voigtlander 35/2.5 CV VS canon 35/2

caila77

caila77

Well-known
Local time
8:21 PM
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
331
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
 
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.
 
I'm going to scan it rover
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.
Click to expand...
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
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)
 
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.
 
[
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)
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom