Voigtlander Color-skopar 25mm F/4 P Pancake Lens Review
GEAR
Voigtländer 25/4 Colour Skopar
GEAR
Introduction
The wind howls. Gusts are and then strong it's even hard to stand up up straight. I watch the seagulls call out as they soar above, just all I hear is the rushing air. We're not getting off the isle someday before long.
The charcoal sea has thrown all sorts of debris onto land. A pallet on the cliffs catches my middle. At that place'south pelting coming. Nearly fourth dimension to head indoors. I grab my photographic camera from the pocketbook, chop-chop gear up exposure, focus, etch and shoot, current of air the shutter and put information technology back in the bag. I lean into the wind and start to make my way back dwelling house.
The Voigtländer 25/four Color Skopar is a simple piffling lens that's immensely enjoyable to shoot. It'southward tiny and inexpensive, handles well and has image quality beyond what its size and price suggests.
Specifications
This broad bending lens has an asymmetrical design with 7 spherical elements. The front element is slightly concave. As all K-mount lenses, it's manual focus only. It has a tiny effective aperture of 6.25mm at f/4.
Produced by Voigtländer in Japan, at that place have been ii versions of the lens – i for LTM and i for M-mount. Both versions are at present discontinued just the more contempo M-mountain version remains in stock in many places equally of the publishing of this review, though it's certain to sell out before long. There are some ergonomic differences between the ii versions just they are optically identical*.
* Though more than up to date coatings might requite the edge in image quality to the M-mount version.
There's as well a close sibling – a 21/four with well-nigh identical specifications beyond focal length.
The lens is unusual for Yard-mount in that information technology focuses downward to 0.5m. Limitations in the Thou-mount design prevents rangefinder coupling at closer than 0.7m, the more mutual minimum focus distance for M-mount lenses, and then shooting closer than that requires relying on scale focusing.
The lens brings upward the 35mm framelines in most Leica M cameras. A bit of an odd pick as 28mm is a closer fit. More on this later though.
Lens-mount Leica 1000 bayonet
Length thirty mm
Weight 144g
Diaphragm x blades, f/4-f/22, one-half stops
Elements / groups vii / 5
MFD 0.5m
Filter thread 39mm
The 25 Skopar viewed from the forepart and rear. Samples shot on Leica M4-P
Appearance & construction
Ane of the most obvious traits of this lens is its size – information technology'due south positively tiny! It'southward nearly identical to its sibling the 35/ii.5 Color Skopar, but measuring them the 25 is fractionally larger. Withal it'south noticeably smaller than nearly M-mountain lenses, even Leica'south smallest lens – the Summicron-C 40.
Markings are engraved in Helvetica and painted white. The regal scale is painted ruby-red, resulting in poor visibility in lower light. The focus scale is adequately detailed and at that place's a articulate and usable depth of field scale. The full aperture stops are marked with corresponding numbers, half stops are unmarked.
Equally usual for Voigtländer 1000-mount lenses it's very well fabricated. It'southward practically nothing but metal and glass and the construction feels solid and durable. The casing and command points is made from anodized aluminum – a tough material, simply scuff marks tin evidence with heavy use. The focusing tab is painted plastic and focusing helicoid is contumely. The lens has a black front band threaded on both sides – inside threads for mounting filters and exterior ones for the included hood. A nicer solution than the chromed front ring of many other Voigtländer and Zeiss ZM lenses as it'southward less conspicuous and causes less reflections if shooting through glass.
The aperture has ten blades resulting in highlight stars with 10 points.
The mechanics feel great, if slightly less refined than most Leica lenses and non quite at the aforementioned standard as the best Voigtländer ones either. I all the same expect that with proper care the lens will work bang-up for decades to come up.
Despite the all metal construction information technology remains a very light lens thank you to its minor size. It most disappears on whatever camera it'southward mounted on. It feels liberating to shoot something so small-scale and lite. Nearly K-mountain cameras become a bit front heavy fifty-fifty with moderately sized lenses. With the Skopar mounted the residual remains centered and the overall handling of the camera is relaxed.
The lens is exceptionally well made considering the toll. It fifty-fifty features a ten bladed aperture, uncommon even in much more expensive lenses.
Next to another lens it'south articulate how small the Skopar is. Hither with the Leica Summicron 28/two that's two stops faster simply too very small for its specifications.
The included hood is also very meaty. It extends exactly as much as the lens cap resulting in a very unobtrusive add-on.
Accessories
A tiny spiral in hood is included. Elegantly information technology merely extends as much as the lens cap and consequently doesn't get in the way or add to the size of the lens when being carried.
Thanks to this I've left information technology permanently fastened which makes information technology hard to say anything about its effectiveness or lack thereof. I'll go dorsum to the performance but every bit flare is uncommon I'd say that the package works reasonably well because the size.
Another advantage of having the little hood is that information technology helps keep stray fingers away from the lens and out of the frame – something that can exist a trouble with very pocket-size wide bending lenses.
The lens cap is pretty good – a round pinch style cap in plastic with Voigtländer logo that tends to stay put more than reliably than the for case ones supplied with the Zeiss ZM lenses.
Ergonomics
Despite the small size of the lens the ergonomics are very good. Controls are easy to observe and manipulate and their design let you tell what they're set up to past feel.
Two nitpicks makes it autumn brusk of the excellence of the 35 Skopar, despite being physically almost identical.
The comfortable focusing tab and protruding aperture dial handles are clearly visible hither.
Focusing tab
The lens has a focusing tab that'southward comfortably contoured. The focusing throw is pretty short at around xc° which means that focusing is quite fast. The accuracy is more adequate for the focal length. Focus travel feels smooth simply a little more gritty compared to modernistic Leica lenses. It's still consistent in experience regardless of position and direction of travel, something that's not always the case with the ZM lenses for case.
A big advantage of having a focus tab is that y'all learn to gear up and tell the altitude by feeling the position of the tab. However this requires working upwardly a bit of muscle retentivity and if y'all often switch between lenses you can get a bit thrown off. Fortunately most tabbed M-mount lenses behave similar enough in this regard that you can generally move between them and focus speedily straight away.
The Skopar 25 on the other paw, unfortunately deviates from the common focus throw by enough that at to the lowest degree for me it was a trivial harder to accommodate to. The cause of the consequence is pretty elementary – as the lens shares the aforementioned starting time signal, finish betoken and around 90° throw of well-nigh other lenses, the fact that the start bespeak is at 0.5m instead of 0.7 makes the ratio across the unabridged travel off. It's especially noticeable at midrange distances where I've focused quite a flake slower than usual before adjusting*.
* To quantify this – when virtually of my lenses with tabs/nubs are set to the 6-o'clock position they are focused somewhere between 1.two and 1.v meters. The 25 Skopar on the other hand lands well under 1m with the same setting.
Depending on how many lenses you apply, how frequently you switch between them and whether or non those lenses also have tabs this might be a smaller or bigger outcome. Now this is definitely at the nitpick level, rather than a major consequence, and I establish that I adjusted apace once I did some committed shooting with it.
Despite the small size of the lens there are very readable markings including a depth of field scale.
Aperture dial
Aperture is set with the two handles protruding from the discontinuity ring. The handles allow you tell aperture past feel just with the disadvantage of being a chip harder to find than a wider ring.
Aperture is set in one-half stop increments. Like on Leica lenses every full stop is marked with the respective f-number while intermediate positions are unmarked.
Unfortunately the resistance of the aperture ring is far too loose and oftentimes moves inadvertently*.
* It could exist an issue with copy variation, but as I've seen information technology brought up in other reviews of the lens it looks to be a common problem and worth bringing up.
The setting is changed pretty much whenever I take the camera out to make a shot. At rare times I even change information technology accidentally while focusing.
It's and so common that I feel the need to think to check the discontinuity setting before each shot, something I don't with any of my other lenses. This is probably my biggest frustration with the lens and it does make information technology experience a fleck less transparent in treatment than its 35mm sibling.
Still the overall impression is a positive one and the lens comes off equally a pleasant one to handle.
Image quality
Thanks to the modest speed of the lens it manages to deliver impressive functioning overall, despite its tiny size and depression price.
Information technology has a very transparent signature and simply some minor issues reveal its simpler nature.
Resolution & contrast
Wide open contrast and resolution is impressive on centrality and the ameliorate role of the frame. In that location's a articulate drop towards the edges and the outer 20% lack some clarity. This is even visible when viewing the unabridged frame and the overall impression suffers slightly. Global and mid level dissimilarity is high but micro contrast lag slightly.
Stopping downwards to f/5.6 improves the functioning in the outer zones simply f/viii is needed for fifty-fifty performance all the mode to the edges. Past at present it looks quite impressive across almost the entire frame. Optimal performance is reached at f/11 which improves the edges and corners further just with a slight dulling of item in the center due to diffraction.
My re-create shows slight decentering with the right side having weaker operation than the left ane. A common trouble, but more rare on college finish lenses. A copy without this issue probably sees slight improvement of the right edges and corners, just also a small loss on the left side resulting in more than similar resolution.
Center crop at f/4
Edge crop at f/4
Edge crop at f/eight
The resolution on axis is impressive already wide open up. At that place'southward less definition forth the edges before stopping downwardly. See separate crops. Besides note subtle color shifts – this sample is completely uncorrected. Leica M9
Annotation – My copy is slightly decentered and the crop is from the poorly performing side of the frame. The left edge is nigh a stop ameliorate than the right.
Border and corner performance is improve by effectually half a stop on flick. Leica M4-P – f/8
Colour
The colour signature is modern and saturated. Compared to benchmark lenses it tin can lack a scrap of subtlety and close tones can blend together. The overall palette remains highly-seasoned.
Bokeh & transitions
Despite being a very wide and quite slow lens some separation is still visible. Shooting broad open up and at closer distance (though not necessarily limited to just the closest focus) depth of field is shallow enough to requite the image divers planes and a little bit of bokeh can even be seen.
It's limited in application and even something slightly longer or faster gives you far more options in this regard but it can still give an attractive impression.
Bokeh, when visible, is fair. Out of focus discs have reasonably gentle edges and while in that location's always a flake of texturing there's generally no double lines or other distracting problems.
Stopping down slightly practically removes all hints of separation. If yous actually dive in you lot can see the bokeh improve further, but at that betoken it's completely academic.
Transitions are rather gentle leaving the lens quite forgiving for zone focusing.
At modest distances at that place's some separation visible. Bokeh is surprisingly fair. See additional bokeh samples throughout the article. Leica M4-P – f/4
Aberrations
The Skopar is quite resilient to flare. Only some minor issues ingather up in challenging conditions. When the lord's day is in or just outside the frame some ghosting tin be observed. At times a more significant office of the frame is affected. Notwithstanding information technology's a solid showing with rare surprises – few lenses do significantly better. Sunstars as well tend to look quite nice with x points stopped downward.
There'southward quite a flake of vignetting that too stubbornly remains stopping down. I'd guess it's simply over a stop and a half wide open up and around a end at smaller apertures.
Slight barrel distortion is nowadays simply it'south difficult to find in do.
There's pronounced focus breathing. This can make the lens less ideal for video employ but isn't an event for stills and only visible when used with live view.
When shot on a digital camera, and depending on the camera it'due south mounted on some ray angle problems can be seen. Mainly colour shifts, only besides smearing. See the In Apply section for a breakup for the cameras I've tested it on.
Flare resistance is very practiced. The well-nigh pronounced issues appear when the sun is but exterior the frame like in this example. Still, aside from the visible ghosting dissimilarity remains high throughout most of the frame. A larger hood would help here, though I´m fine with the tradeoff. Whenever the sun is in the frame performance is better. Leica M4-P
On moving picture
The evaluation in a higher place is valid regardless of capture medium, only nuances be and since digital is more revealing in many cases that'due south the primary medium for assay. On movie the rendering of form carries over but the subtleties tin exist perceived slightly unlike.
Overall the Skopar does quite well on film, even slightly better than digital in some respects. Border and corner resolution is nigh half a stop better than on the M9 and there are obviously no colour shift.
Colour film
The Skopar does well on colour motion-picture show. Sometimes separation between similar shades of colour lacks subtlety just the overall rendering even so gives a very balanced impression.
Black & White film
The strengths of the Skopar might shine even brighter in B&W. The high clarity and contrast across the frame gives a pleasant impression. Any lack of tonal separation between like shades of colour is obviously not an issue.
I've shot the Skopar more on film than on digital and I prefer it slightly on picture show, merely it does well regardless of medium. Leica M4-P
Overall rendering
The 25 Skopar has impressive performance overall. The signature is modern and transparent with few distracting traits.
In that location are several pleasant surprises such equally the good resistance to flare, low distortion and fifty-fifty somewhat useable separation. Stopped downward the overall clarity and rendition of item across the frame tin stand tall side by side to near whatsoever lens.
The merely slight letdown is a somewhat distracting lack of bite in the outer zones at wider apertures. Compared to benchmark lenses it'southward also not quite equally refined and lacks some subtlety, but the impression is still one of loftier optical quality.
Specifics in use
I've had the Skopar for just over one-half a year as I write this, which is a little shorter than I generally like to have a lens earlier reviewing it. Yet, every bit I've shot information technology intensely during these months I feel I've put it through its paces well enough to requite it a fair evaluation.
I'm not sure yet if the Skopar has earned a permanent spot among my lenses, but that'south rather down to the balance of my setup than anything to do with the Skopar. If annihilation it's made me rethink my perceived needs and demonstrated once again how squeamish it is to shoot compact and well behaved lenses. Sometimes fifty-fifty nicer than something considerately meliorate merely larger and heavier.
Overall I've been pleasantly surprised by the Skopar and have really enjoyed the little lens. The combination of very small size, good handling and highly-seasoned prototype quality makes for an endearing packet.
The missing frame lines
One of the hurdles I worried virtually earlier getting the lens was how it would be like to shoot the focal length on the cameras I have. Of all Thou-mountain cameras available only 1 of Voigtländer'due south own Bessas and the Leica M8 offer framelines for 24/25mm lenses. As the cameras I shoot lack corresponding framelines I wondered if accuracy of framing would simply be too poor to accept.
However this proved to be a complete non effect to me, but information technology might depend a chip on your perspective on framelines. I've always viewed the rangefinder framelines every bit a guide rather than something that gives you an absolute representation of framing. An accurate guide for the almost part, only never expecting it to be completely perfect. Now some people might take a different view on this, only with this viewpoint shooting a lens that lacks the exact correct frame lines isn't really an issue.
Every bit someone who've shot 40mm lenses by both Leica & Voigtländer using 35mm framelines extensively this shouldn't come as a huge surprise, but it was still something I was a bit unsure of getting the lens. Peculiarly now that I shoot picture show about exclusively. But using the 28mm framelines as a stand-in has proven completely fine with but a niggling flake of compensation for the wider field of view.
In do then – when shooting the 25mm Skopar I mentally approach framing in one of two ways. I either use the 28mm framelines as a guide but put key elements very close, or even on the edge of the framelines and rely on the extra angle of view to provide a bit of breathing room for the bailiwick. Alternatively I disregard the framelines all together and instead try to use the unabridged viewfinder area as my guide, relying on the 90mm framelines every bit a reference for keeping things level (this is a bit harder wearing spectacles though). Still I've found both these approaches to work well.
Now the only problem with this is that similar virtually 24/25mm lenses the Skopar brings up the 35mm framelines in the finder of the Leica M cameras. I'thousand not sure why this pick was made every bit bringing upwardly the 28mm ones would've been a closer approximation. Maybe it's to push people towards getting external viewfinders with higher accurateness instead of relying on the 28mm ones and condign frustrated. Or maybe another motivation's behind the decision. I'm not sure, but at that place are elementary workarounds at any rate. Either by merely pushing the frameline preview lever to bring up the 28mm ones before each shot, or by blocking the lever in the correct position with east.thousand. a piece of cardboard.
A comparison betwixt the view through the finder and 28mm framelines on the M9 and the captured image. The hood of the lens tin can be seen through the viewfinder.
25mm focal lenght in employ
Shooting the Skopar was the first time for me using a 24/25mm rangefinder lens. I've shot a few SLR 24:s, only as that's such a different shooting experience I feel it doesn't quite compare.
I've been actually enjoying shooting 28mm lenses for the past few years, I like that it's distinctly broad without going overboard and feeling like a special outcome lens. But I know a few rangefinder photographers that swear by 25mm lenses over 28mm ones and I was interested to take a go myself to meet how I'd like it.
I found shooting at 25 a very enjoyable experience. It'south visibly wider than 28, but it's not so broad that you need to rethink your approach like you exercise with for a super wide like the xv/4.5. It still feels similar a practical focal length to apply, but with a slightly more dramatic presence compared to longer lenses. To me it quickly became transparent and a natural focal length to shoot.
Limitations of calorie-free gathering
A hurdle of the little Skopar that has more than practical implications is the f/4 aperture. And probably more annihilation else, your view on this is going to dictate weather the Skopar is a proficient choice for yous.
As long every bit it's low-cal out this rather wearisome maximum aperture of course doesn't pose any issues. Only as the lord's day sets or when shooting indoors it does become challenging to get enough low-cal through the lens.
I personally observe that I'm able to get usable images in most low-cal that I find highly-seasoned. As the lens is then broad information technology's possible to handhold at adequately tiresome speeds. However I would be more comfortable with an f/2.8 lens in this focal length, and preferably fifty-fifty f2.
On the other hand the slower aperture allows it to exist a lot smaller. Comparing it to the 28 Summicron makes the tradeoffs clear. Now I all the same dear the Summicron and it's optically superior, only when out and most I enjoy the lower weight of Skopar.
In that location are a lot of different approaches to assembling a kit of lenses to shoot. Some approach it wanting a unmarried lens that can do it all, others might want a separate lens for every situation that might ascend. While the Skopar might not make the ideal exercise-it-all lens due to the slower discontinuity, it can definitely brand up a big part of a competent kit.
During this summer I shot with the Skopar and a 50 exclusively. I'm quite partial to two lens setups like this. A pairing can really let each lens shine without overloading you. I can definitely imagine several good pairings including the Skopar that I'd exist happy to shoot for months or fifty-fifty years on stop without feel the kit lacking.
So this was quite a long winded way to go to the actual bottom line on this – the Skopar is a lilliputian limited in its calorie-free gathering just not to the indicate that it's unusable or fifty-fifty impractical most of the time, and as a piece of fifty-fifty a small-scale kit that might not really matter much anyways.
Even in moderatly low light it'south possible to go nice images. Leica M4-P – f/4 – 1/20th
The 0.5m MFD
I've already touched on this feature previously in the review, but so far not said much most its use. Well that's because it's rarely come up in my employ. More often than not because of my preference in perspective.
The dramatic and exaggerated perspective resulting from shooting a wide bending lens at shut distance tin certainly be interesting. The closer you get the more drastic the exaggeration and the less natural the rendition. In some cases this unnatural quality can be quite highly-seasoned, simply personally I feel that the outcome tin can oft become distracting.
So in my personal use I generally find that I like to shoot the Skopar at distances comfortably in a higher place the normal 0.7m MFD and accept never had a state of affairs arise where I've felt the 0.5m focus distance a pregnant advantage. Simply to someone with different tastes this feature might hold a lot of entreatment.
That said I accept made a few images at the closest focus distance, generally for testing the capability. Equally far as guessing the focus distance it's been surprisingly easy. Starting at 0.7m, where the rangefinder stops moving, and then moving a little bit closer works well. Obviously depth of field is fairly forgiving, merely I've still had pretty much perfect results the times I've tried information technology. Performance is likewise quite impressive without the deterioration y'all can sometimes see at close distances.
Two frames made at closer distances. The outset one testing the MFD of 0.5m. The 2d ane shooting normally at effectually 1m.
Use on different cameras
I've put the Skopar through its paces on a few dissimilar cameras. Read on to find my specific feel with each.
Leica M4-P
Bully. The tiny lens well-nigh disappears on the camera. The residue is very neutral and the ergonomics work well. The lens tin can hardly be seen through the finder and doesn't distract from framing, even with the hood mounted. Image quality is wonderful, especially stopped down. The modest aperture means information technology's not the ideal lens for use in depression low-cal.
Leica M9
Bully. The lens well-nigh disappears mounted on the M9. The balance is very neutral and there's no distracting blocking of the viewfinder, even with the hood. Resolution is very good but in that location are some ray angle induced colour shifts. None of the built in profiles remove the shifts fully, merely information technology'south picayune to do using one of the post procedure tools bachelor. I'thousand non totally sold on the colour signature of this combo. The boilerplate high ISO of the M9 and the slow maximum aperture limits usability in low light.
Sony A7
Poor. Balances well and is ergonomically fantastic on the A7. All the same in that location's significant smearing due to ray bending bug and even stopping down to f/11 results aren't quite perfect. At closer distances the results can exist more highly-seasoned. The good performance at high ISO somewhat offsets the slower aperture of the lens.
Alternatives to consider
While there'south a number of other 24/25mm lenses available for the Chiliad-mountain, the Skopar is very close to unique. It's far smaller and cheaper than the other options just can still come up very close in actual output quality. Depending on whether you're considering a 24/25 specifically or a meaty wide angle in general different options might entreatment. Beneath are some of the alternatives that entreatment most to me.
Avenon 28/three.5
While slightly longer this lens is otherwise similar to the Skopar. Small-scale size, reasonable price, dainty ergonomics and good performance makes this look like an appealing pick. Fabricated by a small manufacturer in Japan during the 1980's and ninety'south the lens is somewhat rare. Information technology's also sold under other names, Kobalux existence the most common i. I've not shot this lens just have had my centre on information technology for a while. They popular up online fairly regularly.
Leica Elmarit 28/2.8 ASPH
While Leica produces a number of 24mm lenses the one lens in their offer I experience comes closest to the Skopar is the aspherical version of the 28/2.eight. While slightly longer and a finish faster it's just very slightly bigger and heavier than the Skopar. It looks to have perfect ergonomics and is likely very well made. It as well seems to perform noticeably meliorate, especially at wider apertures. It's biggest drawback against the Skopar is a significantly college price.
Leica Summicron 28/2 ASPH
While the Summicron is pretty much the polar contrary from the Skopar, and even a different focal length, it's the closest specced lens I've reviewed and so far. Information technology's interesting to compare the two lenses because the tradeoffs with each get very clear. The Summicron performs improve in pretty much every mode and is faster by two full stops. All the same it'southward also significantly larger, heavier and more expensive than the Skopar.
My total review of the Summicron 28
Voigtländer xv/4.5
While far wider the 15/4.5 shares a number of appealing traits with the Skopar. Among them the small size, reasonable price and very adept ergonomics. Is optically even better than the Skopar. However I personally find the angle of view as well extreme for everyday employ and thus prefer the Skopar.
My full review of the Voigtländer 15/four.v
Voigtländer 21/4
This lens is an interesting alternative. Nearly identical to the 25 except for the focal length. It'due south mostly a affair of gustation which is more than preferable. Depending on the rest of your kit the 21 might be a more than logical pick even though information technology's wide enough to make information technology impractical to use without an external finder on near 1000-mount cameras.
Zeiss ZM 25/ii.viii
This lens from Zeiss might be the most appealing option if ane's assault a 24/25mm lens. While more expensive it's not excessively priced. It'southward somewhat larger merely still a manageable size, and the gains in functioning are apparent. I've merely tried the ZM 25 briefly just have shot its 28mm sibling extensively. The 28 is one of the all-time performing lenses I've used and from all accounts the 25 comes out ahead, looking like one of the best wide angle lenses available for M-mountain. The full stop of extra calorie-free gathering over the Skopar means information technology'due south usable in more than challenging atmospheric condition. While I generally prefer tabs to the nubbed ring on the ZM lenses the minor ergonomic nitpick I have with the Skopar ways that neither is ergonomically preferable over the other. Overall the Zeiss looks to win on operation and light gathering, while the Skopar is more than portable and affordable.
Conclusion
Pros
- Exceptionally pocket-size and light
- Very good ergonomics
- Impressive functioning, especially stopped down
- Pleasant and applied focal length
- Reasonable price
Cons
- Boring aperture can be limiting
- Lack of bite in the outer zones at wider apertures
- Sometimes a little less subtle rendering than benchmark lenses
- Ergonomic niggles
Bottom line
The Skopar is a pleasant surprise in many ways. Perhaps the thing I accept away near from shooting it is how fun it is to use. The focal length is both dynamic and applied and the handling is quite enjoyable despite the atomic size of the lens.
If y'all expect information technology to do everything a larger and higher specced lens does you might come up abroad disappointed. At that place are a few giveaways in the performance that point its simpler blueprint, and the modest aperture can leave y'all struggling every bit the sun sets.
Nevertheless when size and weight are a priority or preference it's an excellent pick. As a lens that tin tag along when you're doing other things, or as a wider improver in a small kit. It gets out of your way when you're not using it just can still deliver when yous exercise. Working around its issues y'all'd exist hard pressed to find much to complain near.
Return Habitation
All photos in this review were taken by me, using Leica M4-P & M9. Flick used was Fuji Superia 400 or Kodak Portra 400, scanned on the Plustek 8200i. Exif-information is intact. Open any image in a new window for a closer await.
Source: https://gear.vogelius.se/-reviews/voigtlander-skopar-25/index.html
0 Response to "Voigtlander Color-skopar 25mm F/4 P Pancake Lens Review"
Publicar un comentario