photographers speaking about V f.95

The part where he showed the portrait at 25mm 0.freaking95 with the towels in the background still practically in focus is why 4/3" is stupid and I've tried everything from a 5D II to a D7000 praying one of them would give me video quality comparable to the GH2 (no luck, if anyone's wondering).

$6000 for anybody who can build me a camera with a 36x20mm 2.07mp sensor in it, preferably about 35 Mbps, even if it has the build quality of a GH2. $4500 for 24x13.5mm. Right now. Money in my hand. Panasonic? Sony? ....nobody?
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't take much stock in this review. I've used the voigtlander and it's a great camera at it's widest .95 and others too. It' creates a very unique and very pleasing look. I wouldn't trade it for much else... and if it were so bad, why is it out of stock everywhere? And why does Barry love it and so many other people. Hey, everyone has an opionion though.
 
I gotta say though, the images he posted, it doesn't look soft, it looks like razor thin depth of field (at macro distances, anyway). The pads of his fingers (and JUST the pads of his fingers) look sharp to me.
 
That's it... I don't think he really knows what he's talking about. I shot a lot of stuff at the .95 and it looks great. Narrow DOF but that's what you are looking for with this lens... But hey, he's a photographer so what do you expect.. lol. I kid, I kid.
 
Vincent Pereira said:
Ever hear of a film called CITIZEN KANE?

Vincent
Click to expand...

Not saying I always need to USE razor shallow DoF, just saying I want the option. I bolded the aperture because you never get to use apertures like that. I need a 4 stop ND to shoot f/4 at ISO 100 lighting with 150w incadendescent bulbs. That bathroom picture is what I want my camera to look like at that aperture, and 0.95 should give me crazy special effects I have no use for 99% of the time.
 
Lee Saxon said:
Not saying I always need to USE razor shallow DoF, just saying I want the option. I bolded the aperture because you never get to use apertures like that. I need a 4 stop ND to shoot f/4 at ISO 100 lighting with 150w incadendescent bulbs. That bathroom picture is what I want my camera to look like at that aperture, and 0.95 should give me crazy special effects I have no use for 99% of the time.
Click to expand...

Gottcha Lee, it just gets confusing sometimes when one CONSTANTLY reads about "shallow depth of field" as if that in and of itself will make somebody a great filmmaker. I didn't mean to offend.

Vincent
 
From the results I've seen for the V f.95 lens has Great video applications. I haven't researched into the photography side of the lens till recently. Just thought I would post this out there because I hear nothing but good things about this lens and it was wierd to find a site that said otherwise. I still want this lens, but for now my canon fd 50mm f1.4 will have to do... I'm spending money on a rail system, lights, and sound before I get the V.
 
Lee Saxon said:
The part where he showed the portrait at 25mm 0.freaking95 with the towels in the background still practically in focus is why 4/3" is stupid and I've tried everything from a 5D II to a D7000 praying one of them would give me video quality comparable to the GH2 (no luck, if anyone's wondering).

$6000 for anybody who can build me a camera with a 36x20mm 2.07mp sensor in it, preferably about 35 Mbps, even if it has the build quality of a GH2. $4500 for 24x13.5mm. Right now. Money in my hand. Panasonic? Sony? ....nobody?
Click to expand...

This is not rational? do you realise the only way to get this shallow is a 50mm f1.8 or better on FF? if you go wider ie there is a 35mm FF 1.4 I think then you'll drop on the FL side and if you go longer FL, many options(legacy) then you are restricted in your shot, especially in a bathroom lol. Honestly, if he'd stepped forward and because you can focus close with the vl 0.95 then you are going to have little difference, none with a 50mm 1.8 on FF, the only option would be 50mm 1.2/1.4? and you gain 0.6/0.4. Well you might get a bit of extra blur, but seriously?
 
25mm f/0.95 on a GH2 (1.9x crop in video mode) is equivalent, in terms of field of view and depth of field, to:

* 30mm f/1.13 on APS-C
* 50mm f/1.81 on full frame

that's insanely shallow DoF in my book... which still can't make miracles (if you've got a big subject and it's close to the background, then that's it, no matter what camera/lens you're using)

most shots on most movies are taken at around the equivalents of f/2.9 on a GH2, f/3.5 on APS-C, or f/5.6 on fullframe
 
Last edited:
"1 – It’s a manual focus lens. Leica owners will be used to that. Everyone else uses auto"

That's about as far as I got.
 
In that "review" there is a test at the end: we are asked to guess which camera/lens was used for the sample images the author published. The purpose is clearly to demonstrate that it is impossible to tell which is which because it is possible to get the same results with cheaper lens an in a much more easy way with a point and shot style camera with a zoom. So why to use many primes? They are heavy, bulky, it is not easy to carry them around.... Why to do that when with a good zoom you can frame "the way you like" and push a button? Just that easy! And, miracle, you get indistinguishable results!

One thing is true actually: it is not possible to tell those photos because they are all equally ugly, it does not matter which camera or lens was used... and this explains a lot why those arguments against the V.95 are so ......! Ok, ok, my comment is getting too hard, excuse me to everybody ;-)


Anyway it is not common to find a "review" like that on a valuable site like Steve's .
 
Played around a little bit with it. Definitely the Voigtlander loses contrast when totally wide open, but it still resolves plenty. On the GH2 I used a stills 4K chart and the V was resolving easily into 1500+ lines even when wide open. Does it look as good fully wide open as it does when stopped down to F/4? No, of course not -- no lens does. With all lenses the standard common rule is -- "you get the best performance in the range from about two stops down from fully-open, to two stops up from fully closed." Stop the voigtlander down to f/2 and it's razor-crisp with delicious contrast and frankly just awesome. At f/0.95, it's got softer contrast, some of which can be recovered by just adding some contrast in post.

In video, where these m43 cameras are resolving somewhere between 500 and 800 lines, you will *never* see a true sharpness difference between wide-open to about f/16 (when diffraction starts kicking in). You will see the contrast difference, yes -- just like I see it when I open up my $4,000 Zeiss Compact Prime 50mm or 85mm lens up to T1.5, the contrast goes to pot and a little purple and green fringing kicks in. Same with the Voigtlander. I expect that -- all my lenses do it. If you weren't expecting it, you might be surprised by it, but ... it's par for the course.

Simple fact is, the V can open to f/0.95. And that's just plain awesome. And yes, it lets in that much more light. Using the GH2, I adjusted exposure using the shutter speed, not by changing the light or the ISO or anything. The V at f/4 used a shutter speed of 1/50th or 1/60th (don't recall exactly). At f/0.95 I had to go to 1/600th to get the same exposure. That means it was seeing equivalent brightness in 1/10th or 1/12th as much light. 1/12th! That's the point of the Birger, at least as far as we cine shooters are concerned. Nothing else on the market delivers the combination of low light performance, shallow DOF, usable field of view, low price, and good solid image, as the Voigtlander does.

For stills photography, I'm not so enamored with it. I use my 20mm f/1.7 "pancake" a lot more than I do the 25mm Voigtlander on my GH2. I'd only reach for the V on the GH2 if I absolutely needed the range between f/1.7 and f/0.95 (which is, by the way, a pretty substantial difference, it's about 1 2/3 stops more light, or over 3x as much light, so it's still a big deal). Or, if hyper-shallow DOF is the goal, as f/0.95 on 25mm is quite a bit shallower than f/1.7 on 20mm. But the pancake is 1/3 the price, autofocus and auto-iris, much smaller, very sharp, and just is a better "fit" with a small camera like the GH2.

For cinema use, on an HD camera, the Voigtlander is simply delicious. For stills work (which is the perspective that the article's writer was coming from) I can more see his point.
 
NormanBates said:
25mm f/0.95 on a GH2 (1.9x crop in video mode) is equivalent, in terms of field of view and depth of field, to:

* 30mm f/1.13 on APS-C
* 50mm f/1.81 on full frame

that's insanely shallow DoF in my book...
Click to expand...

Agreed, but 'DoF' wasn't the right word for me to use. I'm looking for 'background separation.' The 50 1.81 on FF gives you more background separation even if you stop down some to get more DoF on the actual subject. The 25 you have to shoot ridiculous-special-effects-mode-one-eye-in-focus-one-not apertures just to get...well, if those towels had monograms you could still read them.

Plus, perhaps more importantly, a 50 just gives a more flattering perspective than a center crop of a 25. This is most important with portraits / singles, but does apply to everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top