Voigtlander 42.5mm vs. Fuji 56mm F1.2

Dear photo enthusiasts,

I'm thinking about buying a Voigtländer 42.5mm f0.95 lens for my Olympus E-M1.
I do have the Voigtländer 17.5mm as well as the 25mm and enjoy them immensiviely.
I do use thm mostly for photos/videos of my toddler.

But I would also love to have autofocus while still having the ability of great subject isolation and lens character.

Looking at current used prizes of Fuji X E-1 (about 200-300 Euros) I was thinking about buying a secondary system together with the Fuji 56mm f1.2. Regarding subject isolation this lens should be comparable to the Voigtländer on m43 but with Autofocus. Prizes are comparable to buying the Voigtländer 42.5mm f0.95 but I would have the possibility to play with another system....

Another idea would be a Sony A7..... I know I'm affected by GAS, but we all know that this is a heck of fun...  

Does anybody have experience with both lenses?
What are your opinion on both systems or on buying a X E-1 to complement my Oly E-M1? Or would you think about buying a FF kit?
I'm mostly using my camera for family photos nowadays.

 

I already own the Olympus 75mm f1.8 and love it!
I use it a lot with the toddler. But AF is still lacking in some situations (like toddler in a swing)...

I would definitely buy the 55m f1.8 if I would choose to buy the A7/r/s. As images of that lens are amazing.

Regarding the 42.5 f1.2: isolation is worse than Voigtländer 42.5 f0.95 or Fuji 56mm f1.2. And honestly when looking at images from these two lenses they tend to have more character. Hard to explain, but the PL 42.5 looks a bit clinical at times, and regarding value the 42.5 PL seems to be the worst of the bunch (I could even buy a X E-2 and Fuji 56mm for roughly the same prize or the X E-1 and the 56mm for less; which I find more appealing as I'm a gear head somehow....).

 

Btw how do you like the A7 from a usability point of view? I haven't handled one yet but I've read a lot about it and some things seem strange (as AF point selection).

 

It's not about the price. IMHO the CV 42.5 f0.95 as well as the Fuji and the Zeiss 55mm all have more character than the PL 42.5... That's what I mean.
I do love the images of my CV 17.5 and CV 25mm. And MF is okay using peaking, but AF would be nice still. Buying into another system can be a heck of fun, too.
A7 with Zeiss 55mm f1.8 is just 500 Euro more than the PL 42.5 and about 1000 more than the CV (although this would be comparable to E-M1 with CV 25 rather than CV 42.5). Fuji X-E1 with Fuji 56mm f1.2 is about 250 Euros more than the CV 42.5 and also about 250 Euros cheaper than the PL 42.5... So it's not about the budget but about what you get for your money and how much fun you can have as an enthusiast... And also about image quality and character...

 

This link gives you a comparison of blur from the Fuji, Zeiss, PL and CV lens:

howmuchblur.com/#compare-1.5x-56mm-f1.2-and-2x-43mm-f0.95-and-1x-55mm-f1.8-and-2x-43mm-f1.2-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

As you can see the CV and the Fuji are in a completely different league than the PL...


And for the A7 one could use the Samyang/Walimex/Rokinon 85mm f1.4 lens. Even better isolation and price wise is A7 & 85mm f1.4 the same as Fuji X-E1 & 56mm f1.2.
Hmm, what might be the better choice...

 

You are right, but then I would have to fiddle with film development  

And I've looked at lots of samples in flickr, that's why I've said that I prefer images of the Fuji or the Voigtländer 42.5mm over the PL 42.5mm f1.2.

So it would be:

1. Buy a Voigtländer 42.5mm f0.95 to use with my E-M1 to complete my CV trinity
Pro: love it's images, IBIS, no new body needed
Con: no new body needed  , MF

2. Buy a used Fuji X E-1 with a (new) Fuji 56mm f1.2 as I love images from this combination on Flickr
Pro: new body and new system -> new experience, AF, better high ISO (eaten by f1.2 vs f0.95???)
Con: no IBIS

3. Buy a used A7 (maybe even A7R or A7S when I wait a bit) and combine it with the 55mm f1.8 Zeiss and a Samyang/Walimex/Rokinon 85mm f1.4
Pro: new body and new system, good high ISO capabilities (better than Fuji?), lots of adaptable lenses, Full Frame look, AF on the 55mm
Con: usability (from what I've read), MF on the 85mm, most expensive


Difficult....
Regarding option 2&3:
What would you think would be the better system to complement m43? FF A7 or Fuji X?

 

I've read a lot on the net the last days and I've downloaded the studio comparison RAWs from DPReview.

Here's what I've got after a lot of pixel-peeping using the dim light Studio RAWs:

1. I love the look of my CV 25 and 17.5mm on M43. The con is that you have to MF. Pro is that there is IBIS.

2. My idea would be to use similar focal length on an A7/r/s with two stops less, so same DOF, which is IMHO great and small enough (makes the 25mm CV f0.95 roughly equivalent to the Zeiss 55mm f1.8 on FF). To compensate for that two stops of light loss due to the smaller aperture I have to increase ISO (to get the same shutter speeds). Pro: sharper wired open than the CVs, AF Con: no ibis
---> This means that the FF kit has to have an improvement in ISO of two stops to get the same shutter speeds.

3. I've downloaded the Studio test RAWs for the E-M1 at ISO 3200 (this is where I feel comfortable using it) and samples of the A7 and A7s at ISO 12800.

CONCLUSION:
After working a bit with the RAW files (setting white balance etc.) and exporting them in the same resolution (I've normalized to 24MP, giving a bit of an advantage to the A7 and the E-M1):
The 3200 ISO of the E-M1 is comparable in resolution and noise to the A7s. The A7 is clearly worse.
Which means the A7 is out of the game (which is sad as this would have been a very cost efficient second body together with the 55mm Zeiss).
The A7s with ISO 25600 is a bit worse than the E-M1 at ISO 3200.

So regarding isolation and DOF and low-light it looks like that:

E-M1 & CV 25 f0.95 and ISO 3200 yields the same shutter speeds as A7/s at ISO 12800 and Z55mm f1.8.
Images from the Zeiss wide open will be sharper than the ones from the CV and will have roughly equivalent DOF. Both have great character IMHO.
Images made that way on a A7 will look worse than those from an E-M1 regarding noise. Images from an A7s will look roughly the same.
Increasing the ISO further would decrease image quality on all systems with the A7s getting worse slower than the A7 or E-M1.

So the conclusion is that regarding low-light capabilities there is not that much of a difference than previously anticipated....
I would have guessed that the A7 is about 3 stops better in high-ISO and the A7s about 4 stops.
But in reality it is less than 2 stops for the A7 and less than 3 stops for the A7s.

My insights might be of value for everyone else affected by GAS...  


P.S.: Regarding Fuji: The X-E2 RAWs only go up to ISO 6400, but these look roughly equivalent to ISO 3200 on the E-M1. But as Fuji is known for giving higher ISOs than the competition (it is about 1/3-1/2 of a stop slower than stated in EXIFS) the advantage of the Fuji setup is 1/3-1/2 of a stop. Hardly worth it.
But there are still a lot of other factors to consider when comparing FF, Fuji X and M43 than low-light capability....
And of course, everything changes when you use something like the Speedmaster 50mm f0.95 lens on a full frame camera...   but that would mean MF again....

 

While looking into the different options I came over a really nice offer: there was a cash back deal for some Fuji lenses and a set price of a 23mm lens with a X-E1, both new.
Unfortunately, there was no cash back offer for the 56mm, but I could negotiate a deal  

So I bought into the X system with a Fuji X-E1 and a 23mm f1.4 as well as an 56mm f1.2 lens. The 23mm f1.4 is a 17.5 f1.1 equivalent lens on m43 and has AF. I've looked at a lot of images from this setup on Flickr and love the lens's character. Regarding the 56mm, I've already written enough   And as the 35mm equivalence is my preferred focal length I couldn't resist.

I will report back about my experience with the set.

 

Short report after 2 days:

Both lenses (23mm & 56mm) are really stellar!
The 23mm is really very nice, but if you compare it with the Voigtländer 17.5mm, the Voigtländer wins regarding character. But the 23mmis the much more convenient lens (AF!).
The 56mm f1.2 is a fantastic performer.
The only lens that can hold a candle to this lens is my Olympus 75mm f1.8. The Olympus is a better performer regarding AF, though (Fuji tested with X-E1 and Olympus on OM-D E-M5 and E-M1).

Regarding the X-E1:
I do understand now what people mean by "Fuji-color-signature", colors are amazing.
But the camera is pretty slow in focus and general operation, although I have already installed the most current firmware. Shooting using AF is easily possible as long as she is not moving for about 2 seconds.... otherwise I use MF, which is for both lenses worse than the Voigtländer MF.
But all in all operating the X-E1 is very refreshening and a lot of fun. I really like the Fuji ergonomics with the old school wheels.
Regarding the price difference of a X-E1 and the X-E2, I still think that for current prices the X-E1 was the better deal (difference for the new prices I could get was about 100%!!!). So of now, I'm really happy with my X-E1 and these two really great lenses.
This is a fantastic addition to my Olympus E-M1 set!
When the X-E2 falls to reasonable price levels I might upgrade, but it might be wiser to wait for the next sensor generation (organic?)...

Conclusion:
These two lenses together with the Fuji X-E1 is a great addition for my M43 gear, but not a substitute. This is exactly what I was looking for. So I'm a happy camper right now!

 

Yes, the Voigtländer lenses are just amazing!
Only thing which is not too easy: photographing moving subjects (toddlers) with MF and f0.95...
Although I have to admit that it is also not easy with the X-E1 and the 23 and 56mm due to a slow AF...

Regarding the 25: I do have the 25mm f0.95 Mark I and this lens is really fantastic. I have read some rumors regarding better optical performance of the mark II version but after comparing my lens with samples from the mark II version I do not believe in that.
The theory that the mark II is optically better was brought up by a review stating that their mark II SAMPLE was better than their mark 1 sample. According to Voigtländer both lenses use the same optical formula and the only significant difference is the steppless aperture ring which is nice to have for videographers and the increased weight due to its implementation....