voigtlander 35/2.5 CV VS canon 35/2

caila77 · 11-01-2005

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

rover · 11-02-2005

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.

caila77 · 11-02-2005

I'm going to scan it rover
thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by rover

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 · 11-02-2005

i am hard torn between getting one of those two
keenly expecting the scans

cheers

lee

back alley · 11-02-2005

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

caila77 · 11-02-2005

......taken with it.... with canon or voigtlander?..., I don't understand

[quote=
but to my eyes the photos taken with it are more harsh and clinical looking also.

joe[/QUOTE]

rover · 11-02-2005

I believe that joe is refering to the CV in that statement.

back alley · 11-02-2005

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.

caila77 · 11-02-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by rover

I believe that joe is refering to the CV in that statement.

that's right I think so!

caila77 · 11-02-2005

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by back alley

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 · 11-02-2005

i only shoot black & white, no idea what either lens does with colour.

caila77 · 11-02-2005

tomorrow I'll post some scans from my latest slide

Quote:

Originally Posted by back alley

i only shoot black & white, no idea what either lens does with colour.

peter_n · 11-02-2005

I look foeward to the scans too. Welcome to the forum Caila!

caila77 · 11-04-2005

Sorry, I'm late but in a few day I'll post them
Caila

caila77 · 11-06-2005

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)

caila77 · 11-06-2005

other photos

caila77 · 11-07-2005

I waiting for answer

rover · 11-08-2005

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 · 11-08-2005

[
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 · 11-08-2005

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/C...ANON_RF_2-35mm

cheers, Frank

Gabriel M.A. · 11-08-2005

I also noticed on many of my early photos taken with my 35 CV Ultron that the lens is very prone to flare; when using relatively modern Leica glass this isn't much of a concern, so I hadn't given it much thought back then.

Since then I've put a B+W MRC UV filter on it, and it seems to have improved the flare issues a lot; they haven't been cured, but I've seen a noticeable improvement.

caila77 · 11-08-2005

Thanks sonnar, very nice comment.
this 2 photos is a flare test: canon tents to flare more easilier than CV. And you are right whe say that canon is poor at f2

djon · 11-09-2005

Those are *miserable* scans ...If one is forced to share bad evidence, one might at least look at one's own evidence before drawing conclusions for others!

The best of this lot (last pile of logs) demonstrates Canon flaring substantially LESS than the CV ... the first/worst scans (lawn & buildings and little person) do too. (note blown highlights in grass).

The rows of trees DO show the Canon flaring more, as one would expect from a lens that's almost a full stop faster (f2 Vs 2.5 is almost f2 Vs 2.8). That they're both stopped down is irrelevant to the test...Canon's facing the sun with much more glass because it's a faster lens.

My wild guess is that the 35/2 Canon would blow the 35/1.7 Ultron away

caila77 · 11-10-2005

That's right, the scans are miserable (I've also a bigger scan at 300 dpi if someone want it)

In the photo with buiding you can't valuate flaring but only colour yield and in the last couple of photo

Why testing the lenses at stopped down is irrilevant?
I use both also at f8,f11,f16,f22 and the flare at f 11 is rilevant for my use

djon · 11-10-2005

Stopped down does show stopped-down performance, you're right. If you have to shoot into the sun at f8, the CV's better for the purpose (I'm assuming you used shades on both lenses because that would make a big difference).

But I don't think there's a basis to say the 2.5 lens is less prone to flare than the 2.0 because of modern design, I think it's just as likely to be the size of the front element. As well, there's the question of condition when testing a 45 year old lens, though arguably in several of those shots the older lens may have flared less.

Comparing an old Canon 2.8 and new CV 2.5 would be interesting.

And it'd also be interesting to see the Ultron compared to the Canon f2

BTW, I apologize for my aggressive tone in the previous post. Not gentlemanly, sorry.