Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

A day in the life of a Voigtländer... (Marburg Impressions)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:25 pm    Post subject: A day in the life of a Voigtländer... (Marburg Impressions) Reply with quote
Today, I have used my lunch break (and the acceptable weather) to walk through Marburg, armed with my new Voigtländer Color-Ultron 1.4/55 AR.
(Unfortunately, I left the Nikkor 2.0/50 AI at home. Sad I originally planned to do some comparison shots. Well, next time...)

I am quite pleased with the Ultron.
- It is definitely usable at f1.4 and really sharp from f2.8 onwards.
- The colours are rather low saturated. (Orio, I guess you would love this lens!)
- Contrast is rather low wide open but gets stronger quickly.
- Details are nicely rendered.
- The bokeh is a mixture of quite creamy areas and some "sub-optimal" edges. Wink
>> It is a kind of neutral lens that reproduces reality truely and does not add something to it. If you look for such a lens, the Ultron is almost perfect. If you want a strong "lens personality" it might not be the lens you're looking for. But because of this character trait and the fast f1.4 it is a universally usable lens!

As far as "beauty" is concerned, it is not my most attractive lens but it is nice to use. The focus ring turns a long way from closest point to infinity, so rather good for exact focussing than for quick snapshots.

With my adpater, infinity is not reached when shot at open apertures. But this is not a real problem for me. With a 55mm lens at a crop cam, I do not need infinity when I shoot with open blades (portrait etc.). And if I shoot landscapes, I can easily stop down to f8 or f11. Then infinity is no problem.

Here are some shots...

1.
This shot was taken wide open, handheld, in my office.

2.100% crop of #1, wide open

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.100% crop of #7

9.

10.

To be continued...

Last edited by LucisPictor on Wed May 13, 2009 5:22 am; edited 4 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:29 pm    Post subject: Part II Reply with quote
11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.
Somebody seems to have lost this piece of jewellery...

20.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:33 pm    Post subject: Part III Reply with quote
21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

All shots, for time saving reasons, in JPEG and only very basic PP.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Seems a very decent performer:

The bokeh does have a slight edge, but not bad.

Distortion looks well controlled for a 1.4.

Sharpness seems fine.

Saturation/colour very neutral.

It's great to see shots of your area too!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like numbers 5, 9, 11 and 13. Seems like a good lens!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:

- The colours are rather low saturated. (Orio, I guess you would love this lens!)


? Why you say so?
I don't like lenses that deliver weak colour density - all the contrary! I love those with deliver high density, such as the Russians, and Zeiss and Leica.

Anyway, from your images I see a lens with very clear rendition of detail (from what is possible to see from small resizes) and with quite a good bokeh. Seems like a good purchase to me.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Contrary to what #3 says, this Ultron is a good performer.

As Richard said, nice to see your surrondings. Smile


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I forgot to say my favourites are - 4, 14.,16, 18 & 19 Smile


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:

- The colours are rather low saturated. (Orio, I guess you would love this lens!)


? Why you say so?
I don't like lenses that deliver weak colour density - all the contrary! I love those with deliver high density, such as the Russians, and Zeiss and Leica.



Oh, I think I have misunderstood you then. I thought you wrote in another thread the other day that you think that too high a saturation does kill details.

But then I can remember that you often mentioned that you love the intense Russian colours.

I must have understood you wrong.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:

Oh, I think I have misunderstood you then. I thought you wrote in another thread the other day that you think that too high a saturation does kill details.
But then I can remember that you often mentioned that you love the intense Russian colours.
I must have understood you wrong.


No problem.
I try to explain better.
A lens can not saturate colours more than what the colours are saturated in reality. It can only desaturate them (due to not ideal coating, that induces flares and internal reflections, or to the quality of the optical glass employed).
My preference goes to the lenses that deliver optimum (i.e. maximum available) colour density, because they are most faithful to reality, and because they offer two big advantages:

1- photos will not need saturation adjustments in post processing

2- the film photographer can use normal (i.e. realistic) saturation film, and obtain ideal results, instead of using high saturation film that often force the results into something that is not faithful to the real light and colours.

It is true that I think that excessive saturation kills the detail, I always say this. But a lens never has this kind of power. To arrive to such point, you must either use a high saturation film like Velvia 50, or, to oversaturate a digital image in raw processing or-post-processing.

So my ideal photographic path is:
lens with optimal (maximum available) colour density ---on---> normal density film
or
lens with optimal (maximum available) colour density ---on---> neutral (unboosted) saturation digital file

On the contrary, I think that using a low density lens with a high saturation film, or a low density lens with boosting saturation in digital PP, creates not ideal results.

High saturation film is not really controllable. It might be OK for one shot, or even great, and trash for another. I don't want this kind of alea in my photos, I want to be able to rely on a predictable output.

With digital post-processing, unless you are a REAL PP wizard, and know EXACTLY where and what to saturate and how much, your saturation boost will boost equally all colour frequencies of a file, while lenses, do often not have such a linear behaviour: some represent higher saturation of reds, others of greens, many poor lenses tend to hue-tint the images with blueish cast due to poor coating. All these problems are harder to fix with PP saturation than it usually seems at a first glance.

Since I started using manual lenses on digital reflex, I immediately noticed a definite improvement in the rendition of colours directly from the lenses.
When I was using AF lenses, I had too boost saturation all the time. And I am not only speaking of Sigma and Tamrons, but of Canon EFs too.
With manual lenses, I rarely meet a lens that requires such saturation boosting. Some are weaker than others, but many are well above par, and in any case, even the weakest of manual lenses is often better than the best of autofocus lenses, saturation wise.
Since coating technology surely did not regress with the years, I must conclude that this evident lack of colour desnity in the last generations of autofocus lenses, is due to the use and abuse of plastic aspherical and special lenses, materials that (except for rare exceptions) were not used in manual lenses - at least, surely not in those that I own.

Hope it's clearer now Smile

-


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Carsten

Looks like a real keeper. Agree with Richard for the most part. Not to speak for Orio, but I believe he was referring to the PP habit of some photogs to add saturation to their pictures on a largely selective mode (there is a guy who takes pictures in Cambridge UK who does that). When you do this, a lot of edge detail disappears and the graduation in colour that is a very important but largely unnoticed element in "looking" and "seeing". Orio - correct me if I am wrong.

Your Voigtlander seems to do a very nice job with presenting colours well.


patrickh


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:
Looks like a real keeper. Agree with Richard for the most part. Not to speak for Orio, but I believe he was referring to the PP habit of some photogs to add saturation to their pictures on a largely selective mode (there is a guy who takes pictures in Cambridge UK who does that). When you do this, a lot of edge detail disappears and the graduation in colour that is a very important but largely unnoticed element in "looking" and "seeing". Orio - correct me if I am wrong.


Yes, that's what I meant. Smile


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, thanks. I think I know what you mean.
BTW, I was thinking about it just after I had read your first comment and I thought that I got you even before your explanation. Wink

You know, in most cases I like pictures with a tendency to lower saturation defintely more than "over-saturated" images. I often even reduce saturation during the PP process.
Some subject, e.g. your carnevale shots, of course, need strong colours!

But this is, as so often, personal reference. Smile


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:

Some subject, e.g. your carnevale shots, of course, need strong colours!


Yes, and guess what? I did not touch a single time the saturation slider when processing them. All colours come from the lenses used on the camera at "normal" (0) saturation level. Impressive, eh? Smile
This says something about the quality of the lenses I think Wink

And of course, also how you use the camera is important: with such subjects I often prefer a slight underexposure of about 1/3rd of stop to bring out colours and details, like I use to do with slides.

-


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Is this 55mm lens or 50mm...

If Its 55mm f1.4... the construction resembles the M42 mount Mamiya/Sears 55mm f1.4.. and even the results are contrasty like that lens.. (most under rated prime lens)...


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ballu wrote:
Is this 55mm lens or 50mm...

If Its 55mm f1.4... the construction resembles the M42 mount Mamiya/Sears 55mm f1.4.. and even the results are contrasty like that lens.. (most under rated prime lens)...


It's the 55mm. Thanks, I have corrected it!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1