Which Voigtlander, 25 or 42?

[tjdean01]

I want a 0.95 Voigtlander to create thin DOF and a lot of background separation. I can't afford both the 25 and the 42. I have the following lenses: 28/2, 30/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7 and regardless of which Voigtlander I buy, I'm already budgeting to get the 20/1.7, 45/1.8, and cheap Fujian 25/1.4 this year (the 75 is further in the future).

http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-2x-...m-f1.8-and-2x-135mm-f3.2-on-a-3m-wide-subject

The 42 is the one to get for background blur and will even beat the 75. But considering the 28/2 is by far my most used lens because I'm often inside with lower light, a 25/0.95 would get a lot more use than a 42/0.95. And plus since the backgrounds will be closer indoors, the differences won't be as pronounced between the 25 and 42. But the 42 is the BEST lens for most background separation and if I'm going to spend money why not buy the best!? Ugh!

Maybe someone can help me with the low-light math. Although the FL is longer, since it's nearly two stops faster, it seems to me that the 42/0.95 will, in low-light, be BETTER than the following lenses: 14/2.5, 17/1.8, 20/1.7, 25/1.4, 25/1.8. Am I right here?

I don't think many people have these Voigtlander lenses but to me they seem really nice!

 

[EarthQuake]

If the point is to get the lens for the narrowest DOF as possible, get the 42.5 I would say. But I really like the 85mm-ish focal length. If you rarely ever shoot at that FL, it doesn't make much sense.

 

[walter_j]

I have the 25 and it pretty much stays on my camera now, it's so good. Shallow DoF was a great reason to buy it, but now I like the sharpness of the lens. The oly 75 comes close in sharpness, but the 25 is the sweet spot for me. If you like the FoV of the 28, then you'll love the 25. a 1.8 is no match for a 0.95. You're excluding the PL 45? maybe save up for that one after getting the 25 F0.95. I have the oly 45 and am not too happy with it. Maybe a legacy 45 will tide you over.

 

[Lisandra]

out of the voigtlanders, the 42 is the sharpest wide open. And you are indeed right, the 42 in low light is gonna be something else. For instance, lets say youre shooting (presumably handheld) with the 25mm f1.8, and at f1.8 youre already at ISO 6400 1/20 of a sec, a bit on the shaky side. But at f0.95 ISO 6400 youll be at (around) 1/80 of a sec!!

 

[tjdean01]

If the point is to get the lens for the narrowest DOF as possible, get the 42.5 I would say. But I really like the 85mm-ish focal length. If you rarely ever shoot at that FL, it doesn't make much sense.

Well, the 25 would have the same narrow DOF and on close objects with close backgrounds would probably be nearly as good as the 42. But none of those photos indoors are really suburb pictures regardless of lens. I really am beginning to lean towards the 42 because when you take it outside and the background is further away, it will give me the best blur. And even if it's sitting in the case, I'll be happy just knowing that I have the one m4/3s lens capable of the best blur! :tongue:

I have the 25 and it pretty much stays on my camera now, it's so good. Shallow DoF was a great reason to buy it, but now I like the sharpness of the lens. The oly 75 comes close in sharpness, but the 25 is the sweet spot for me. If you like the FoV of the 28, then you'll love the 25. a 1.8 is no match for a 0.95. You're excluding the PL 45? maybe save up for that one after getting the 25 F0.95. I have the oly 45 and am not too happy with it. Maybe a legacy 45 will tide you over.

So the 25 rivals the 75 in sharpness? They say the 42 is very good too. You're right, the 'normal' FL of 25 or 28 is very useful. Zoomed in enough for portrait-type photography but wide enough for indoors.

By PL 45 I'm assuming you mean the 42/1.2 Nocticron for $1500? Screw that lens. Too big and I don't like how it looks. Plus if I'm going to pay good money for a lens I don't want a to rely on some servo to adjust my aperture and focus. I just feel like it's more that can go wrong. Give me a manual lens any day. I would pay for the 75, however, because so far Voigtlander hasn't helped me choose otherwise! :tongue: Note, if they made a speed booster that I really liked and if they had any vintage f1.2 lenses that were sharp wide open to be boosted to f1.0 I'd be interested, but those lenses don't exist and for some reason the idea of the speed booster + lens doesn't appeal me as much as these Voigtlanders.

out of the voigtlanders, the 42 is the sharpest wide open. And you are indeed right, the 42 in low light is gonna be something else. For instance, lets say youre shooting (presumably handheld) with the 25mm f1.8, and at f1.8 youre already at ISO 6400 1/20 of a sec, a bit on the shaky side. But at f0.95 ISO 6400 youll be at (around) 1/80 of a sec!!

The 42 being sharper is definitely a benefit. And thanks for the calculations. Thinking about it now, while the 17/0.95 would really be a monster hand-held in low-light, and the 25/0.95 would be the middle ground, I'm thinking I should just go for the 42 and buy a $20 tripod for low-light! Thinking about it now the 42 really is the way to go. Oh, BTW, if anyone wants to know when Voitlander will announce a 60/0.95, I can tell you when: just wait one month until after I'm able to order the 42 and the 60 will be announced. That's been my luck recently!

 

[jaydubstar]

I picked the 25, because for me it is more versatile, the "middle ground"... Plus, I've got the OLY 17 and 45's, and I think I'm ok with their aperture "limitations"... But yes, the 25 is something special! Not to be cliche, but "this lens is spending a lot of time on my camera" is a phrase that is used a lot...

 

[walter_j]

here's a manual german lens. F0.85 40mm. $2,800 CDN. crazy. Makes the Leica look like a deal, and the Voightlander look like a bargain.

Handevision Objektiv 40mm f0,85 für Micro Four Thirds MFT

 

[chrisada]

out of the voigtlanders, the 42 is the sharpest wide open. And you are indeed right, the 42 in low light is gonna be something else. For instance, lets say youre shooting (presumably handheld) with the 25mm f1.8, and at f1.8 youre already at ISO 6400 1/20 of a sec, a bit on the shaky side. But at f0.95 ISO 6400 youll be at (around) 1/80 of a sec!!

Unless I'm in nightclubs or really dark restaurants, I find that with f1.8 lens, my GX7 in auto mode consistently take well exposed images at ISO 3200 1/60 sec.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Of course, having the extra f stops never hurt, but, to me, I didn't find that to be the main appeal of the Voight 0.95. I do like the rendering very much, though.

 

[Edmunds]

The amount of blur taken by an f/0.95 is the amount of blur taken by an f/0.95 lens.

It doesn't matter if it is a 25mm or a 42mm lens.

With 25mm, you just sometimes have to get a little bit closer, and with 42mm - a bit farther away. The perspective changes accordingly. Only you can decide which is more important to you.