Voigtlander Color Skopar 21mm F3.5 Aspherical Image Thread

Darthfeeble

Darthfeeble

But you can call me Steve
Local time
12:17 AM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
2,454
I got this lens yesterday and thought some samples would be of interest. Good and sharp as the scenic shows and nearly distortion free when shot straight on. A terrific lens, perfect on my M9.

med_U26501I1549649802.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Looks good to me. (That don't look like Eureka)

I've been considering this lens...

Try any flare-prone situations? Do you have/use a hood for this lens?
 
rfaspen said:
Looks good to me. (That don't look like Eureka)

I've been considering this lens...

Try any flare-prone situations? Do you have/use a hood for this lens?
Click to expand...

I have one shot that was into the sun, trying to get a sunstar, the star wasn't too great and there was a single blob of red flare, easily removed with the spot tool in LR. I got the hood too.
 
How do you code it on the M9? Is there any red edge? I'm intrigued by this lens as it might be a good smaller alternative to the excellent Zeiss Biogon 21mm.
 
I used the 21mm choice of the three Tri Elmar choices. What I posted is straight from the camera RAW file converted to jpg with no corrections. I had the Zeiss 21 and actually like the CV better, not as contrasty and more compact.
 
Darthfeeble said:
I got this lens yesterday and thought some samples would be of interest. Good and sharp as the scenic shows and nearly distortion free when shot straight on. A terrific lens, perfect on my M9.
Click to expand...

Mmh, I would not call this "nearly distortion free", see some nice barrel distortion ;)

But, thanks for the first examples!
 
I am looking at Voigtländer 21s. The field is crowded! I think the Ultron may be too large for my purposes but there is still a choice between the f4 Color-Skopar and the f3.5 ASPH. Does anyone have an opinion as to how they compare or point me to an internet reference? I don't find much info on the f3.5 on a Leica M.
 
Here's a real technical report: I'm totally tickled with mine. The pictures I posted above are straight from the camera, just resized jpgs from my M9.
 
Darthfeeble said:
Here's a real technical report: I'm totally tickled with mine. The pictures I posted above are straight from the camera, just resized jpgs from my M9.
Click to expand...

Only two pictures doesn't really tell anything.
Why not take some more on different apertures, distances and light to show them here? Please.
 
Darthfeeble said:
Here's a real technical report: I'm totally tickled with mine. The pictures I posted above are straight from the camera, just resized jpgs from my M9.
Click to expand...

Yes, they look very good from what I can tell. But would there be any significant difference if shot with the f4? There is quite a price differential, especially if the lens shade is purchased.
 
Bike Tourist said:
Yes, they look very good from what I can tell. But would there be any significant difference if shot with the f4? There is quite a price differential, especially if the lens shade is purchased.
Click to expand...

The 3.5 is supposed to be better behaved with digital sensors. The 21 f4 tends to have magenta sides on digital.

Shawn
 
shawn said:
The 3.5 is supposed to be better behaved with digital sensors. The 21 f4 tends to have magenta sides on digital.

Shawn
Click to expand...

Not at all of them. M9 is free if you code it right.
M240 seems to not supporting it.
And if your digital is crop here is none.
 
The coding is trying to correct for the color cast. The lens color cast is there, just that the camera is trying to adjust for it.

I get magenta sides on the m240 and the Sony A7RII. There are slight color shifts on crop sensors too but they are subtle.

As I said... the 3.5 is supposed to be better behaved on digital sensors.

Shawn
 
My M262 would probably react similarly to the M240. I think I'll opt for the f3.5. I hope it'll be as good as my Nokton 35mm f1.2.
 
Darthfeeble said:
Here's a real technical report: I'm totally tickled with mine. The pictures I posted above are straight from the camera, just resized jpgs from my M9.
Click to expand...


Thanks for posting sample pictures, but this one does not look 'straight from the camera'


46337848485_15604aca3f_o.jpg



Can you post the original that wasn't perspective corrected?
 
ferider said:
I was going to ask the same thing. Mine is certainly sharp and rectilinear enough for anything that I will use it for :)

Roland.
Click to expand...

Nice photo!

I think distortion starts to show up more in the outer areas of the frame. Personally I'm not really worried about it either though. I have hundreds of photos from the 21/4 color Skopar that don't show distortion that I'm concerned about, and the slightly more complex distortion of the new 21/3.5 Color Skopar doesn't look like a concern for me either.

Looking forward to seeing more of your work with the new 21mm Color Skopar!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top