Voigtländer 25mm F0.95

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by sgoldswo, Nov 10, 2012.

  1. sgoldswo

    sgoldswo Mu-43 Regular

    141
    Oct 27, 2012
    Hertfordshire, UK
    I bought this off the back of the performance of the 17.5mm lens. It isn't as good, but judged on its own merits it is a very good but flawed lens. Flawed because its just too glowy and soft for my taste wide open. Nonetheless it doesn't have to be stopped down far at all (F1.2 to 1.4) to get very good quality results with great detail resolution. Stopped down further it is scarily sharp.

    Full post here: Voigtländer 25mm. The original and the best? « sgoldswoblog

    Samples here:

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgoldswo/8170813040/" title="PB090064-Edit by sgoldswo, on Flickr"> 8170813040_1e6d73edcf_b. "1024" height="768" alt="PB090064-Edit"></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgoldswo/8170862178/" title="PB080033 by sgoldswo, on Flickr"> 8170862178_c41ae885c7_b. "1024" height="768" alt="PB080033"></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgoldswo/8170812372/" title="PB090077 by sgoldswo, on Flickr"> 8170812372_055fb48ef9_b. "1024" height="768" alt="PB090077"></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgoldswo/8170781491/" title="PB090097 by sgoldswo, on Flickr"> 8170781491_e958a7f2c1_b. "1024" height="1024" alt="PB090097"></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgoldswo/8170774943/" title="PB080016 by sgoldswo, on Flickr"> 8170774943_123f3c4884_b. "1024" height="768" alt="PB080016"></a>
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    Interestingly I'd just did the opposite (bought the 17.5mm off the performance of the 25mm) and have had the exact opposite reaction - I feel that the 17.5mm is very good, but not as good as the 25mm...

    Anyhow, great photos!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. sgoldswo

    sgoldswo Mu-43 Regular

    141
    Oct 27, 2012
    Hertfordshire, UK
    Thank you but LOL! Maybe this is just subjective because I know some raved about the 25 and others thought it wasn't so great at the time it came out.

    I think they are both good lenses but the 25 just seems that bit softer and more glowy wide open to me than the 17.5 - by way of comparison this is a shot of my brother with the 17.5mm wide open:

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgoldswo/8148936527/" title="PB020530 by sgoldswo, on Flickr"> 8148936527_7d14dabea6_b. "1024" height="768" alt="PB020530"></a>
     
  4. TDP

    TDP Guest

    I have the 17.5 and 25 as well, to me the 17.5 is great but the 25 is magical!
     
  5. chasm

    chasm Mu-43 Veteran

    262
    Mar 2, 2010
    I have the 25mm and love it. Every so often I think I should sell it, but I can't. Even though it's (relatively) heavy and cumbersome, and (relatively) slow to use (not easy to zone focus with this one) I just find it can easily give magical results.
    I find the rendering and bokeh wide-open very satisfying - not conventionally sharp, for sure, but it combines well with a bit of "grain" (usually via DxO FilmPack for me). Stopped down it is, as you say, extraordinary, and also the 7" closest focus distance is brilliant.
    I can't help wondering if it would be more reliable on an OM-D than my G3, but for the moment that will have to remain a wonder!
     
  6. sgoldswo

    sgoldswo Mu-43 Regular

    141
    Oct 27, 2012
    Hertfordshire, UK
    Oddly enough, I find I struggle slightly with my G5 producing noise even at base ISO (though it may be down to my habit of slightly under exposing to preserve highlights), and I've noticed that with the 17.5mm particularly. The same issue is there with the E-M5, but reduced. I know what you mean about thinking about selling it, but if you can afford to keep it, don't IMO.
     
  7. RobWatson

    RobWatson Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    "Glowy"?

    Don't all lenses F1.2 and faster "suffer" from "glow" wide open? Pretty tough to be so fast and have high MTF. If one wants exceptional speed and exceptional sharpness then be prepared to pay exceptional prices.
     
  8. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    Underexposure is the quickest way to noise. Generally, a properly exposed image at ... say 1600 ISO will produce less noise than an underexposed image at 800 ISO. I'm not saying this is particularly relevant to your problem, just saying.

    Gary
     
  9. sgoldswo

    sgoldswo Mu-43 Regular

    141
    Oct 27, 2012
    Hertfordshire, UK
    Agree 100%, I'm not upset with the lens, nor am I trying to compare it to a Noctilux - it's just that I can coax a wee bit more sharpness (with slightly less glow) out of the 17.5mm wide open.
     
  10. sgoldswo

    sgoldswo Mu-43 Regular

    141
    Oct 27, 2012
    Hertfordshire, UK
    Sorry, should have been more specific - don't really see the noise with the AF lenses when slightly underexposing, whereas I do with the Voigtlander lenses.
     
  11. RobWatson

    RobWatson Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Is that mostly obvious away from the center? Vignetting is a bit more pronounced with such wide apertures and will tend to be a bit noisy around the edges in some cases.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. sgoldswo

    sgoldswo Mu-43 Regular

    141
    Oct 27, 2012
    Hertfordshire, UK
    In honesty it isn't confined to the centre but in looking at the results now it is worse in the corners where there is vignetting (particularly wide open).