Thanks, I read the same report somewhere, though ahuyevshi praised the new version (28/2) and seems to have gotten great results: https://www.mu-43.com/f81/cosina-voigtlander-28mm-f-2-nokton-image-thread-1526/The 28/1.9 is from what I have heard a good choice for µ4/3 cameras as there is nearly no smearing at the borders. That is as opposite to the new 28/2 version, which btw also exhibits some focus shift.
The 28/1.9 seems to be difficult to find (no longer in production) and the one source I've found has a "no returns" policy.I returned my 28/2 after having bought it wishing I had picked the 28/1.9 instead. Then I ended up with an FD24/2 instead for wider FOV but that's another story.
Hans-Jürgen, thanks for your detailed answer. I am new to digital photography and sometimes forget how important PP has become. I have done some myself now but am still working out how I feel about it for my own work. I see some photographers set strict limits on what kind of post production processing they will do. In any case it worked well for you.
I am glad that my own intuition about a 35mm as a walk around lens on :43: may be correct. I've tried using an OM 50mm/1.8 lens as a walk around but it is way too long. 25mm is "boring" according to Brian Mosley and I agree with him after using the 25/2.8 pancake on my E-420 (Hans-Jürgen you're not the only one who pays close attention to what he has to say!). On the wide side of "normal" the 17mm is very good and in the other direction, 28 and 35 seem to be the alternatives; I think after reading your comments, I'll try a 35.
Speaking of this I have been trying to get an answer to the following question on the dpreview board but no one there seems to know:
Which 35mm Voigtlander lens is better on a micro 4/3 camera? the Color-Skopar Pan Type II for Leica M mount, or the older version, the Color Skopar Classic, Leica Screw Mount? They are both still available and at good prices.
How about it anyone?
How about it cosinaphile? By the way, cosinaphile, do you have a photographic collection published on line? I'd like to have a look.
I see some photographers set strict limits on what kind of post production processing they will do.
Hi Mark, of course I respect that but for me strict is a category applying to both death as being strictly unavoidable and care for any life as strictly reasonable ;-), hobby is fun, even that not strictly , ok., nonsense mode off for now.
Would be interesting to analyze why 25 should appear to be more boring on m4/3 than the equivalent 50 as the one classic on small format film - will take my 2,8/24 OM, may be good exercise to try to get close enough...; rarely chosen because may sample (must be the only around according to the usual ravings) being not as sharp as my prefered lenses.
2,5 35 Voigtländer - wondered about the same like you before aquiring the 1,7 - following Sean Read´s praise for the Classic and comparing results from the II in the net fwiw left me with the impression that both versions may differ more by sample variations than by type - nothing reliable though.
Now let´s ask please to show your results (in case I wasn´t too dull to locate those).
I'm surprised to read that. A normal lens is boring?! What was the context, or how can I find this statement?(...)
25mm is "boring" according to Brian Mosley and I agree with him after using the 25/2.8 pancake on my E-420 (Hans-Jürgen you're not the only one who pays close attention to what he has to say!). On the wide side of "normal" the 17mm is very good and in the other direction, 28 and 35 seem to be the alternatives; I think after reading your comments, I'll try a 35.