where are the reviews for Voigtlander color-skopar 20mm?

[dexmus]

I apologize for yet another thread about the color-skopar 20. But I am still going back and forth between the DA 21 and the Voigtlander (which one to buy) and I haven't been able to read any genuine review of the color skopar, and surprisingly no one has compared to to DA 21 either (atleast no comparison is to be found on web). Isn't it the most logical comparison?? Found some photo groups on Flickr for the Vt but thats pretty much it.

Voigtlander is slower than DA 21 and costs about 50$ more.


Has ANYONE on this forum chosen the Voigtlander over DA 21, and if so why? Other than the reason that is FF.

I am really surprised at the absolute lack of reviews, is it because no one out there is using the Voigtlander?



Thanks,

Abhi

[dave9t5]

Originally Posted by dexmus

I apologize for yet another thread about the color-skopar 20. But I am still going back and forth between the DA 21 and the Voigtlander (which one to buy) and I haven't been able to read any genuine review of the color skopar, and surprisingly no one has compared to to DA 21 either (atleast no comparison is to be found on web). Isn't it the most logical comparison?? Found some photo groups on Flickr for the Vt but thats pretty much it.

Voigtlander is slower than DA 21 and costs about 50$ more.


Has ANYONE on this forum chosen the Voigtlander over DA 21, and if so why? Other than the reason that is FF.

I am really surprised at the absolute lack of reviews, is it because no one out there is using the Voigtlander?

You've partially answered your own question. The longer (58/90/125/180) Voigtlaender lenses offer some unique things (price/spec, performance, construction, size) over other options for Pentax.

The 40mm and especially 20mm have strong competition from Pentax's own offerings.

Maybe more important is that the 20mm has only been available for a few months, so there aren't that many users out there.

[Zav]

A french forumer tried both of them. Its conclusion is that they deliver more or less the same IQ. I give you link to this review... of course, if you read french, it would be better for you

[dexmus]

oh thanks, yeah can you post that link please? I don't reach french but I can try Google's (somewhat patchy) translate service

cheers

[dexmus]

You've partially answered your own question. The longer (58/90/125/180) Voigtlaender lenses offer some unique things (price/spec, performance, construction, size) over other options for Pentax.

The 40mm and especially 20mm have strong competition from Pentax's own offerings.

Maybe more important is that the 20mm has only been available for a few months, so there aren't that many users out there.

Yeah, I actually have the Ultron 40mm and the reason I took it over DA 40 was because it was almost a stop faster making it easier to shoot indoors and in the evenings, and thats what I needed that lens for. Great lens by the way..

[dave9t5]

Originally Posted by dexmus

Yeah, I actually have the Ultron 40mm and the reason I took it over DA 40 was because it was almost a stop faster making it easier to shoot indoors and in the evenings, and thats what I needed that lens for. Great lens by the way..

Right, Ultron 40mm even thought it is MF, still offers some things that Pentax's lenses don't: brighter than DA40/2.8 and cheaper than FA43/1.9, better built than FA35/2.

Nokton 58mm is better optically and built than FA50/1.4 and cheaper than DA*55/1.4.

Skopar 20/3.5 doesn't have many appreciable specification advantages of DA21: dimmer, more $ and no AF. Since it's newly released, there is low incentive to be the guinea pig on it.

[stevebrot]

Originally Posted by dave9t5

Skopar 20/3.5 doesn't have many appreciable specification advantages of DA21: dimmer, more $ and no AF. Since it's newly released, there is low incentive to be the guinea pig on it.

I have been interested in the Skopar 20/3.5 as an ultra-wide to use with my film cameras. At the Skopar's price point, it is pretty competitive to the Pentax-A 20/2.8, if a little slower. Assuming, of course that one can find an A 20/2.8!

Steve

[wtlwdwgn]

Will this help? Voigtlander

[Zav]

Originally Posted by dexmus

oh thanks, yeah can you post that link please? I don't reach french but I can try Google's (somewhat patchy) translate service

cheers

Originally Posted by narbé

Originally Posted by Chris 93

Il y a une grosse différence par rapport au DA 21 Ltd ? (avant et après traitement des photos). Quand je vois tes (magnifiques) photos de la vallée de la Loire prises au 21, je me demande ce que tu cherches de "plus" ?

De plus ? Disons que tellement bluffé par le Nokton (qualité d'image et qualité de fabrication), je souhaitais voir s'il y aurait le même écart qu'entre le DA 21mm et le Skopar 20mm qu'entre le FA 50mm et le Nokton 58mm.

Mon premier bilan est plus mitigé que cela : au premier abord, d'un point de vue qualité d'image, il n'est en fait pas très différent du 21mm : comme le 21mm, il faiblit dans les angles, et il n'est pas dépourvu d'ACs (et vu tout ce qui se fait d'autre autour de cette focale ou plus court, je pense qu'il va falloir conclure qu'il n'est pas possible à ce jour de faire un 20mm avec les même qualités d'homogeneité optique qu'un 50mm...).

Le champ est un peu plus grand que celui du 21mm, c'est visible (de là à dire que ce serait tellement plus que ça justifierait le Skopar par rapport au 21mm, ce serait quand même abusif).

Coté ergonomie, il faut bien parler de la MAP: elle est manuelle. Ca, on aime ou on n'aime pas. La course de la bague est très importante, 1/2 tour contre 1/5 de tour pour le 21mm. Mon constat est que la mise au point fine est précise, mais assez délicate. J'ai un dépoli katzeye, donc, ce n'est pas un souci pour moi, mais je pense que la MAP doit être difficile sans dépoli amélioré. Il faut pondérer cela sans oublier qu'un faible écart de MAP n'est pas forcément catastrophique à 20mm compte-tenu de la PdC. A l'inverse, la MAP manuelle avec le 21mm est difficile aussi à cause de la course très/trop courte. Comme je ne suis pas un chaud partisan de l'AF à tout prix aux courtes focales, le Skopar me convient pour ce que j'en fait.

Il expose très différement du 21mm : le 21mm avec mon boitier K10D avait une tendance à la sous-exposition. Le Skopar aurait plutôt une tendance à la sur-exposition (cela dépend du sujet, c'est difficile à cette époque ou on a très souvent des ciels blanc lumineux), j'ai fait peu de photos avec encore, mais avec une légère correction d'IL pour la plupart. A vue de nez, il doit y avoir environ 1 IL d'écart entre le 21mm et le Skopar.

Il y a eu ici discussion à propos de son bokeh, très curieux sur certaines photos vues sur d'autres sites : je n'ai pas réussi à reproduire cela. Le bokeh de mon exemplaire est "normal".

On m'a posé la question du rendu, contraste et couleur : je ne sais quoi dire, c'est très proche entre les deux, et comme je retravaille toujours mes clichés à partir du RAW, je ne fais pas trop attention à cela dans le mesure ou ce n'est pas très dégradé à la prise de vue.

Sinon, coté fabrication, c'est bien un Voigtlander : du très haut de gamme évidement. C'est un "bel" objectif. C'est très subjectif (et en fait assez stupide...), mais j'ai le sentiment d'avoir un plus bel objet entre les mains avec ce Skopar par rapport au DA 21mm.

Pour ceux qui en achèteraient un, le parsoleil (à vis 52mm) est en supplément, et souvent très cher. On peu très bien se passer du paresoleil Voigtlander (sauf si on tient ferme au look intégral), et mettre un modèle "noname" métal comme on en trouve sur la Baie, ou bien pour moins cher quand même que le Voigtlander, un Nikon HN-1 (ce que j'ai fait, du coup, j'ai un objectif marqué Voigtlander avec un paresoleil marqué Nikon sur un boitier marqué Pentax, les curieux qui me verront prendre des photos ne vont rien y comprendre !).

Il est moins petit que le 21mm : mais bon, comme je le monte sur un K10D avec le grip, cela ne change pas grand chose et l'ensemble n'était de toute façon pas discret avec le 21mm.

En conclusion très partielle, je ne saurais dire lequel préférer entre le DA 21mm et ce Skopar 20mm : le Skopar n'est pas "meilleur", il est différent (ne serait-ce que par la MAP manuelle, un autre style). Le DA 21mm est un excellent objectif, c'est difficile de comparer des objectifs haut de gamme, d'autant que je n'ai plus le 21mm et ne peux pas les comparer côte à côte.
Bon, maintenant que le Skopar coute moins cher que le 21mm, c'est quand même un critère de choix si on n'est pas rebuté par la MAP manuelle. Et si Pentax sort un jour un FF, on est pré-équipé...

J'ai fait quelques photos avec la semaine dernière, mais je n'en suis pas très satisfait (par un problème d'objectif, mais de sujets) : je tâcherais d'en sortir une au deux montrables ce soir et les posterais dans ma galerie.

Voigtländer Color Skopar 20mm f3,5 SLII Aspherical (ouf!) - Page 4

The author told me to put the stress on the fact that it is just a hands on.

[dexmus]

Zav - Thanks a lot, this is exactly what I was looking for - a direct comparison to DA 21. For anyone who is interested, this is how the French text in Zav's post translates:

"
There is a big difference from the DA 21 Ltd? (before and after treatment photos). When I see your (beautiful) pictures of the Loire valley taken at 21, I wonder what you are looking for "more"?
More? Say so amazed by the Nokton (image quality and craftsmanship), I wanted to see if there would be the same gap between the DA 21mm and 20mm Skopar between the FA 50mm and the 58mm Nokton.

My first picture is more mixed than that at first glance, a perspective image quality, it is actually not very different from 21mm: 21mm as he falters in the corners, and n ' is not devoid of ACs (and seen everything else is around that length or shorter, I think he'll have to conclude that it is not possible to date to make a 20mm with same qualities of a 50mm optical homogeneity ...).

The field is slightly larger than the 21mm, is visible (hence to say that this would be so much that it justifies the Skopar compared to 21mm, this would still be improper).

Ergonomics side, we must speak of PAD: it is manual. Ca, we like it or not. The race of the ring is very important, 1 / 2 turn cons 1 / 5 of a turn for the 21mm. My observation is that the fine-tuning is accurate but rather delicate. I have a frosted katzeye therefore not a concern for me, but I think the MAP must be difficult without frosted improved. We must weigh this without forgetting that a small difference of MAP is not necessarily catastrophic to 20mm in view of the DoF. Conversely, the MAP manual with the 21mm is also difficult because of the race very / too short. As I am not a big fan of AF at any price with shorter focal lengths, the Skopar suits me for what I did.

It spells out very differently from 21mm: 21mm on K10D with my box had a tendency to under-exposure. The Skopar would rather a tendency to over-exposure (depending on the subject is difficult at this time or were often bright white skies), I made some pictures with yet, but with a slight correction IL for most. At first glance, there should be about 1 EV difference between 21mm and Skopar.

There was discussion here about the bokeh, very curious about some of the photos seen on other sites I have not managed to reproduce it. The bokeh of my copy is "normal".

I was asked rendering, contrast and color: I do not know what to say, it's very close between the two, and as always I reworked my shots from RAW, I do not pay too much attention to this in the extent that it is not severely degraded in the shooting.

Otherwise, production side, it is a Voigtlander: the high-end recess. It is a "beautiful" goal. It is very subjective (and actually quite stupid ...), but I feel I have a most beautiful object in the hands with this Skopar from the DA 21mm.

For those who would buy one, the sunshield (52mm screw) is extra, and often very expensive. It just very well do without the sunshade Voigtlander (unless we take strong look at the text), and set a model "noname" metal as found on the Bay, or to cheaper still than the Voigtlander, a Nikon HN -1 (which I did, suddenly, I scored a goal with a sunshade Voigtlander scored on a Nikon Pentax marked box, the curious who see me taking pictures will not understand anything!).

It is little less than 21mm, but good, as I climbed a K10D with grip, this does not change much and the whole was not in any way with discreet 21mm.

In conclusion very partial, I do not know which to prefer between the DA 21mm and 20mm this Skopar: Skopar is not the "best" is different (not least by the MAP manual, a different style). The DA 21mm is an excellent lens, it is difficult to compare targets high-end, especially since I have the 21mm and can not compare them side by side.
Well, now that Skopar cheaper than the 21mm, it's still a test of choice if one is not daunted by the MAP manual. And if Pentax comes out one day a FF, it is pre-equipped ...

I made some photos last week, but I'm not very satisfied (by a lens problem, but subjects): I would try to release the two au showable tonight and post them in my gallery.
"

[Abbazz]

To me the main differences between the two lenses are not on image quality (I have not used either lens, but I am confident they are both very good), but rather:

- the Pentax has autofocus while the Cosina-Voigtländer hasn't;

- the Cosina-Voigtländer has an aperture ring, making it compatible with older Pentax cameras and also with other brands through adapters (who wants to try it on the new Micro 4/3rds bodies?), while the Pentax has none;

- the Cosina-Voigtländer covers the full 24x36 format, making it compatible with Pentax film cameras and with future hypothetic full frame bodies, while the Pentax is limited (no pun intended) to the APC-C format.

It all boils down to your personal preferences. If I hadn't already too many 20mm lenses (including the excellent FA 20/2.8), I would opt for the Cosina-Voigtländer, for compatibility reasons, because I share my lenses between many cameras, but I can understand that a hardcore Pentax user will prefer the DA lens for the comfort of the autofocus (but is autofocus really useful on a 20mm lens?).

Cheers!

Abbazz

[Gooshin]

i would wager that the distortions on the Voigtlander (barrel) are much better controlled on an APS-C camera than the DA21, which noticebly distorts under regular use.

[Gooshin]

here is a photo using the DA21

you can clearly see the barrel distortions already at 1/3 of the photo

this is one of the reasons why i got rid of it, for such a lens this level of distortion is unacceptable.

the DA15 offers less!

[dave9t5]

And it looks de-centre-ed left to right...you can tell because the colour on the left-side is over-saturated and on the right-side is under-saturated.

Originally Posted by Gooshin

here is a photo using the DA21

you can clearly see the barrel distortions already at 1/3 of the photo

this is one of the reasons why i got rid of it, for such a lens this level of distortion is unacceptable.

the DA15 offers less!