The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95

Godfrey

Well-known member
I stand corrected but I also hope the lens is corrected - not sure how they do this as I thought there was a basic issue with any focal length below 50mm and that is why there is heavy firmware processing, e.g. a 20/1.7 would look awful were it not for the in-camera correction.
The issue is making lens designs that most closely matches the recording medium's needs. Film isn't sensitive to the angle that light hits it but digital sensors are. So lenses designed for a digital capture medium use designs that make the ray trace to the sensor as close to orthogonal as possible where optical designs for film never had to care about it.

Long lenses with narrow FoV on small format cameras are like this pretty much by default, but short lenses with wide FoV lenses are not. If you look at an Olympus Zuiko Digital wide lenses, all the way down to 7mm focal length, you'll see a very high degree of correction without any additional software because those lenses pre-dated lens the lens correction metadata introduced with Micro-FourThirds.

The Micro-FourThirds standard was designed to produce compact cameras and lenses. The innovation was to consider lens correction processing as a standard part of the lens formula. This enables very compact, fast, short focal length lenses like the Lumix G 20/1.7 and 14/2.8 to be produced at modest prices ... the lenses are designed with the processing parameter to correct chromatic aberration and rectilinear distortion built into their firmware.

Cosina/Voigtländer chooses to build their lenses without requiring software correction for the sensor and format, so their lens options in this range designed for mFT are not small but produce highly corrected results.
 

greypilgrim

New member
Cosina/Voigtländer chooses to build their lenses without requiring software correction for the sensor and format, so their lens options in this range designed for mFT are not small but produce highly corrected results.
Isn't that still relative (the size that is)? I am just trying to imagine a 35mm f0.95 APS-C or full frame lens and its size. So perhaps not as small as processing correction could make it, but this lens does not seem a monster lens to me either.

Doug
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Isn't that still relative (the size that is)? I am just trying to imagine a 35mm f0.95 APS-C or full frame lens and its size. So perhaps not as small as processing correction could make it, but this lens does not seem a monster lens to me either.
It's just about the same size as the Voigtländer Nokton 35mm f/1.2, which to me is a pretty large and heavy lens for a Leica M (about 80x63mm, a little over a pound). On a typical much-lighter mFT camera (Panasonic GX1, Olympus Pen E-PL2, etc), it's a pretty big thing.

Of course, it's all relative. You want to play with ultra high speed lenses, be ready to deal with some bulk ... :)
 

greypilgrim

New member
It's just about the same size as the Voigtländer Nokton 35mm f/1.2, which to me is a pretty large and heavy lens for a Leica M (about 80x63mm, a little over a pound). On a typical much-lighter mFT camera (Panasonic GX1, Olympus Pen E-PL2, etc), it's a pretty big thing.

Of course, it's all relative. You want to play with ultra high speed lenses, be ready to deal with some bulk ... :)
Good point. I guess I am betraying my Nikon roots there... I hadn't considered the equivalent in the Leica realm. I was just imagining a 35mm f0.95 Nikkor :-o...

Doug
 

retow

Member
If low light shooting and thin DOF was my main thing I'd rather buy a larger sensor camera with moderately fast primes than mft coupled with a quite pricey and bulky mf only mft sensor dedicated lens.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
If low light shooting and thin DOF was my main thing I'd rather buy a larger sensor camera with moderately fast primes than mft coupled with a quite pricey and bulky mf only mft sensor dedicated lens.
"Low light shooting and thin DoF" is actually not the point at all.

The advantage of the smaller sensor with a fast lens is to achieve more depth of field while also being able to work in very poor light, in this case, with a wide field of view.

If you want shallow DoF, you need a larger format or a longer lens.
 

retow

Member
"Low light shooting and thin DoF" is actually not the point at all.

The advantage of the smaller sensor with a fast lens is to achieve more depth of field while also being able to work in very poor light, in this case, with a wide field of view.

If you want shallow DoF, you need a larger format or a longer lens.
That's what I was saying, just with different words. People buy these fast lenses either to shoot in low light or for DOF control, or for both reasons. I have not seen discussions yet of somebody choosing the mft format to be able to have more depth of field when shooting with fast lenses. One can have both with larger sensors, better low light capability thanks to better high iso performance and better DOF control by simply stopping down a fast lens if more dof is desired. So I don't see your "..advantage of the smaller sensor with a fast lens is to achieve more depth of field while also being able to work in very poor light...." as the deeper dof is by design rather than by choice of the shooter. Aps-c sensors offer 1-3 stop advantages and the ability to better control dof.
 

Photomorgana

New member
A bit presumptuous, Louis.

There are no inherent "fatal flaws" if the lens is made well.

What is so fatal about the CV 25/0.95?

You should perhaps try a 16/2 Arri Distagon or a Kinoptik 9.8 f/1.8- all usable wide open.
Yes, or Arriflex:
Distagon 24/2; or
Kinoptik 18/1.8; or
Cooke Speed Panchro 18/2 or 25/2.
All great lenses, and as a matter of fact I'd pick any of them over CV25, lets say 9 out of 10 times. (and as an extra feature they work flawlessly on NEX5n as well)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
.. I have not seen discussions yet of somebody choosing the mft format to be able to have more depth of field when shooting with fast lenses. One can have both with larger sensors ... by stopping down the lens ..
...
Aps-c sensors offer 1-3 stop advantages and the ability to better control dof.
Sorry, but you cannot achieve the same light gathering potential at the same ISO setting with a larger format by stopping down the lens. APS-C sensors do not automatically have 1-3 stop sensitivity advances over FourThirds sensors. I know this from actually using both. Some APS-C sensors do have improved sensitivity over some FourThirds format sensors, like the K5 over the E-5, but the differential is about 1 stop (that is, I see the same amount of noise with a K5 shooting at ISO 6400 that I do with the E-5 shooting at ISO 3200).

I choose to work with FourThirds format because the small format allows more DoF at larger apertures, netting better low light performance for my work. And there are faster lenses available ... where are the f/0.95 lenses for a K5? Perhaps I am the exception as I actually think through the implications of large apertures and know how much DoF I need for various shooting situations, which is usually more than the hair thickness razor that is available at f/0.95 with a 35mm format camera. At least at f/1.2 it's a thick hair... ;-)

Your phrasing dismisses this lens as irrelevant. I and all the other folks who prefer Micro-FourThirds see it as very relevant and useful.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Sorry, but you cannot achieve the same light gathering potential at the same ISO setting with a larger format by stopping down the lens. APS-C sensors do not automatically have 1-3 stop sensitivity advances over FourThirds sensors. I know this from actually using both. Some APS-C sensors do have improved sensitivity over some FourThirds format sensors, like the K5 over the E-5, but the differential is about 1 stop (that is, I see the same amount of noise with a K5 shooting at ISO 6400 that I do with the E-5 shooting at ISO 3200).

I choose to work with FourThirds format because the small format allows more DoF at larger apertures, netting better low light performance for my work. And there are faster lenses available ... where are the f/0.95 lenses for a K5? Perhaps I am the exception as I actually think through the implications of large apertures and know how much DoF I need for various shooting situations, which is usually more than the hair thickness razor that is available at f/0.95 with a 35mm format camera. At least at f/1.2 it's a thick hair... ;-)

Your phrasing dismisses this lens as irrelevant. I and all the other folks who prefer Micro-FourThirds see it as very relevant and useful.
Very well written, Godfrey :thumbup:
 

greypilgrim

New member

PeterB666

Member
I have never managed to get a decent 'wide open' image from any of my Leica or Voigtlander glass below 50mm and my 15mm Heliar which is close enough to the 17.5mm to be representative is basically unusable below f8.

So, by all means slaver over the fast aperture of this lens but I remain to be convinced until I see samples.

LouisB
I think this is true of any fast lens and the wider you go the harder it is to get a good outcome.

I have the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 and it is a wonderful lens and delivers and exceptional image from f/2 and even quite a fine one from f/1.4. There would be few lenses of the same price that give that performance.

Even f/0.95 is sort of usable under the right circumstances provided you are aware of the limitations and work with it.

But what does f/0.95 really give me? Well one of the first shoots I did with my Olympus E-P3 was with the 25mm f/0.95 and it was in the wee dark hours of a cold winter morning and I could actually see an image on the camera's display and I could focus (although strictly speaking, I would normally set the focus by scale under those conditions).


Foggy Morning Railway by peterb666, on Flickr

The shot is not at f/0.95 - I think it is around f/5.6 for depth of field - but the lens was a joy to use under the conditions and I cannot think of another lens that would have been as much fun to use.

I really don't need a 17.5mm lens so won't be getting it. I have the Olympus 12mm f/2 which I use a lot and the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 which I rarely use.
 

henningw

Member
... and better DOF control by simply stopping down a fast lens if more dof is desired. So I don't see your "..advantage of the smaller sensor with a fast lens is to achieve more depth of field while also being able to work in very poor light...." as the deeper dof is by design rather than by choice of the shooter. Aps-c sensors offer 1-3 stop advantages and the ability to better control dof.
'Better' dof control is a personal thing. Sometimes 'better' is a 360 Symmar on 8x10, sometimes a tiny censored P&S. Neither is 'better'.

Deeper dof is part of the camera specifications, and choice of that camera by the buyer who often is the user. Often the greater dof is a boon. Sometimes one wishes slightly less without going home and getting the other camera, and then the availability of an f/0.95 lens helps.

I have yet to see aps-c sensors ever having a 3 stop advantage in any way.

Henning
 

Tesselator

New member
Interesting thread all around. Thanks!

From all the thoughts, opinions, and side chatter the only thing that strikes me as contrary to my own knowledge and thoughts are the bits about CA correction.

I don't see it as it's been discussed so far. There is no such thing as a lens that's been designed for digital or not. There's some lens element coating technology that has been used for use with digital sensors because sensors have a different amount and kind of reflectivity but nothing more than that.

A lens (any lens) is either well corrected or it's not. On film a poor lens in that regard causes just as many problems as it does on digital. The main difference is that some of the colored fringes don't show up as much when printed as they do on screen but that's true with digital images as well. Same same.

The bits about in-camera correction are only a way of selling poorly designed lenses for more. It might save the user some time in editing if they care about such things but the user doesn't seem to benefit otherwise. I mean the lens in question gets sold for more than it would otherwise - meaning the user pays for it in the end.

So IMO a good lens design is a good lens design - period. It has nothing to do with digital or not. And there are plenty of WA/UWA lenses designed prior to the advent of digital which are superb and therefor support this thinking. And in-camera correction is only a hidden tax - whether or not you want to pay that tax or spend your time at the computer is for each individual to decide. Im my case I'd rather have the good design rather than paying higher prices for the poor design because the in-camera correction is not always the best quality and robs me of the ability both to get the most out of it and to see exactly what a lens can and can't do.

I guess I should also add that I for sure don't need focus peaking on a 17mm lens. I shoot 17mm and 18mm a lot on the GH1 and the MF assist is already perfect for that. Now down around 8mm or less then I could see wanting it - maybe. Also maybe for really slow lenses where it's hard to tell exactly where the focal plane is (cuz it's so thick) but for a 17/f0.95... Nope not needed (for me). Certainly peaking is not a critical factor in selecting this lens as or not.
 
Last edited:

henningw

Member
I don't see it as it's been discussed so far. There is no such thing as a lens that's been designed for digital or not. There's some lens element coating technology that has been used for use with digital sensors because sensors have a different amount and kind of reflectivity but nothing more than that.

A lens (any lens) is either well corrected or it's not. On film a poor lens in that regard causes just as many problems as it does on digital. The main difference is that some of the colored fringes don't show up as much when printed as they do on screen but that's true with digital images as well. Same same.

The bits about in-camera correction are only a way of selling poorly designed lenses for more. It might save the user some time in editing if they care about such things but the user doesn't seem to benefit otherwise. I mean the lens in question gets sold for more than it would otherwise - meaning the user pays for it in the end.

So IMO a good lens design is a good lens design - period. It has nothing to do with digital or not. And there are plenty of WA/UWA lenses designed prior to the advent of digital which are superb and therefor support this thinking. And in-camera correction is only a hidden tax - whether or not you want to pay that tax or spend your time at the computer is for each individual to decide. Im my case I'd rather have the good design rather than paying higher prices for the poor design because the in-camera correction is not always the best quality and robs me of the ability both to get the most out of it and to see exactly what a lens can and can't do.
A lens is well designed if it produces the desired quality in the system it is designed for.

The 7-14 Panasonic zoom and 20/1.7 are not good film camera lenses, but that is irrelevant because they are not designed for nor are ever likely to be used on a film camera. On the digital cameras they were designed for they produce exceptional results while maintaining a small size and reasonable costs for their performance. The parameters that can't be corrected in software right now, such as astigmatism and coma have been corrected for extremely well, but distortion and CA have been left to 'float', because those things can be corrected.

The number of wide and super wide lenses designed before digital that have decent performance is extremely small, and cost a lot of money. The 38 Biogon in the Hassy SWC, and the other pre-digital Biogons for that matter are eclipsed by the performance of the 7-14. I have some of those Biogons, as well as the 7-14, and the value in the 7-14 is outstanding.

I also have 4 Leica 21mm lenses, including the 21 Summilux, and on the m43 sensor these lenses are useless. They are good lenses, but they were not designed to be part of this system, and that is telling.

The user doesn't 'pay' for this correction in processing time as it's done by the camera automatically. The user benefits in all sorts of ways.

Remember, there never were any absolutes in lens design. A 'good' lens was always part of a system. Apo repro lenses were often useless for general photography, as they were commonly designed for 1:1 reproductions, and only behaved wonderfully at their three specified wavelengths. A more generally useful lens might not have or need the superb resolution or distortion correction that those lenses had at 1:1 at the three primary colours, but would run rings around them performance wise for general photography. And what about 'floating elements'? The first creeping intrusion of providing lenses with corrections that they weren't capable of on their own in fixed configurations?

Lenses are never to be regarded 'in a vacuum', as objects in themselves unless they are to live out their lives on a shelf. Lenses are designed to serve a purpose, and that includes the whole system. If a lens doesn't serve that system properly and to your satisfaction, get another lens. But don't blame designers or manufacturers for giving us the best effective lens for this system. Right now that includes the possibility of software correction.

Mr. Kobayashi is not interested in this right now, so he is not doing it and the lenses he has designed to date do not have the contacts and firmware to interact with the camera in this way. He has however designed the lenses for the m43 sensor, which requires a degree of telecentricity which Leica and other rangefinder lenses lack for the most part. Therefore I fully expect higher performance in the corners from the 17/0.95 than from my 21 Summilux on the m43 cameras.

His lenses are excellent value, partly due to not constraining the size a lot. Leica will tell you that part of the cost of producing lenses for the (full frame) M9 and film Leicas comes from making sure the lenses are not too large. Remember, scaling the 25/0.95 up to full frame would result in a lens ~6" long, weighing 6 to 8 times as much and with a filter size of 105mm. Then we would have a 50mm/0.95 Nokton.

He has more in store for us, so let your imaginations run wild.

Henning
 

Tesselator

New member
I disagree or find irrelevant almost everything you just said but that's cool. We just have totally different opinions and ways of assessing things. ;)

I'm sure however, that the CV 17/0.95 will rock and it's very good news about there being more lenses to come of course! :)








.
 
Last edited:

biglouis

Well-known member
The 38 Biogon in the Hassy SWC, and the other pre-digital Biogons for that matter are eclipsed by the performance of the 7-14. I have some of those Biogons, as well as the 7-14, and the value in the 7-14 is outstanding.
Henning, I hate to disagree but my experience with the 7-14 and the Hass SWC is not the same as yours. No way is the 7-14 even close. The 7-14 is a great lens and delivers on the promise of small portable good quality optics for m43rds but the SWC is a whole different order of quality above it, imho. However, I have rarely got a sharp image at the edges at 7mm even stopped down and comparing notes with at least one other owner we both agreed it was hard to do.

In some ways the comparison is irrelevent because I carry the 7-14 a lot more than the SWC and of course it the camera you have with you which gets the shot.

The shot is not at f/0.95 - I think it is around f/5.6 for depth of field - but the lens was a joy to use under the conditions and I cannot think of another lens that would have been as much fun to use.
Peter, the only reason why I held off on the Voigtlander was the rumours of the impending Leica DG Summilux 1.4. That has a wonderful colour draw in low light and would equal the CV, imho. Life is now full of choices: manual high quality glass or auto high quality glass.

LouisB
 
Top