Originally Posted by ajtruhan
Does anyone have a comparison of Voigtländer 15mm 4.5 version iii for e mount on an a7ii compared to the SWC? I’m trying to replace my SWC and wonder how the lens performs.
I haven't used this lens; I had the first version of the CV Heliar 15/4.5 and it was pretty awful at corners and edges. I understand the model III is much improved, but no direct experience.
The closest in FoV and overall look/feel/bokeh I've come to the Hasselblad SWC on 35mm FF (cropped to square) has been the Leitz Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5 on the Leica SL or M-P typ 240. This is essentially a Zeiss Distagon 15mm built to Leica requirements and standards for the R system cameras, so it makes sense that it would image similarly to the Zeiss Biogon on the SWC.
I'm also finding the Voigtländer HyperWide 10mm f/5.6 ASPH when used on the Leica CL (cropped to square) has a great deal of the same character as SWC imagery. (This is a 24Mpixel APS-C sensor and gives the same field of view as the Super-Elmar-R listed above.)
Both of these give a little bit more FoV than the SWC, but the difference is small represented by the orange border in this framing comparison vs the green border:
The sample photo this is based on was made with the Leica CL + 10mm lens. It's not adjusted in any way other than being cropped to square.
The biggest issue with all of these equivalences is that 24x24mm or 16x16mm format are both much smaller than the SWC so there's very little room for the aperture to make much difference in focus zone and diffraction sets in very quickly, killing the sharpness across the board. I don't use the 10mm past f/8, and the 15mm I usually use at f/5.6 to get a feel more similar to the SWC @ f/8-11.
I'm very encouraged by what I see with the Hasselblad X1D using their XCD 21mm lens. The 33x33 mm square format (cropped, of course) is much closer to the SWC original 56x56 and the 21mm lens nets results in about the same FoV as the other two combinations I've been using but has a bit more of the focus zone control that the SWC does. It's not an inexpensive equivalent, and I'm sure it won't be 'identical', but it looks like it's about as close as you can get with currently available all-digital capture equipment.