Anyone suspect the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 MC might be slower than rated?

very cool

very cool

Sounds great. I think you made up a new word - Ergonomy!

I have relatives in Sao Paulo, hope to visit them someday.

umcelinho said:
I cant afford a 35mm summicro, even less a summilux. If the 35/1.4 nokton is after all a 35/1.8 or a 35/2 I don't really care. it is still half the price of a summicron. is it worth it? i don't know, never really used one. their ergonomy is better, they don't need an extra hood but, still, at least double the price.

it gives me pleasant results and that is what matters to me. I use cameras with TTL metering, so the lightmeter will give me reading regardless of what is marked on the lens. it reads light, not numbers. I've never experienced that underexposing issue when changing apertures whilst maintaining shutter speed.

for those with meterless cameras, the reported could be annoying though.
Click to expand...
 
ampguy said:
While the later M's do have meters, and the M7,8, and 9 have AE, many of us don't use that mode, but set our cameras manually.

Especially for backlit and dark scenes where I am intentionally over and under exposing, and sometimes I will use an external meter which simply provides an EV or shutter/f-stop combo, based on a given ISO set.

So when a given lens lets in more or less light at a marked f-stop than my other lenses which are very consistent and provide similar histograms wide open and at stopped down apertures, it is helpful to know if a lens is deviating, so that special consideration during manual exposure settings can be used.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I won't belabour the point (too much 🙂), but if you're using a through-the-lens meter to determine exposure you're relying on light passing through the lens, not the f/ value on the lens barrel. If you're using an external meter of course lens slowness is relevant.
 
Andy Kibber said:
Fair enough. I won't belabour the point (too much 🙂), but if you're using a through-the-lens meter to determine exposure you're relying on light passing through the lens, not the f/ value on the lens barrel. If you're using an external meter of course lens slowness is relevant.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about external meters, or even those of us that just guess on nice days. Folk with any sense work on a system speed, a combination of exposure, film speed, and development, then we asses the negs or contact sheet and use that assessment to inform our future practice, like a feedback loop.

It's like chimping ... but for grownups. It ensures that any one part of the system can deviate from a strictly accurate value yet still produce a suitable negative.
 
I just bought the 35mm f/1.4 MC and did a few "test" rolls, one of which was Velvia 50 shot at box speed. I shot a few at f/1.4 just to test the wide-open results, and stopped down for the same shot, and they all came out perfect. The light was even at f/1.4 through f/4, and the meter was accurate.

Even if the lens was actually f/1.8, I'd be perfectly happy, because it's a great lens for me. Isn't that what matters in the end?
 
Ok here was a quick test to show what i meant

Ok here was a quick test to show what i meant

Hey guys, so as promised, I did a quick test to show what I meant about the difference in exposure between F1.4 and F2.0. For the original F2.0, it was shot at a shutter speed of 1/60 shot. The next shot was at F1.4 at 1/125, so theoretically the exposure should be exactly the same as the light had not changed, but it came out a little darker.

Oops wait, so it turns out I cannot post the images directly to this thread. If anyone can let me know how i can post images within the thread, would appreciate the help.
 
ckuang said:
Hey guys, so as promised, I did a quick test to show what I meant about the difference in exposure between F1.4 and F2.0. For the original F2.0, it was shot at a shutter speed of 1/60 shot. The next shot was at F1.4 at 1/125, so theoretically the exposure should be exactly the same as the light had not changed, but it came out a little darker.

Oops wait, so it turns out I cannot post the images directly to this thread. If anyone can let me know how i can post images within the thread, would appreciate the help.
Click to expand...

Like this but square parenthesis

(IMG] web adress of the image [/IMG)
 
some other things to try

some other things to try

Since you have an M8/M9, you might also want to stick it on AE at 1.4, 2, 2.8 (are there 1/2 stop detents on this lens?) then see in the exif info what shutter was selected.

Did you manually go to say 1.4/1/90th and see that equaled the f2/160?

ckuang said:
Hey guys, so as promised, I did a quick test to show what I meant about the difference in exposure between F1.4 and F2.0. For the original F2.0, it was shot at a shutter speed of 1/60 shot. The next shot was at F1.4 at 1/125, so theoretically the exposure should be exactly the same as the light had not changed, but it came out a little darker.

Oops wait, so it turns out I cannot post the images directly to this thread. If anyone can let me know how i can post images within the thread, would appreciate the help.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Amp guy, i didn't do the test using AE. While i know what you're trying to achieve, I didn't use AE because this lens is underexposing by about a stop with AE (also documented elsewhere) and the extent of underexposure seems to fluctuate between 2.8, 2.0 and 1.4, so in my test and my real life shoots, I've been using a handheld light meter and working off that instead.
 
Back when I had a CV 35/1.4 I shot it against a 35mm Summilux and 35mm UC Hexanon on the R-D1 set to AE, asking the same questions. I wish I could post the actual shutter speed data from the EXIF files but my notebook departed with my briefcase in the hands of a stinking thief. Anyway as I recall the speeds were within a few percent of each other for both lenses from f1.4 to f4. The UC Hex overexposed slightly relative to the Summilux and Nokton at f2.0 but was very close to them at f2.8 and f4.

I understand the OP's frustration. While my 35mm lenses performed as expected, I once owned a Canon 50/0.95 in M-mount that under-exposed on the R-D1 by 1.3 stops when wide open. However it performed as it should have on 3 different film bodies at f0.95, and comparably to my other fast lenses at f1.4 and slower on the R-D1 as well as on film. I never could figure it out, so I sold the lens. The buyer had no complaints about it on the M8.
 
I believe the degree of vignetting and how the lens draws the background has a significant effect on the histogram which may make the lens look 1/3 stop slower on a digital system.

Ex. Canon 200mm f/2L IS
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

If you look at the 3rd set of sample images of the little girl, from f/2 to f/2.8 the f/2.8. The f/2.8 images appears to be 1/3-1/2 stop brighter than at f/2 with controlled testing (also confirmed in a photoshop histogram). I'm not sure I've ever read any forum complaints about this $5000 lens being "slower than rated", but there is a definite difference in how the lens renders the background and subject which could account for the differences in apparent exposure.
 
Interesting

Interesting

Thanks Clovis,

Interesting link. To my eyes, in set 1, f2 does look darker, than 2.8, but in set 2, f2 looks lighter than f2.8.

I'm don't see set 3. I don't think vignetting at extreme corners apply, but would be interested in what others thought.

My Noct E60/f1 performed as t stop = ~ f1.0 (vs say 1.1 or 1.2), and some people say this lens has -3 stops of vignetting in the extreme edges, although in my use I've never seen more than ~ -1 stop in the extreme corners (film use).

I examined f1.4 lux lenses in 35mm at 75mm (pre asphs) today, and they are truly the same illumination, when opening up to 1.4 from f2.0 and f2.8.


Clovis said:
I believe the degree of vignetting and how the lens draws the background has a significant effect on the histogram which may make the lens look 1/3 stop slower on a digital system.

Ex. Canon 200mm f/2L IS
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

If you look at the 3rd set of sample images of the little girl, from f/2 to f/2.8 the f/2.8. The f/2.8 images appears to be 1/3-1/2 stop brighter than at f/2 with controlled testing (also confirmed in a photoshop histogram). I'm not sure I've ever read any forum complaints about this $5000 lens being "slower than rated", but there is a definite difference in how the lens renders the background and subject which could account for the differences in apparent exposure.
Click to expand...
 
After a bit of searching I found the full quote, apparently Alexander Pope, not who I thought it was;

Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, and without sneering, teach the rest to sneer;
Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike, just hint a fault, and hesitate dislike.

I also came across this which also resonates I think;

When needs he must, yet faintly then he praises,
Somewhat the deed, much more the means he raises:
So marreth what he makes, and praising most, dispraises
 
Thanks

Thanks

Thanks. Very interesting stuff.


ckuang said:
Hi guys, just wanted to let you know I've just uploaded the 2 test shots I did on flickr at http://www.flickr.com/photos/39east/

It's not some crazy comprehensive test as I was packing up the lens to trade it for a summarit, but maybe I got a lemon of a lens as mine was flaring pretty badly too. That being said, it's still a pretty good buy.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom