papo
Established
I keep hearing about this but still, i wonder..why is it so much cheaper than all of the other Voigtländer lenses? I know price is also being determined by built quality but the way i have heard people speak of this lens is like its the overall best and sharpest 35mm Voigtländer there is.
Whats your take on this?
Whats your take on this?
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Never heard of the Skopar II Pancake being the sharpest lens, sources?
AFAIK the sharpest Voigtländer lens is the 3.5/50mm Heliar. Tests in renowned camera magazines proved this.
AFAIK the sharpest Voigtländer lens is the 3.5/50mm Heliar. Tests in renowned camera magazines proved this.
Larry H-L
Well-known
It's a great lens for the price, cheapest because it is the slowest of the C/V 35 focal lengths at f2.5.
The reputation for sharpness may come from its higher-contrast look, giving the impression of higher sharpness.
I own it, along with the C/V f1.7 Ultron and C/V f1.4 Classic Nokton and some other 35s; it compares well except in lower light situations, or in cases where you might want shallow depth of field.
Build quality of the PII version is quite good, solid and dense feeling.
The reputation for sharpness may come from its higher-contrast look, giving the impression of higher sharpness.
I own it, along with the C/V f1.7 Ultron and C/V f1.4 Classic Nokton and some other 35s; it compares well except in lower light situations, or in cases where you might want shallow depth of field.
Build quality of the PII version is quite good, solid and dense feeling.
Lss
Well-known
I have never tried this lens, but there are certainly many satisfied owners. It's a tiny lens that performs very well. One thing to consider regarding the price point is that this is a relatively slow lens. All the other CV 35 lenses are in the "1.something" range with the super fast 1.2 topping the list.
What is overall the best is up for debate, but I think the new 35/1.7 fits many a compromise. The LTM version has been very well liked, and many considered it the best CV 35, with or without a real comparison shoot. I only have the 35/1.4 myself and use it more than the amazing 35/2.8 C Biogon.
Robert Lai
Well-known
Perhaps not THE #1 sharpest of ALL CV lenses, but certainly VERY sharp. I have the original LTM version of the 35 2.5, and it is very tiny. Much smaller than the new 35 1.7 ASPH in M mount. Smaller, even than the Summicron 35 ASPH. Much lighter too.
No visible distortion.
Not susceptible to flare / ghost.
Very high contrast.
Resolution that is bettered only by the Summicron ASPH, from pixel peeping.
Initially I thought it was too high contrast, and I sold it and bought a 35mm 2.8 Summaron in LTM instead.
After reviewing my pictures, I did like the look of the CV, so I bought another one. (I still have the Summaron also, which is about the same size).
I can't say how it compares to the new 35 1.7 ASPH, as my film still has to come back from developing.
No visible distortion.
Not susceptible to flare / ghost.
Very high contrast.
Resolution that is bettered only by the Summicron ASPH, from pixel peeping.
Initially I thought it was too high contrast, and I sold it and bought a 35mm 2.8 Summaron in LTM instead.
After reviewing my pictures, I did like the look of the CV, so I bought another one. (I still have the Summaron also, which is about the same size).
I can't say how it compares to the new 35 1.7 ASPH, as my film still has to come back from developing.
papo
Established
I am not sure i can follow, how does higher contrast look create the impression of higher sharpness? While we are at it, what would you consider the sharpest 35mm?
Bille
Well-known
Contrast is one factor of perceived sharpness. Resolution is the other.
See also: http://www.photoreview.com.au/tips/shooting/sharpness,-acutance-and-resolution
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Didn't they say it about 25 /4 pancake?
I have both and both are sharp.
35 need hood to avoid flares. I'm using between 2.5 and 8 mostly.
It gives me bokeh and I'm using it under low light.
I have both and both are sharp.
35 need hood to avoid flares. I'm using between 2.5 and 8 mostly.
It gives me bokeh and I'm using it under low light.
zuiko85
Veteran
Well, I have the PII but the only 35mm lens I have to compare it to is an old, very ratty 35mm f2.8 Zuiko OM mount. It is better than that lens and has more contrast. Put plainly, any lens outpreforms my skill anyway so I don't obsess to much about performance.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I haven't used any of the other Voigtländer 35mm lenses so I can't compare the Color Skopar 35/2.5 PII, but it is an excellent performer. It's less expensive because it is a simpler, smaller, lighter lens than the Ultrons and Noktons. That's also quite possibly why it is such a good performer. It's a very good lens, well-made and finished too, that has performed well on film as well as on the M9 and M-P typ 240 digital bodies, in my experience.
The only M-mount 35mm lens I can compare it to is a 1972 Summilux 35/1.4 v2, which is a lens that performs on an almost entirely different scale of what you might consider good or bad. Since I bought the 'Lux, the Color Skopar 35 has been used on my film Ms.
G
Robert Lai
Well-known
If you're really worried that this lens has a low cost, then just buy a Leica lens. You won't have any more worries about low cost - ever.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Yes, and as a matter of fact, contrast and actual resolution are closely connected. Resolution calls for contrast across a boundary: If there were no local or micro-contrast, we wouldn't be able to tell a line from a space, or to see that there is a space separating two lines or detail points. The area would just be a gray blur. In the MTF method of testing resolution, the lens's ability to render detail is expressed in terms of percent of contrast.
So I think we can say, no contrast, no resolution.