p.4 #3 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
theophilus wrote:
Is the Voight VM-E adapter to add closer focusing the one to get?
This new lens focuses to .5m so a close focus adapter is not needed (unless you need to get really, really close). An inexpensive adapter such as the below Fotasy works well. I took one of these apart and it actually seemed to be designed well and made with good materials.
p.4 #5 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
This new lens focuses to .5m so a close focus adapter is not needed (unless you need to get really, really close). An inexpensive adapter such as the below Fotasy works well. I took one of these apart and it actually seemed to be designed well and made with good materials.
p.4 #6 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have read a couple users reporting that Fotasy adapters have better tolerance than Metabones. Not a bad deal at all for $15 bucks.
I have a few of these M Fotasy and a slew of others (Canon FD, Minolta MD, Olympus OM, Pentax, Nikon, etc.) and they seem like the best, cheap adapters I have used overall.
p.4 #7 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have read a couple users reporting that Fotasy adapters have better tolerance than Metabones. Not a bad deal at all for $15 bucks.
Those users may well be correct, but if so it was just a lucky guess.
Look at how many different lenses Roger Cicala has tested for his recent articles about lens variation and he still hasn't particularly found clear patterns. To begin to confirm Fotasy vs Metabones tolerances you'd have to have some perfectly aligned lenses, some perfectly aligned camera bodies, and test a bunch of different adapters (many copies of each) from both brands.
No, almost certainly these members have happened to get 2 or 3 Fotasy adapters which were "in spec" and 2 or 3 Metabones that weren't. That's just coincidence/anecdotal.
Sorry, it's just kind of a pet peeve of mine. You see it with pixel-peepy lens reviews, too. It doesn't matter that a particular copy of Lens A is 2% sharper than a particular copy of Lens B if Lens A and Lens B both have 10% copy-to-copy variation. Talk to me about rendering and focus shift and how easily they flare.
p.4 #8 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Interested to see how this compares to the Loxia. I love the 50 but many don't seem to be fond of the 35mm. It's nice to have options and the small size of this looks to be great.
p.4 #9 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think expectations are very high for this new 35/1.7 Ultron, to the point that it needs to outperform the CV 35/1.2 stopped down on the A7's corner to corner and match what the Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 does when used on either a Leica or modded A7 sensor. This needs to be a really outstanding lens in regards to performance to find widespread success imo (given the price/ performance of the other two mentioned).
Well I hope it does , but those two lenses don't really compare well: the CV 35/1.2 is a monster (which I love), while the black version of the 1.7 is only 225 grams; and the ZM 35/1.4 is more than twice the price.
But I will be surprised if it does not outperform them both on the A7 cameras, at say, f/2 and f/4.
p.4 #10 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Being a much newer design one would presume they would target the new 35/1.7 being better than the 35/1.2. Of course then they'll need to update the 35/1.2 again...
p.4 #11 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Lee Saxon wrote:
Being a much newer design one would presume they would target the new 35/1.7 being better than the 35/1.2. Of course then they'll need to update the 35/1.2 again...
This is what Stephen Gandy of Cameraquest said:
"As I understand it, the sharpness of the 35/1.2 in a lens half the size."
I think maybe it needs to be sharper with more modern color/ contrast (vs a more vintage, "classic" look)...like a slower, smaller version of the ZM 35/1.4 with better Sony A7 native compatibility. That's what I hope anyway.
p.4 #12 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
They haven't even appeared in local shops, but after taking the 35mm f1.2 for a spin I am tossing up between this and a Canon 35mm f2.0 FD. FD will probably win based on price/performance.
p.4 #13 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Paul Mo wrote:
They haven't even appeared in local shops, but after taking the 35mm f1.2 for a spin I am tossing up between this and a Canon 35mm f2.0 FD. FD will probably win based on price/performance.
I actually found the Canon 35mm/2.8 FDn to be a little better than the F2 FDn (corner to corner on the A7r)...and talk about cheap. This Canon and the Minolta MD 35/2.8 are really outstanding for under $100.
p.4 #16 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Paul Mo wrote:
They haven't even appeared in local shops, but after taking the 35mm f1.2 for a spin I am tossing up between this and a Canon 35mm f2.0 FD. FD will probably win based on price/performance.
I have the thorium concave 35/2 FD, which I hunted hard, back in the nex days. The plain A7 liked it pretty well:
It weighs as much as the 35/1.2 , and hanging off the long adapter, it handles even worse. When I saw this lens gently smear towards the edges at f/8 on the A7r, I made up my mind to return that camera, and get the plain A7.
This and my FL 55/1.2 are my favorite canon SLR lenses, but I rarely shoot them That FL is some sleeper, with great performance WO and stopped down. Seems better than the CV 50/1.1, but maybe I am seeing things
p.4 #18 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Looks very nice! Like what I'm seeing in the toast shot. Would be great to see full rez shots of the more detailed scenes.
Pricing is interesting... Seems to be 850 USD for black and $1000 for chrome, pre tax... so not really any savings over what Cameraquest has stated, at least for chrome. Map Camera is showing about $710 and $835, respectively, and in stock.
, but those two lenses don't really compare well: the CV 35/1.2 is a monster (which I love), while the black version of the 1.7 is only 225 grams; and the ZM 35/1.4 is more than twice the price.
That FL is some sleeper, with great performance WO and stopped down. Seems better than the CV 50/1.1, but maybe I am seeing things 