The 35mm f1.4 Size comparison - Sigma 35mm f1.4 vs Voigtlander 35mm f1.4

One thing that has always amazed me is the tiny size of the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 and the similar M mount Leica 35mm Summilux.  These lenses, for how much light they let in, are physically very small.  Compared to my Sigma 35mm f1.4 it is probably less than one third the size.

I have a theory that a large distance from lens flange to sensor / film plane to accommodate a mirror box leads to both a loss it light levels, and also of image quality.   If you consider the reverse application, a projector, image quality and light levels do deteriorate the further away the place of projection.

In this case, as the Sigma is a much more modern design, image quality is significantly better than the Voigtlander; though I would be interested to see how it compares to the expensive Leica 35mm Summilux ASPH.

Here's a comparison between the two lenses.

Hawk's Factory adapter - more shots

Here's another shot with the NEX using the Hawk's Factory Leica M to Sony NEX adapter, this time with the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 shot at f2.  I do like this shot, of flowers outside a Starbucks, and it shows what this adapter is really capable with.

Actually there's a reason I had this lens on the NEX.  I was finishing off a roll of film on my Leica M3 with the Leica 50mm Summicron attached.  This meant that with a 35mm lens on the NEX, the field of view was very close to 50mm.  Having it set on f2 and ISO 400, the same as the film inside the M3 and wide open on the Summicron, meant that I could get accurate meter readings when I took the shot. 

Post 400

Uh....wow.  This is my 400th post on Snapshot Voyager.   I can't believe I have that much to say about photography!  It's hard to know what photo to celebrate with, but here's a pic of some of my more often used gear, taken with my Nikon D90.

Sigma 30mm f2.8 vs Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 on Sony NEX 5n

Though these two lenses are very different, they have three things closely in common.  The first, most obviously is focal length.  They translate into an equivalent full frame field of view of 45mm for the Sigma and 52mm for the Voigtlander, so essentially both are standard primes.  Secondly, they are also almost exactly the same size when the Voigtlander is fitted with the M to NEX adapter, though the full metal construction and larger amounts of glass mean the Voigtlander is heavier.  Lastly, sharpness is quite similar over the overlapping aperture ranges - ie f2.8 to f16.

However these lenses are also very different.  The most obvious difference is that the Sigma is fully electronically coupled with an inbuilt AF motor.  The Voigtlander is old school manual.  The second obvious difference is that the Voightlander is a full two stops faster.  People pay exponential dollars for extra speed, and two stops is a long way.  The third is minimum focal distance - the Sigma focuses right down to 30cm, while the Voigtlander stops at 70cm, like most rangefinder lenses.  With a telescoping NEX to M adapter, the Voigtlander can be made to focus closer.  Without this, I am pretty sure the background blur of the Sigma at f2.8 and Voigtlander at f1.4 would be very similar at their respective minimum focus distances.  Fourthly the single coating on the Voigtlander produces different results to the multi coated Sigma.  The Voigtlander has less contrast and a smoother balance to the colours - they don't necessarily 'pop'.  It's kinda like comparing a water colour to an oil colour painting - both are beautiful, the medium is just a little different.

Lastly, they feel completely different.  The Voigtlander feels like it is hewn from solid brass, with real glass, beautifully damped focussing and precise aperture control.  The Sigma is just another 'plastic fantastic'.  This therefore reflects in pricing.  The Voigtlander is almost 3 times the price, but as mentioned speed costs money.

Sony NEX 5n with Sigma 30mm f2.8

The Night Street Shooter High ISO Comparison

The Night Street Shooter High ISO Comparison - Fuji X100 vs Sony NEX 5n with Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 vs Nikon D90 with Nikkor 35mm f2

I decided to compare my 3 main cameras to help determine the best street shooter.  Leaving aside camera size and sharpness, I decided to concentrate the comparison on high ISO noise.  The test was a shot of our baby gym with very low light and the ISO was set at 6400 for all cameras.  The cameras were hand held with vertical support from the arm or our couch, with shutter speeds ranging from 1/10th to 1/40th sec. The lenses were also set at their widest aperture, though I could have set the Voigtlander on f2 to make it equal with the other two lenses.

As expected, the Fuji X100 and Sony NEX 5n are quite a way ahead of the D90.  The D90 has significant noise at ISO 1600.  With the Fuji and the Sony, it is still there but much less noticeable.   I would say that these two have at least a 1 stop advantage over the Nikon.

Though I no longer have the NEX 3, I would say the noise performance with this camera is similar to or slightly worse than the D90.  Comparing this lot with the D700, I would say it is still the champ, but not a whole lot better than the Fuji X100 or Sony NEX 5n.

 Nikon D90 with Nikkor 35mm f2

 NEX 5n with Voigtlander 35mm f1.4

 Fuji X100

Lithium Batteries

Probably the biggest pain in the butt when buying a 1980s / 1990s film camera is whether they need Lithium batteries rather than plain old AAs.  They're still quite expensive and often the batteries cost as much as the value of the camera.  

Recently I picked up a Nikon F-601, which apart from the crappy auto focus, is actually quite a useful camera.  It meters with manual focus lenses, does spot metering, TTL flash metering and has an exposure lock - all very useful features.   But it takes the dreaded lithium batteries, so I am still deciding whether to out lay the $20 or so on a new battery, which is probably the value of the camera.

Sony NEX-3 with Voightlander 35mm f1.4 Nokton

This shot I used a big screen TV to create a background to highlight the beautiful orchids