-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
CV10, a few images
- Thread starter blue_skies
- Start date
TheFrenchDiggler
Active member
oh boy is that wide...
blue_skies
Veteran Member
Yes, a lot wider than the FE1635Z, and surprisingly rectilinear :
FE1635Z @ 16mm
CV10 (uncorrected JPG - see fringing e.g. upper left)
CV10 - defringed in LR from RAW (no lens profile yet)
--
Cheers,
Henry
Last edited:
rogerjosem
Veteran Member
Thanks Henry. This CV10 seems like a fun lens, and one that will pose a great challenge when making compositions 
Keep us updated with your impressions.
Keep us updated with your impressions.
Neurad1
Veteran Member
Thanks for those shots. Too wide and "specialized" and too challenging to compose with for this guy (just me thinking out loud). The 12 might be a "sweeter spot" for me. However, if the 12 also seems too wide I will not be getting any of the Sony mount Voigtlanders, as I think the 15 is too close to the 16 of my 16-35 F4 for it to make sense (for me) to buy one.
The only reason I might "bite" is if I decide I really need a wide small/light kit for traveling. But If I were to thereby rationalize purchasing a small wide-ish lens (especially if I wanted it to be "fast"), I'd probably choose the Loxia 21.
I was most interested in the Batis 18 until I saw how large it is. But I guess that's the price you have to pay for AF and "fast".
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joelcure/
Last edited:
blue_skies
Veteran Member
TheFrenchDiggler
Active member
Agree - I do some occasional real estate work and see the value here. Right now I alternate between the Rokinon 14/2.8 and the SigmaArt 24/1.4 and depending on floor plan, the 10 (and 12) could be very useful. Though, admittedly, the compositional (probably not a real word ) impacts are a little daunting.
) impacts are a little daunting.
A
Alpha Photo
Guest
Impressive and extreme indeed - but not a single one of these photos looks attractive to me. Probably it is my my old-fashioned eyes?
blue_skies
Veteran Member
LOL your eyes are fine. Do check the filenames and date stamps. Except for a few redundant ones, these were a rapid shooting parking lot exercise, while my friend was waiting in the car. At least it was a lunch time opportunity.Impressive and extreme indeed - but not a single one of these photos looks attractive to me. Probably it is my my old-fashioned eyes?
On a side note, extreme wide can be impressive, but they are seldom attractive, imho. However, I added one image in the album after applying perspective correction, as the wide can do double duty as a T&S lens.
blue_skies
Veteran Member
A
Alpha Photo
Guest
Loxia 21 plus stitching if ever I need wider. For my "old-fashioned" eyes that is as wide as I need or want
A
Alpha Photo
Guest
Only if your definition of "creative" equals "extreme"
... just saying ...
A
Alpha Photo
Guest
I am curious - are the buyers a bit disappointed when they realize that what looked like a palace space in the photos is really the size of a closet?
TheFrenchDiggler
Active member
Haha.. I would mostly use for outdoor photos if anything. Places with smallish yards and multiple stories Maybe smaller bathrooms too. One would definitely need to proceed with extreme caution in either scenario. The Rokinon is usually wide enough in most scenarios for my tastes. All things considered, I couldn't see spending the money on this glass unless it was a full time job (which it is not).
But again - there is some value here... that value however is very debatable.
But again - there is some value here... that value however is very debatable.
blue_skies
Veteran Member
Perhaps, stitching with ultra wides causes non-linear distortion that is hard to correct (linearize). Try stitching 3 or 4 images of the L21 together.Loxia 21 plus stitching if ever I need wider. For my "old-fashioned" eyes that is as wide as I need or want
The 'magic' of this lens is that it's rendering is recta-lineair without corrections being applied. The much wider view also enables a larger amount of perspective (keystone) corrections to be applied.
I did find that the FE1635Z at times wasn't wide enough. Whether it should be 10mm, 12mm, or 15mm is a guess, and I can see why CV produces all three.
So far, I am impressed with the lens.
A
Alpha Photo
Guest
You are right, stitching may introduce additional distortions. It is better in fact, to use a longer focal length (i.e. 35mm or 55mm) to stich together long panoramas. This of course works only on non-moving objects.Perhaps, stitching with ultra wides causes non-linear distortion that is hard to correct (linearize). Try stitching 3 or 4 images of the L21 together.Loxia 21 plus stitching if ever I need wider. For my "old-fashioned" eyes that is as wide as I need or want
The 'magic' of this lens is that it's rendering is recti-linear without corrections being applied. The much wider view also enables a larger amount of perspective (keystone) corrections to be applied.
I did find that the FE1635Z at times wasn't wide enough. Whether it should be 10mm, 12mm, or 15mm is a guess, and I can see why CV produces all three.
So far, I am impressed with the lens.
Yes, the result from the 10mm lens certainly looks impressive and sharp!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum