FE 35mm F2.8 vs Voigtländer 35/2.5 with A7R for street photography

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
Gabor Esperon
Regular MemberPosts: 149
Like?
Re: FE 35mm F2.8 vs Voigtländer 35/2.5 with A7R for street photography
In reply to blue_skies, 4 months ago

blue_skies wrote:

Gabor Esperon wrote:

nathan wrote:

looking for smaller lenses. and a great bokeh of 35/1.2 - i really not so need for such kind of shooting.

What about the Biogon 35mm f/2 (Zeiss) ? It is shorter and a lot lighter than the Voiglander... That would be my second choice.

If you shoot wide-open at f/2, the Voigtlander 35/1.4 handles edges better on the A7 than the Zeiss ZM 35/2.0. On the A7r both further degrade the edges, when used wide open.

Both lenses also suffer from sensor light-reflections on the A7. The A7r seems to have it to, but to a milder degree. You can under-expose to mitigate this some, but this brings up noise levels.

With the FE35/2.8, you loose a stop of light, but you have much less sensor reflections.

I haven't had an issue yet with the 35 1.2. The Biogon I have read some reports about the corners, not the reflexions. But it depends on the kind of shooting people do and I don't usually shoot at night, so I give it the benefit of the doubt. On the plus side the Biogon behaves really good wide open judging by a brief shooting.

The problem I have with Sony lenses is that I refuse to buy into Sony system until they clearly define the direction they are going. Both line-up and ergonomic wise. Currently Sony produce great images but it has it's perks that can be really frustrating, to the point the moment somebody releases a FF mirrorless that I truly like, I am jumping ship.

No offense to Sony, they make great cameras and sensors, but they feel to me like electronic appliances instead of a camera. Some people like it and some people don't mind, I do.

The Voigtlander 35/1.2 is just too big (Why not consider Mitakon's 50/0.95 lens?). The Voigtlander 35/2.8 seems worse than the 35/1.4 at the edges (considering only f/2.8 and up).

I briefly shoot the 35 1.4 and found I had to stop down to 2.8 or 4 to produce results similar to the Biogon, and still something felt off (I know, it is quite a subjective). On my list, given my preferences, if I could only buy one, it would be:

1 - VC 35 1.2

2 - Biogon 35 2.0

3 - VC 35 1.4

4 - FE 35 2.8

And if weight and size was an issue, I would pick the Biogon 35 2.0 in a heartbeat over any other.

If on the A7, I would consider CV35/1.4 versus FE35/2.8. then it is about two stops of light.

If on the A7r, I would consider ZM35/2.0 versus FE35/2.8, then it is about (center) sharpness and SW corrections. The ZM's center sharpness (and micro-contrast) is legendary.

The sensor light-reflections are very visible on the CV35/1.4 at times. I have not taken the ZM35/2.0 out at night yet, but I expect the same. The FE35 does not suffer from the same reflections.

Also, the CV35/1.4 has nicer OOF rendering (bokeh) than the ZM35. The FE35 just feels like a 'stopped down' lens. Of course, longer FL's are better for this anyways.

f/2.8 is not all that bad if you bump the ISO, at the street at night, keep this in mind.

Rendering wise, I like the CV35/1.4 for (close) people subjects, and the ZM35/2.0 & FE35/2.0 other subjects.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow