Jump to content
midloch

Voigtlander 10.5mmm F0,95 or Pana Leica 12mm F1.4?

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

I have decided to buy wide lenses for my GH5. Now I mostly use Voigtlander 17.5mm f0,95 and I love its non digital "sterile" look like other lenses.

So just only for video what do you think? Voigtlander 10.5mm 0,95 or Panasonic Leica 12mm 1,4? (I never use AF)

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

The Leica is sharper wide open while the Voigtlander is pretty useless at f/0.95 because of how soft it is. 

Still the Voigtlander will match your other lens so I'd say probably go that route. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

The Leica is sharper wide open while the Voigtlander is pretty useless at f/0.95 because of how soft it is. 

Still the Voigtlander will match your other lens so I'd say probably go that route. 

DON'T COMPARE LENSES WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM APERTURES ON THEIR "WIDE OPEN" RESOLUTION!!!!   You wouldn't compare a 50mm F0.95 at F0.95 with a 50mm F3.5 at F3.5 would you?  The f3.5 lens would kill the faster one, but that's just ridiculous.

Lenses sharpen up when you stop them down, and the Voigtlanders sharpen up very well when stopped down.

Lenstip is the only site that has measured both in a way we can compare, and you'll note that the Voigt is behind the Leica on sharpness but not too much when you actually compare them at the same apertures - here's the Voigt:

4306_roz.png

and the Leica:

189187_roz1.png

The Leica is sharper, but it depends on what you're looking for in a lens.  For example, here is a comparison between the Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95 at F1.4 (RHS curves) and the Samyang Xeen 50mm T1.5 (LHS curves).  

voigt-stopdown-sml.png

Xeen-50-MTFsml.jpg

The Xeen resolution is abysmal, yet it's on B&H for USD$1795 and those who shoot with it found it fine, and it didn't seem to really be that bad in tests...

The Xeen at T1.5:

Xeen T1.5.png

and at T4:

Xeen T4.png

It sharpens up sure, but you're hardly looking at the first image and crying about how it's so terrible and unusable.

We have to stop thinking like internet stills photographers who seem to only talk about sharpness, and start to learn from practicing cinematographers who love the softness of vintage primes and older lenses.

@midloch I'd say go for the 10.5mm because you've said you like the less clinical look of your 17.5mm, and the 10.5mm lens should be the same.  Also, 10.5mm is slightly wider.

I have the Voigt 17.5mm and 42.5mm lenses and went with the 7.5mm Laowa F2 lens because I wanted the extra width, but otherwise would have gone with the 10.5mm :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You never use AF and you love your current Voigtlander , seems like the answer is crying out obvious! Get another Voigtlander 

16 minutes ago, kye said:

We have to stop thinking like internet stills photographers who seem to only talk about sharpness, and start to learn from practicing cinematographers who love the softness of vintage primes and older lenses.


Agreed! And just because a lens isn't perfectly sharp with a 20megapixel camera (or even a 36+ megapixel camera!) doesn't at all mean it is a bad idea to use for your 2megapixel (FHD!) shooting.

17 minutes ago, kye said:

I have the Voigt 17.5mm and 42.5mm lenses and went with the 7.5mm Laowa F2 lens because I wanted the extra width, but otherwise would have gone with the 10.5mm :) 

Get both! After all 7.5mm and 10.5mm are quite different FoV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, kye said:

DON'T COMPARE LENSES WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM APERTURES ON THEIR "WIDE OPEN" RESOLUTION!!!!   You wouldn't compare a 50mm F0.95 at F0.95 with a 50mm F3.5 at F3.5 would you?  The f3.5 lens would kill the faster one, but that's just ridiculous.

I phrased what I was trying to say incorrectly. What I meant to say is that the Leica is still pretty sharp wide open, while the Voigtlander needs to be stopped down because the f0.95 isn't very useful and is more of a gimmick. The Leica wide open at f1.4 is sharper than the Voigtlander is at f1.4. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

The Voigtlander is pretty useless at f/0.95 because of how soft it is.

Yeah, but what if I like that softness?  (And I do)  Sometimes, flaws are not something to avoid, but to be embraced.  At least for me.  Anyway, the Voights are fun because you can squeak out extra exposure for dim lighting, and it's nice to have that option.

FYI, just my ideas and style.  Others really want that tack sharp stuff.  I'm not that particular.  I go for character rather than precision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I phrased what I was trying to say incorrectly. What I meant to say is that the Leica is still pretty sharp wide open, while the Voigtlander needs to be stopped down because the f0.95 isn't very useful and is more of a gimmick. The Leica wide open at f1.4 is sharper than the Voigtlander is at f1.4. 

No worries - many others say it that way and mean it.  

I mean what I say about not getting too attached to resolution too.  We go to huge lengths to implement the 180 shutter rule, which takes our 8MP image (4K) or 2MP image (1080) and makes absolutely sure that whatever is moving is blurry as hell in almost every frame.  Then we complain that the lens isn't tack sharp on a 50MP sensor at 1/10000s exposures.

I find it strange that stills photographers are busy emulating the best still shooters, and we're into video but instead of following high-end cinematographers we follow the best stills photographers instead.

Have a look at this post I made in the cine lenses thread again and see what the pillars of our profession (not a different but similar profession) have to say about lenses:

On 10/27/2019 at 6:36 PM, kye said:

and-now-for-something-completely-differe

What people say about the aesthetics of lenses.

Starting with the lenses that had more character and less sharpness.

Super Speeds:

  • The super speeds are crisp at a 2/2.8 split without being clinical, allowing us to forgo any diffusion in front of the lens.
  • We tested several sets of modern and vintage lenses that all opened up to at least a T1.4. Ultimately, we landed on the Zeiss Super Speeds because they had a cooler, less saturated color rendition and a softer contrast when shooting wide open.
  • I remember when Super Speeds were the cheap lenses, I’d use the Panavision zooms and add a set of Super Speeds because back then they were cheap. Now everybody wants them because they are a little flawed and we want to make this digital cinema look more human. It’s all about the glass today.
  • (talking about Zeiss Masterprimes) BUT: They have no personality, an ugly flare and are ridiculous large. All these things can my Super Speeds much better. Especially the flare is second to none.
  • They are softer wide open (t1.3) but get just as sharp as Ultra Primes at 2.8 and up. They are still decently sharp wide open, just give a smoother appearance rather than crisp. Skin looks many times better on Super Speeds.
  • On a 5K chip, the SSpeeds even wide open deliver an awesome look, almost like all the "defects" are perfectly rendered, thus making them sem alive.
  • The wide-open look that Matt describes is particularly charming, since it combines a slight softening with lower contrast and highlight blooming. Best of all, the effect is somewhat variable between wide open and 2.8, so you have a bit of control if you can light to a certain stop.

Cooke S4:

  • We chose Cooke S4s because of their softer attributes and warmer skin tone
  • Well, it's not so much the image being softer, it's the way things go smoothly out with S4 lenses.
  • The play of light and the roundness of its quality, bokeh, the way a lens renders the human face, are all more important from my own personal point of view. The S4s are plenty sharp when they stand on their own, and render a very rich and complex image.
  • I just like the Cooke lenses because they're very sharp, but feel very natural.
  • I like the way they work on faces.
  • they have a softness to them and I think it’s very important with digital cameras not to let the image get too sharp. The other thing is that the Cookes don’t flare very much and we had a lot of practical lights in shot, so they worked very well with our sets
  • chose the Cooke S4s because they are "gentler" than other lenses.
  • I decided on the Cooke S4s because of our multi-racial cast, and the warmth I knew the lenses would bring to their rich skin tones.

I couldn't find anyone saying good things about the Xeens.

Master Anamorphics:

  • However, once we were on set I could only use the Master Anamorphics because they were so pin-sharp, perfectly straight and square – all the way to the corners – that it was impossible to match them with the other brand.
  • I'm a huge fan of the Master Anamorphics because they don't really look like anamorphics but they have that anamorphic aspect ratio.  And they also are one of the fastest anamorphics, you can actually shoot them wide open and still be reasonably sharp.
  • I’m leaving out the Master Anamorphics because those are so clean and crisp it almost defeats the point of shooting anamorphic imo

Other comments of note:

  • Yes, in many ways, what's nice about the modern primes is not their sharpness or flare-prevention, it's the fact that they MATCH each other in a set so well, compared to older lens sets which are a lot more quirky in terms of matching in color, contrast, and performance. Hence why I'd be happy to shoot either Primos, Cooke S4's, or Zeiss UltraPrimes.

What I take from these comments (combined with the various other tests that I've seen on these lenses) is that people want resolution but not too much of it.  They want contrast but not too much of it.  

I think there's a huge disconnect between how a lens measures and how it looks, so that when we see measurements of a certain lens we screw up our noses, but when we watch TV or movies shot with that same lens at the same settings we don't have the same reaction at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, midloch said:

So just only for video what do you think?

For video keep in mind way or capability for accurate focusing of moving objects or keeping focus through camera movements. Also, maybe you may consider SLR Magic 10mm T2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you consider using the lens on a Blackmagic Camera or another MFT camera that shoots raw video, go for the Voigtlander, because it's an optically corrected wide-angle lens while the PanaLeica 12mm has strong native fisheye distortion that gets electronically corrected (=photoshopped in firmware) in Panasonic and Olympus MFT cameras.

This is how the uncorrected image of the PanaLeica 12mm looks:

186646_pan12_dys_raw.jpg

After in-camera software correction (only on Panasonic and Olympus bodies, not on Blackmagic):

image.png.cc7f72d975374cce6fcd192325db4dc7.png

Source: 
https://www.lenstip.com/505.6-Lens_review-Panasonic_Leica_DG_Summilux_12_mm_f_1.4_ASPH_Distortion.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...