p.9 #1 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
navmannz wrote:
Unfortunately I can confirm that magenta corners occur on the A7R - I've set up a LR preset that corrects very well with a radial filter, but it is disappointing. I'm away on a photo trip at present so can't post anything now, but can put up some examples of straight and corrected images in 2 or 3 days. John
I don't know that much about the difference in performance between the a7 and a7r when it comes to rangefinder lenses. Is the a7r more susceptible to color shift?
p.9 #2 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
I performed my usual distortion test which is also good for pixel peeping:
In regard to Distortion and CA the CV came out first, regarding corner sharpness and vignetting it is the weakest of the bunch.
Focal length also seems to be quite a bit longer than the other lenses.
p.9 #3 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
The CV is one of the best distortion corrected lenses I can recall using. There is very minor CA, which is quite a nice change compared to some past CV lenses.
Regarding the color shift problem: it tends to become worse as pixel density increases, but is affected by micro lens and sensor design. For example, the new 42MP BSI sensor in the a7RII seems to produce virtually no color shift with many (or all?) lenses that are otherwise problematic on the a7R.
In use there are a couple things that continue to annoy me about the 35/1.7: 1) lack of a very clear, easy to feel in the dark, equivalent to the red half dome/bump found on Leica lenses for aligning the lens to the camera's lens mount. 2) Lack of focusing tab.
If the focusing ring was wider, the latter might be less of a factor, but having become accustomed to focusing tab position as an indicator for focusing distance, I find the lens a bit slow to use when in dynamic situations. And because it feels the same in the hand no matter how it's rotated, when pulling it out of the bag to mount on the camera, (a focusing tab and/or square lens hood helps here) I need to make an effort to determine its orientation in order to quickly mount it on the camera, which momentarily distracts from what I'm photographing. Perhaps minor complaints, but IMO it's small details like these that cause me to bond with a lens (or not).
p.9 #4 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
rscheffler wrote:
In use there are a couple things that continue to annoy me about the 35/1.7: 1) lack of a very clear, easy to feel in the dark, equivalent to the red half dome/bump found on Leica lenses for aligning the lens to the camera's lens mount. 2) Lack of focusing tab.
If the focusing ring was wider, the latter might be less of a factor, but having become accustomed to focusing tab position as an indicator for focusing distance, I find the lens a bit slow to use when in dynamic situations. And because it feels the same in the hand no matter how it's rotated, when pulling it out of the bag to mount on the camera, (a focusing tab and/or square lens hood helps here) I need to make an effort to determine its orientation in order to quickly mount it on the camera, which momentarily distracts from what I'm photographing. Perhaps minor complaints, but IMO it's small details like these that cause me to bond with a lens (or not)....Show more →
Point 1 is less of and issue on the a7 because my Adapter has a release button at 9'o clock.
On point 2 I have to agree, the aperture ring would have made a much nicer focusing ring than the one they used.
Have you seen any of the field curvature I see on the m240?
p.9 #5 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I don't know that much about the difference in performance between the a7 and a7r when it comes to rangefinder lenses. Is the a7r more susceptible to color shift?
p.9 #6 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Point 1 is less of and issue on the a7 because my Adapter has a release button at 9'o clock.
On point 2 I have to agree, the aperture ring would have made a much nicer focusing ring than the one they used.
Have you seen any of the field curvature I see on the m240?
Field curvature with the M240 hasn't been an obvious problem in normal use. I haven't yet done a thorough test to examine its characteristics, other than an initial quick brick wall shot. But I also think my copy is a bit off because if I look at the plane of focus along the ground in some images, at the left edge it's at about the same distance if the subject is in the middle of the frame, but nearer to the camera at the right side, like the plane is tilted slightly. Otherwise, my feeling is the plane of focus is quite flat on the M240. Whatever curvature there is, seems to be very moderate. It probably also changes depending on focusing distance. My impressions are based on relatively far distances, such as a full length photo of a person, or the side of a building.
The curvature you're seeing seems to be in-line with the consequences of a too-thick sensor stack as explained by Nasse of Zeiss in one of his white papers.
p.9 #8 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Interesting distortion test Phillip, thank you.
Are my eyes right when they tell me the CV35/1.7 is a bit longer (focal length) than the other 35mm lenses you tested?
p.9 #9 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Phillip, please, when you have a chance, shoot more colorcast "tests" (they can be good too ) On a single shot it can hard to tell what might be the weather and light, but with a few the pattern of cast becomes clear.
Derek, are tissue shots good to show cast you think? Where should focus be?
Ron, please remind us again your assessment of colorshift on the M240? Try any on-camera lens profiles?
Does anyone have this lens with M9?
edwardkaraa wrote:
Steve Huff found this lens sharper than the ZM 1.4 wide open. Quite impressive.
What a single tree dead center? That shot has you thinking it's sharper than the Zeiss at equal aperture?
Edward......well what do I know, maybe it is
Back in the day he really did test lenses, he did a great one CV 28/2 vs 28 Cron. But he has hated doing that for many years now. Maybe he will include some careful shots and edges in his upcoming article, would be great.
p.9 #10 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
edwardkaraa wrote:
Steve Huff found this lens sharper than the ZM 1.4 wide open. Quite impressive.
/
A single shot, handheld. Yeah, it's impressive anyone can draw such a conclusion from that. All I can say is that Cosina made an interesting lens. Reading the comments is also fun. Or not so fun. I'll stay away from puffin' Huff for a while.
I'm still interested in the new CV 35/1.7 and hope there will be a proper review made some day.
p.9 #11 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Jonas B wrote:
A single shot, handheld. Yeah, it's impressive anyone can draw such a conclusion from that. All I can say is that Cosina made an interesting lens. Reading the comments is also fun. Or not so fun. I'll stay away from puffin' Huff for a while.
I'm still interested in the new CV 35/1.7 and hope there will be a proper review made some day.
At least he actually tries the lenses he reviews, unlike everyone's other favorite reviewer
I'm also struggling with the lack of a focus tab as a reference point. I need to rig something up.
p.9 #14 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Jonas B wrote:
Interesting distortion test Phillip, thank you.
Are my eyes right when they tell me the CV35/1.7 is a bit longer (focal length) than the other 35mm lenses you tested?
I think you are.
---------------------------------------------
uhoh7 wrote:
Phillip, please, when you have a chance, shoot more colorcast "tests" (they can be good too ) On a single shot it can hard to tell what might be the weather and light, but with a few the pattern of cast becomes clear.
Hey I am really learning something new here, I haven't had a lens with such obvious vignetting before so I created a vignetting test and I think I will perform it for all my future reviews. Voigtlaender_35mm_f1p7 by Phillip Reeve Data, on Flickr
To Mr K.R.'s defendence I have to say that he is much more scientific and rigorous in his testing than Mr. S.H. and many of his reviews contain a lot of useful information (if you know how to read them). I can't say that about Huff. One example is his vignetting test which is quite clever and might haven been an "inspiration" for mine.
Oh and here is the test with a paper tissue in front of the lens which was focused at infinity:
p.9 #15 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
It's very interesting that there appears to be more color vignetting in Ron's shots with a Leica M240 versus Philip's tests with an A7 (which look pretty clean). That result would lead one to suspect that this lens is optimized for the Sony vs Leica ( if it were not for the worse field curvature on the Sony (where the Leica clearly performs better). That's sort of a strange combination/ optimization choice by Cosina. I also find it odd that there would be such a difference between the A7 and A7r color vignetting result. It seems like we would at least be seeing the effect a little on the A7 for the A7r result to be so noticeble.
p.9 #16 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
I'm not yet convinced that is the case, though it may be
Ryan has a sky on his flickr, which shows no colorshift WO, but importantly his focus is close.
So, as Derek notes, infinity is critical to check colorshift. I would be very surprised if the lens shifted colors less on the A7 than the 240 in identical conditions, but then.....I'm not infrequently surprised
More to the real world: many of the Leica 35s also shift colors without the lens profile applied in camera, so perhaps there is a profile which works well with the 1.7 on 240 and/or M9
My ZM18, for example wants tp be a pre-asph 21/2.8. Nothing else.
p.9 #18 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It's very interesting that there appears to be more color vignetting in Ron's shots with a Leica M240 versus Philip's tests with an A7 (which look pretty clean). That result would lead one to suspect that this lens is optimized for the Sony vs Leica ( if it were not for the worse field curvature on the Sony (where the Leica clearly performs better). That's sort of a strange combination/ optimization choice by Cosina. I also find it odd that there would be such a difference between the A7 and A7r color vignetting result. It seems like we would at least be seeing the effect a little on the A7 for the A7r result to be so noticeble....Show more →
my understanding is that the color vignetting is a direct result of the location of the color filter array and microlenses in relation to where the light transducer is, while filter stack has no real impact. this is why the a7r is much worse than the a7 and the a7rII much better (BSI architecture).
it seems entirely possible that the m240's sensor architecture could be different enough to produce worse results in this regard than the a7 since leica has spent considerable time working on software correction.
p.9 #19 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
That is some really strong vignetting but I doubt it would actually bother me much. I typically add just a bit of vignette on some of my images anyway...
p.9 #20 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
As a matter of fact, the M240 is not good at all with color vignetting. The M9 was superb in this regard, but for some strange reason, Leica changed from the offset microlens design of the M9 to the egg shaped microlenses of the M240. Many lenses that didn't need any corrections now show color vignetting on the M240.
How is Portland?
