reliant on a fixed aperture to maintain a fixed range of focus. It's not usually a problem to stop down to change exposure as in your example since depth of field is only increased, but what if the light drastically drops and you need to go to f/2.8 or f/4, which might throw your subject out of the range of focus? At the levels of light required for your f/5.6 and f/11 examples, there should be minimal risk of the shutter speed going too low.

[hdmesa]

1 minute ago, Steven said:

I’d rather stay at 1/500 or 1/1000 because I’m always on the move, and at quite a fast pace. 
With 28, I can easily zone focus at F4. As long as I know what range I’m allowed to be in. I can’t slow down my walking pace that easily. We all have an identity when shooting. This is what works for me. To each their own. This 28 lens is not for me. I sacrifice aperture before shutter speed. 

I see – you have to account for not only your motion but the possibility the subject is moving in the opposite direction to your movement.

[Huss]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, Steven said:

I'm fairly precise when it comes to guessing the distance to my subject, so it matters to me to know precisely what's my range, and how close, or far, I'm allowed to be, if that's ok with you. 

“Fairly precise” focusing requires precise DOF scales?  Ok then.

It’s just amusing to me that the thing that does not require precision, and is not precise - zone focus - is the thing that you demand precise focus scales even though you admit your guessing of the distance is not precise!

Just say you prefer the way the DOF scale looks on the v2 lens.  That is a good enough reason.

Edited August 26, 2023 by Huss

[earthmover]

9 hours ago, Huss said:

Lovely!  Also love the look from that film.  One that I have not yet tried (I think it is ECN2 process?).

yes, it's ECN2 (with remjet). I usually treat this film as if it was ISO400 and push one stop in development. Think of it as Portra 400 but way cheaper, especially if you bulk-roll

[shirubadanieru]

1 hour ago, Huss said:

“Fairly precise” focusing requires precise DOF scales?  Ok then.

It’s just amusing to me that the thing that does not require precision, and is not precise - zone focus - is the thing that you demand precise focus scales even though you admit your guessing of the distance is not precise!

Just say you prefer the way the DOF scale looks on the v2 lens.  That is a good enough reason.

Can we just let people shoot the way they wanna shoot? Why do people here have to criticize or say that x way is the only right way? If @Steven shoots like that - and must I say his photos are probably better than most users here  - then, let him shoot however the hell he likes. And you can shoot the way you like, both are right because there’s no right or wrong in photography (or life for that matter), just different and unique approaches, you do you, let the others be who they are. And let’s instead focus on sharing pictures of the actual lens which is what this thread is for? Peace & love her my friends  Come on!

Edited August 26, 2023 by shirubadanieru

[shirubadanieru]

15 hours ago, earthmover said:

Some film shots (Vision3 250D) from recent trip to Malmo, Sweden. Really love this lens for travel, tiny, light and joy to use.

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!

These look beautiful , the lens has quite a gentle rendering, thought it would be more clinical given the asph element, but it looks great thanks for sharing

[hdmesa]

9 hours ago, Huss said:

“Fairly precise” focusing requires precise DOF scales?...

The less accurate one is with determining subject distance, the more important it is to have lens markings that allow you to line them up where you intended.

The distance markings on the Type II are trash compared to the Type I:

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!

[Huss]

31 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

The less accurate one is with determining subject distance, the more important it is to have lens markings that allow you to line them up where you intended.

The distance markings on the Type II are trash compared to the Type I:

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!

I would definitely get the type 1 then.

[nitroplait]

38 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

The distance markings on the Type II are trash compared to the Type I:

 

Completely subjective of course.
It depends entirely on whether you prefer to have stationary aperture or distance info on the scale.
To each his own.

[hdmesa]

13 minutes ago, Huss said:

I would definitely get the type 1 then.

I plan to get the Type I to match my 40 2.8 of the same design. I love the way the 40 2.8 operates. I like the infinity lock for landscapes. And I really like the rolling focus knob in combination with the focus feel. I like the brass construction. I would have still preferred the 0.5m MFD of the Type II, but oh well. Light Lens Lab's 35 8-Element collapsable is built like this lens, and it goes to 0.5m while the regular 8-E only goes to 0.7m, so the opposite of the Voigtlander 28 CS Type I and 40 2.8.

3 minutes ago, nitroplait said:

...It depends entirely on whether you prefer to have stationary aperture or distance info on the scale...

In a perfect world, I would prefer to have it all – stationary aperture, easier to use distance scale, and 0.5m MFD.

Edited August 26, 2023 by hdmesa

[Huss]

17 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

I plan to get the Type I to match my 40 2.8 of the same design. I love the way the 40 2.8 operates. I like the infinity lock for landscapes. And I really like the rolling focus knob in combination with the focus feel. I like the brass construction. I would have still preferred the 0.5m MFD of the Type II, but oh well. Light Lens Lab's 35 8-Element collapsable is built like this lens, and it goes to 0.5m while the regular 8-E only goes to 0.7m, so the opposite of the Voigtlander 28 CS Type I and 40 2.8.

In a perfect world, I would prefer to have it all – stationary aperture, easier to use distance scale, and 0.5m MFD.

Some people have reported that the locking focus knob has fallen off on their 40 2.8s.  Mine seems ok.

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, Huss said:

Some people have reported that the locking focus knob has fallen off on their 40 2.8s.  Mine seems ok.

That’s not good! I’ll keep an eye on it.

[poligow]

hey,

can anyone make a quick comparison with the "old" 28 skopar f3,5 ltm ? 🙂

[Huss]

On 8/26/2023 at 1:01 PM, hdmesa said:

That’s not good! I’ll keep an eye on it.

Juha on FM mentioned it happened to his too.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[hdmesa]

1 minute ago, Huss said:

Juha on FM mentioned it happened to his too.

Looks like it just screws in from the back. Guessing they failed to apply thread locker at the factory.

[charlesphoto99]

On 8/26/2023 at 10:35 AM, hdmesa said:

The less accurate one is with determining subject distance, the more important it is to have lens markings that allow you to line them up where you intended.

The distance markings on the Type II are trash compared to the Type I:

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!

What I find hilarious about this back and forth is the fact that the supposedly 'superior' dof markings on the type I would force the user to turn and look at the camera from the front to read them, therefore possibly nulling some of the benefit. Also, isn't it just a matter of focus throw as to how they are implemented? Shorter focus throw, less room between distance marking?