A review of Voigtländer 25/0.95 und 35/1.2 vs. Lumix G 14-140
- Thread starter bgundu
- Start date
Is it really a fair comparison though? IMHO comparing a zoom lense with a fixed prime is apple and oranges. Zoom lenses have advantages over primes in how they are used, acessibility, quick framing being just a couple. Primes generally are faster and sharper but take longer to frame a shot the way you want. So i find the comparison a little odd and out of context.
Paul Vicente
Well-known member
But at least now we know there is a difference. Good info.
bgundu
Veteran
I have both the Nokton and the Lumix lens and I still find the comparisons interesting. They are different lenses for different applications. Now, how would you feel if the Nokton didn't perform better than the zoom lens? As Paul has mentioned, at least we know there is a difference.
It is interesting, but the results are not unexpected. The chance that a 45-140 f4.0 zoom for under a grand looks sharper than a $1,000 .095 prime is almost un heard of. No disrespect, I appreciate info, but I feel that it is more helpful to compare primes with primes and zoom with zooms. That is just my opinion.
RieniO
Well-known member
I have the 14-140mm and it's not the sharpest lens, simple. But it's a very practical multi-purpose zoomlens. Of course you will see the difference in video as well, so if you don't need to zoom and don't need stabilizer, a prime like Noktor will give sharper result. I've shot things using the GH1 and 14-140mm and later regreted not having used a better lens instead.
dregenthal
Veteran
kinda blows it out of the water doesn't it?
the one thing is does for me is solidify my decision to apprehend one of these lenses.
Thanks bgundu!
the one thing is does for me is solidify my decision to apprehend one of these lenses.
Thanks bgundu!
Barry_Green
Moderator
Say no more!
Okay, so... I see what you're asking, someone just go shoot some video on the 14-140 and the Voigtlander. Well, here's the funny thing -- due to some absolute insanity on my part, on ebay, I have now ended up with ANOTHER 25mm lens... so that brings my total to six. This one, however, is a rare and tasty gem, one of the rarest of the rare... I've been chasing after CP16R's and GSMO's on and off for the better part of 20 years, and I've owned probably a dozen or more, but this is the first time I've actually gotten a kit that included three of the ultra-rare Cinema Products Ultra-T lenses. Those were 16mm-format lenses made by, I think, Kowa... designed to be competitive with the best of their day, the Zeiss SuperSpeeds. And this new camera I got included three of them, the 9mm, the 16mm, and the 25mm.
So, obviously, I had to try out the 25mm on the AF100 and, joy of joy, it covers the frame! And 25mm at f/1.1, well, that's a little too similar to the Voigtlander at 25mm/f0.95 for me to pass up that comparison...
So, I took the AF100 out with the 14-140, and the Voigtlander, and the CP, out to the park to shoot (yes, you guessed it) ducks. And some other stuff, but ... yeah, ducks too.
Okay, first things first -- have I said how much I looooooove having the built-in ND filters? I can't fathom how anyone managed to shoot without those. Bah. With the built-in ND, I was able to get to about any f-stop I wanted, including f/0.95 at 200 ISO in daylight. Overcast, so no stark sunlight, but still -- this was at 3:00 in the afternoon, and I could shoot at f/1 if I wanted. Boy, how I do NOT miss "the revolution"...
Shot a few things, basically -- where could I point the camera without getting people up in arms at me? Set the Lumix at 25mm, put all the lenses on f/8 and infinity focus, and here's what they did:
Why is there a brightness difference? Don't know. Maybe the CP's aperture let in more light, maybe the sun changed a bit between lens changes? Or I just blew it on the iris and didn't notice... Doesn't really matter for the purposes that you guys were asking, which was Voigtlander vs. Lumix, as the V and L are about the same brightness. I'm just throwin' the CP in there for the heck of it.
My verdict? The Voigtlander costs more than the 14-140, it's a single focal length, it has no stabilization, no OIS, no auto-iris, no auto-focus... it had darn well better outperform the 14-140! In video... eh, not really a night-and-day situation, is it? And the CP... wow, for ... what, 40-year-old glass, it sure did hold its own.
I've said all along with "the DSLR revolution" that video was the great equalizer. When you're taking a lens that's designed to render a 21-megapixel image, and only asking it to resolve a 2-megapixel video image, well, that can hide a multitude of sins and shortcomings. Put these lenses on a 35mm movie camera, or ask them to shoot 21-megapixel stills, and I have no doubt the Voigtlander would come out easily and thoroughly on top.
But for video use? Well, hey -- if you see the difference, pay for the difference. If you don't see the difference, get inexpensive lenses and get shooting!
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
It's probably because F-stops are mathematical equations of what a lens 'should do' and T-stops are what a lens really does. I have done many many tests and have found that an F-stop lens usually is about 1/2 or 3/4 a stop slower than advertised. If a lens is a F/2.5, it's really a T/2.8. If it is an F/1.4 it's really performing like a T/1.8. In some cases it can be an entire stop... but usually it's in the ballpark of 1/2 or 3/4 of a stop more optimistic than what it really performs at. I've seen it too many times.
Your CP.2 is rated as T-stops, the others are F-stop rated... meaning nobody has actually performed and rated an actual light transmission test on the photography lenses.
This discrepancy of the f-stop formula to the T-stop performance is usually worse on the wide open side of things. You'll find photography lens aperture stops are usually more inaccurate on the first couple of stops. It's a formula. There are many factors which plays on the true light transmission of a lens, and not all of them are considered in the mathematical formula given to an F-stop. I've always wondered why photography lenses were not rated in T-stops. I guess it's 'close enough - good enough' considering the photographer doesn't have to worry about slight exposure discrepancies since his photos are not juxtaposed in an arena of needed continuity, as a photo-chemical process motion picture film would.
Last edited:
I think a lot of what you're paying for with the Voigtlander is the 0.95 aperture. The Lumix is a much slower lens.
Barry_Green
Moderator
That is absolutely why I paid for it, most definitely. At f/0.95, it is about 25x more light-sensitive than the 14-140 when set to 25mm...
mkfotos.com
Well-known member
Yep, the f/0.95 is THE reason I'll get the lens, not that it has a lot more resolving power than needed for a 4/3 / 1080p sensor.
It's sharp but a very narrow dof.
tflak
Veteran
Hmmm...was completely sold on the Voightlander, but I already have the Leica Summilux 25mm f/1.4. This test gives me pause. I know there's an appreciable difference between 0.95 and 1.4, but I was expecting the Voightlander to be sharper. And the Leica has a certain richness, warmth or whatever you want to call it. Guess it comes down to how often I'd really need that 0.95 now.
Barry, don't suppose you want to sell that CP?
Barry, don't suppose you want to sell that CP?