caila77
Well-known
One month ago I bought a canon 35/2 ltm and I decide to compare it with my 35/2.5 color skopar. First I'd like to notice that canon is older than voigtlander (about 50 years) and this is very important to consider this two lenses.
I compared the lenses in BW (tri-x 220 iso and xp2 at 400 iso), on slide (agfa rsx and konica centuria, both 100 iso) and on a roll of colour print (economicALLY PERUTZ 200 ISO). Shots taken with manfrotto tripod and with the same camera (bessa-r) and I used my lunasixpro for light. Also, obvoiusly, the same shutter speed and f for the same photos.
Canon is well made, very compact and heavier than the voigtlander, so the impression of solidity is better for my parameters, and canon is faster too.
Now I think thath I can say:
At 2.8 voigtlander is better for contranst and is sharper than canon
At 5.6 /8/11 the lens are very similar but canon colours is better to my eyes (more saturation of colours).
Also I can tell to you thath in the low light voigtlander is better with more details at the same speed/f.
If someone had some observations I'll appreciate!
(sorry for my poor english)
regards
caila
I compared the lenses in BW (tri-x 220 iso and xp2 at 400 iso), on slide (agfa rsx and konica centuria, both 100 iso) and on a roll of colour print (economicALLY PERUTZ 200 ISO). Shots taken with manfrotto tripod and with the same camera (bessa-r) and I used my lunasixpro for light. Also, obvoiusly, the same shutter speed and f for the same photos.
Canon is well made, very compact and heavier than the voigtlander, so the impression of solidity is better for my parameters, and canon is faster too.
Now I think thath I can say:
At 2.8 voigtlander is better for contranst and is sharper than canon
At 5.6 /8/11 the lens are very similar but canon colours is better to my eyes (more saturation of colours).
Also I can tell to you thath in the low light voigtlander is better with more details at the same speed/f.
If someone had some observations I'll appreciate!
(sorry for my poor english)
regards
caila
Thanks for sharing caila, your English is fine. Welcome to RFF.
Interesting that the CV 35 holds up so well against the Canon 35/2 as the latter is one of the best 35mm lenses from a generation or so ago. If you can it would be interesting to see some of the photographs you used in your comparison.
Interesting that the CV 35 holds up so well against the Canon 35/2 as the latter is one of the best 35mm lenses from a generation or so ago. If you can it would be interesting to see some of the photographs you used in your comparison.
caila77
Well-known
I'm going to scan it rover
thanks
thanks
rover said:Thanks for sharing caila, your English is fine. Welcome to RFF.
Interesting that the CV 35 holds up so well against the Canon 35/2 as the latter is one of the best 35mm lenses from a generation or so ago. If you can it would be interesting to see some of the photographs you used in your comparison.
existrandom
Established
i am hard torn between getting one of those two
keenly expecting the scans
cheers
lee
keenly expecting the scans
cheers
lee
back alley
IMAGES
there is no doubt that the cv lens is very sharp and much more contrasty than the canon.
but to my eyes the photos taken with it are more harsh and clinical looking also.
joe
but to my eyes the photos taken with it are more harsh and clinical looking also.
joe
caila77
Well-known
......taken with it.... with canon or voigtlander?..., I don't understand
I believe that joe is refering to the CV in that statement.
back alley
IMAGES
sorry, the photos taken with the cv 35 are more harsh looking than the photos taken with the canon 35.
that would be a side by side comparison, just looking at pics from the cv lens alone they just look very contrasty.
that would be a side by side comparison, just looking at pics from the cv lens alone they just look very contrasty.
caila77
Well-known
rover said:I believe that joe is refering to the CV in that statement.
that's right I think so!
caila77
Well-known
the colour redention of cv is not good as the one of canon and the colours saturation of canon appear to be better at my eyes
back alley said:sorry, the photos taken with the cv 35 are more harsh looking than the photos taken with the canon 35.
that would be a side by side comparison, just looking at pics from the cv lens alone they just look very contrasty.
back alley
IMAGES
i only shoot black & white, no idea what either lens does with colour.
caila77
Well-known
tomorrow I'll post some scans from my latest slide
back alley said:i only shoot black & white, no idea what either lens does with colour.
peter_n
Veteran
I look foeward to the scans too. Welcome to the forum Caila! 
caila77
Well-known
Sorry, I'm late but in a few day I'll post them
Caila
Caila
caila77
Well-known
Ok, This is some shot taken with CV and Canon on centuria 100 slide.
I missed another observation: canon tend to flare more than CV (obviously for the age of canon)
I missed another observation: canon tend to flare more than CV (obviously for the age of canon)
caila77
Well-known
other photos
caila77
Well-known
I waiting for answer
Are these full frame shots caila? It does appear that in two of the scenes you were shooting into the sun and both lenses suffered from flare. The third, the logs under the trees seem to be a crop of an original.
caila77
Well-known
[
only the first two couple images was cropped, the last two photos are original.
in the first comparison you can see that cv is better in the low light. flare is a little big problem for 35/2 canon (the age is the age)
only the first two couple images was cropped, the last two photos are original.
in the first comparison you can see that cv is better in the low light. flare is a little big problem for 35/2 canon (the age is the age)
Sonnar2
Well-known
Hi Caila,
I've made a similar observation with the Canon 2/35 against the CV 1.7/35. The 1.7/35 is flare-prone as well! (high speed lens disease)
The CV is sharper but the Canon has better colors and contrast.
It's amazing that with my travel kit, the Canon is better supplement (similar picture characteristics) to the (very sharp) CV 21 or 25mm than the CV 1.7/35.
But I have to admit that at f/2 the Canon is poorer than the CV at f/1.7 and has a lot of light-falloff (probably due to its small size). So if possible use the Canon at f/5.6-8. The CV can be used at f/4-8 in the same matter.
pictures comparison here: http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_RF_2.html#CANON_RF_2-35mm
cheers, Frank
I've made a similar observation with the Canon 2/35 against the CV 1.7/35. The 1.7/35 is flare-prone as well! (high speed lens disease)
The CV is sharper but the Canon has better colors and contrast.
It's amazing that with my travel kit, the Canon is better supplement (similar picture characteristics) to the (very sharp) CV 21 or 25mm than the CV 1.7/35.
But I have to admit that at f/2 the Canon is poorer than the CV at f/1.7 and has a lot of light-falloff (probably due to its small size). So if possible use the Canon at f/5.6-8. The CV can be used at f/4-8 in the same matter.
pictures comparison here: http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_RF_2.html#CANON_RF_2-35mm
cheers, Frank
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.