Voigtlander Help Please

R

richie15

Guest
Hi

I have a GF1 and my lens line up is the Pana 7-14 (Landscape), 20 (Low Light and walkaround) and 14-45 (walkaround and landscape - long exp) all which are keepers. I also have the Voigtlander 75mm which I love (portrait and long length).

A few months ago I owned a 35mm Ultron 1.7 and found this a but soft at f4 and below and having search the internet I concluded that if I am comparing lenses of 35mm and below with Panasonic lenses then the Panasonic lenses would probably be better so I will keep my Panasonic line up. Interestingly the 7-14 is the one I am struggling to come to grips with.

I like my 75mm so much (colour and sharpness) I have been exploring the idea of either a 40mm (1.4), 50mm (1.5) or the 50mm (1.1). The BOKEH on the 50mm 1.1 is stunning but it is a really expensive portrait lens and I wonder if owners use their lens for anything else?

To sum up I wonder how much difference there is between the 50mm 1.1 and 1.5 or am I better off given my lens line up with the 40mm. Of course the alternative is the 45mm Pana/Leica????

Any suggestions or help welcome.
 

hohoho

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
170
Location
Tokyo
To sum up I wonder how much difference there is between the 50mm 1.1 and 1.5 or am I better off given my lens line up with the 40mm.
I've never used the 50/1.1. I've a hunch that if I did, most of its use would either be (a) at f/1.5 or smaller, or (b) faster than f/1.5 and out of focus. Because my own eyes and brain wouldn't really be up to the task of working with such a shallow depth of field when photographing anything moving or not well illuminated. This being so, digital is the way to go: getting ten bum shots for one good one isn't going to cost any money. Still, the cumulative failure would be depressing, even if cheap.

Oh and of course I could do sensitive studies of (e.g.) just one leaf precisely in focus while all the leaves around it are fuzzy; but while I find many such photos vaguely admirable I rarely want to look at them. No offense intended to others here, but they rather bore me.

The CV 50/1.5 is sharper at f/1.5 than a Leica-thread-mount Canon 50/1.8 is at f/1.8. But a worthwhile photo taken with/at the latter is going to keep you happy (unless you're a measurbator). And it's smaller, lighter, and (here at least) cheaper than the CV 50/1.5. You could supplement (a) it (or the CV 50/1.5) for general use with (b) a Canon FL 55/1.2 (cheap!) and Canon FD adaptor for those times when you're feeling particularly artistic.
 
R

richie15

Guest
I've never used the 50/1.1. I've a hunch that if I did, most of its use would either be (a) at f/1.5 or smaller, or (b) faster than f/1.5 and out of focus. Because my own eyes and brain wouldn't really be up to the task of working with such a shallow depth of field when photographing anything moving or not well illuminated. This being so, digital is the way to go: getting ten bum shots for one good one isn't going to cost any money. Still, the cumulative failure would be depressing, even if cheap.

Oh and of course I could do sensitive studies of (e.g.) just one leaf precisely in focus while all the leaves around it are fuzzy; but while I find many such photos vaguely admirable I rarely want to look at them. No offense intended to others here, but they rather bore me.

The CV 50/1.5 is sharper at f/1.5 than a Leica-thread-mount Canon 50/1.8 is at f/1.8. But a worthwhile photo taken with/at the latter is going to keep you happy (unless you're a measurbator). And it's smaller, lighter, and (here at least) cheaper than the CV 50/1.5. You could supplement (a) it (or the CV 50/1.5) for general use with (b) a Canon FL 55/1.2 (cheap!) and Canon FD adaptor for those times when you're feeling particularly artistic.
Thanks, I will look into the Canon 1.2 but it was the Voigtlander colour and sharpness that I am really after, the Canon FD 50mm f3.5 may be a good macro option as well.

I think you may have a point about working with such a narrow DOF and TBH if you are not going to shoot at 1.1 there seems little point in having the lens.
 

Brian S

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
714
The Canon 50/1.2 is low-contrast and soft when used wide-open. If you thought the 35/1.7 Ultron was soft, you will not like the LTM Canon 50/1.2.

As you are using this on a u-4/3 camera, there are many SLR 50/1.2's to choose from. Try a Nikon 50/1.2 or 55/1.2, or a Canon 50/1.2 aspheric.
 
R

richie15

Guest
The Canon 50/1.2 is low-contrast and soft when used wide-open. If you thought the 35/1.7 Ultron was soft, you will not like the LTM Canon 50/1.2.

As you are using this on a u-4/3 camera, there are many SLR 50/1.2's to choose from. Try a Nikon 50/1.2 or 55/1.2, or a Canon 50/1.2 aspheric.
Thanks, am I correct in saying the 55mm is a macro as well?
 

Sexymaru

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
10
originally I wanted to get the CV 35/1.2 + 50/1.1, but ended up getting 35/1.4 + 50/1.5 and saved $800. I think it's a worthy sacrifice.
 

cosinaphile

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
1,123
Location
new york city
the best 1.2 for me id the hexanon 57 1.2 its also a bargain if you get lucky
it is said to be a sharper lens than the canon and nikon offering , its a touch warm but i like that

ive also got the 50mm 1.5 voigtlander and i love it , its sharp wide open... contrast and color are great .....and its much smaller and lighter than any 1.2 or 1.1 lens
also it has one of the best bokeh reps for that type of lens [except maybe leica]

from a looks point of view i think it is one of the most beautiful lenses [in chrome] ive ever attached to my silver ep1 .
when its on the camera, strangers [ camera lovers obviously] sometimes approach and ask about the ep1 w 50 1.5 mm , its stunning and a superb combo image quality wise


while my voigtlander 28 1.9 in black paint is great looking on the black gf1 but
its not the lens the 50 is , looks aside the 28 1.9 cosina\voigtlander is just ok wide open i like it ...but its much softer than the 50 1.5

if sharpness and color contrast is your thing thean have you considred the contax g 45 f2, its my sharpest lens , and by some accounts it may be the sharpest rangefinder type "normal" lens in the history of 35mm lenses .... its a pain to focus due to the internal focus cam. but it is a great great lens and looks incredible on the ep1 too

mush has been written on the quality of the contax and i believe it to be generally true...... just google it +review
 

Brian S

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
714
The Nikon 55/1.2 is not a macro. The 55/1.2 is sharpest across the center 2/3rds of the image, suffers at the edges. With a 1.5x crop DSLR or 2x crop 4/3 camera, you get the best of the lens. The price has jumped over the last few years, mine was $125 in mint condition.

Remember that an F1.2 lens is 1/2 stop faster than an F1.4, but costs several times as much. A 50/1.4 manual focus Nikon can be had for $60 or so. These days, the F1.2's run 200+.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I've got the 50mm f1.1 and use it for many different tasks. It's an excellent lens, heavy, but balances well with the camera, and invaluable for low light work.

Cheers

Ray
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom