Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 : S.C. vs M.C.

[mmmke]

Hey guys,

I know this has been covered numerous times, not just here, but throughout the interwebs. However, I'm really interested to see the minute differences between the SC and the MC versions of this lens (or any lens).

If someone could provide some photos shot with an SC and an MC lens in the conditions that really show their unique characteristics, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks everyone!

 

[froyd]

the interwebs are probably not the right place to see such difference displayed. I'm NOT speaking from direct experience, but the difference between the two coatings is by all accounts small, and even in BW, where it shows most, the finer details are obliterated by web scans and resized jpgs.


From all I read, the softer contrast of the SC really shows best in wet prints, or straight on the negs.

 

[AncientCityPhoto]

I found one difference was with the m8. The mc version would show ghosting with the ir filter when photographing strong light sources. (A candelabra for example, or street lamps in the distance). They would appear as green ghosted patterns of the lights just offset from the original source.

The sc version did not do this. I preferred the sc version to the mc. It just seemed smoother...though I can't quantify this. I ended up not keeping either version. The multi coated ghosted with the ir filter, and all the sc versions I tried had too much focus shift. I did run across several mc versions that had very minimal focus shift that was negligible in real world use. Can't say that about the sc version. Then again, that's probably more to do with production line variance over the years.

 

[gavinlg]

Search the forum - I made a thread where I posted a link to a japanese website - dc watch impress and they compare the MC and SC with the summicron and rokkor 40mm. There is very very little difference between the 2.

 

[mmmke]

Search the forum - I made a thread where I posted a link to a japanese website - dc watch impress and they compare the MC and SC with the summicron and rokkor 40mm. There is very very little difference between the 2.

I couldn't find it in the forum, on your posted threads and responses, so I employed the help of Google, and I found this:

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2004/12/03/466.html
I'm pretty sure this is the same article you were referring to.

This is great! Thanks for pointing us in this direction.

SIDE NOTE: Is it just me or, telling from the pictures, it seems the 40mm 1.4 MC actually has brighter shadow areas than the 40mm 1.4 SC. This is contrary to what people (the interwebs) are saying.

 

[Larry H-L]

Cannot speak to the 35, but when the 40mm Nokton came out, a co-worker and I did a side by side, switching cameras and lenses several times.

Using chrome film, same emulsion, developed together, the only difference we could see using a densitometer was color balance.

The MC was slightly more magenta, the SC was slightly more green. Which one was accurate color... unknown.

 

[gavinlg]

I couldn't find it in the forum, on your posted threads and responses, so I employed the help of Google, and I found this:

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2004/12/03/466.html
I'm pretty sure this is the same article you were referring to.

This is great! Thanks for pointing us in this direction.

SIDE NOTE: Is it just me or, telling from the pictures, it seems the 40mm 1.4 MC actually has brighter shadow areas than the 40mm 1.4 SC. This is contrary to what people (the interwebs) are saying.

Thats the one! Id grab the SC personally.

 

[rolfe]

I have the SC and like it for B&W especially, due to its slightly lower contrast which opens up the shadows a bit. Since most people scan these days, you can always bump up the contrast if you wish. This is pretty subtle, BTW, not a dramatic low contrast thing. The best I can say is it has more of a "traditional" B&W look. Some say it has a similar signature to the pre-ASPH Summilux. I think it is sharper than that, yet with a rounded look.