p.10 #1 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
edwardkaraa wrote:
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.
p.10 #2 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
uhoh7 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Infinity is critical as color shift is at it's worst there but I do believe Philips tests for color shift are at infinity focus on the A7 and are still clean. Given what Edward just wrote, it sounds like the M240 is not so hot with color vignetting before corrections are turned on (one would need to see if a close, canned/ built-in profile exists that can be used with the CV 35/1.7).
"Some albums I've taken with the lens (using my A7II and a few with A7r in 3rd album too)..."
So not A7r2. I'm not so sure/ confident about his F5.6 corner to corner perfect sharpness claim at infinity on the Sony's though given what we have seen from Philip. All of this users posted examples, which are stripped of F-stop data of course, show soft extreme corners for instance (not that they don't look decent but "perfect" they are not). Philip's tests also show that the $50-$100 older Minolta 35/2.8 MD and Canon FDn 35/2.8 give noticeably better corners and borders than the CV on an unmodified Sony as well.
p.10 #6 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
uhoh7 wrote:
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. ...Show more → Tariq Gibran wrote:
Infinity is critical as color shift is at it's worst there but I do believe Philips tests for color shift are at infinity focus on the A7 and are still clean. Given what Edward just wrote, it sounds like the M240 is not so hot with color vignetting before corrections are turned on (one would need to see if a close, canned/ built-in profile exists that can be used with the CV 35/1.7).
As I think I wrote earlier (or maybe in the Leica image thread), I've settled on coding my lens as 35 Cron ASPH. With the M240 it results in a slightly greenish right edge, which in 99% of the images I've shot at this setting so far, has not been noticeable. I did find the slight magenta shift when the lens was uncoded somewhat noticeable and annoying.
I haven't really done an M9 vs. M240 color shift analysis, but offhand haven't noticed the M240 as worse than the M9. With some problematic lenses like the CV12 I thought the 240 was slightly better. The only thorough comparison I did was with the 28 Cron and there was definitely a difference in vignetting character, with the M9's interpretation being more pleasing, IMO.
"The central sharpness is really excellent from wide open, and bokeh is very nice, somewhat similar to Nokton 35/1.2. For infinity shots it needs to be closed down a bit more than my Nokton to get 100% perfect corner sharpness, at f5.6 it's perfect. I prefer it to my Nokton as it's noticeably sharper right from wide open and the size and weight are much nicer."
I find this quite interesting because on digital Leica my impression is the opposite. The 35/1.2 needs to be stopped down somewhat to bring up the corners, whereas the new 35/1.7 is already very impressive with an apparently quite flat plane of focus at very wide apertures.
It would seem the new Ultron is the better of the two on Leica whereas the Nokton is probably the more forgiving lens on unmodded Sony.
p.10 #8 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
rscheffler wrote:
In that post he wrote:
"The central sharpness is really excellent from wide open, and bokeh is very nice, somewhat similar to Nokton 35/1.2. For infinity shots it needs to be closed down a bit more than my Nokton to get 100% perfect corner sharpness, at f5.6 it's perfect. I prefer it to my Nokton as it's noticeably sharper right from wide open and the size and weight are much nicer."
I find this quite interesting because on digital Leica my impression is the opposite. The 35/1.2 needs to be stopped down somewhat to bring up the corners, whereas the new 35/1.7 is already very impressive with an apparently quite flat plane of focus at very wide apertures.
It would seem the new Ultron is the better of the two on Leica whereas the Nokton is probably the more forgiving lens on unmodded Sony....Show more →
His statement would also seem to imply that the Nokton 35/1.2 was perfect corner to corner on the Sony around F4. You did test that lens on Sony I recall...
p.10 #9 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Yes, I shot it on all of the 'first gen' a7 cameras and it was one of the better RF lenses wider than 50mm for general performance. Edges seemed to sharpen up sooner than on Leica, IIRC. That said, I think the new Ultron has better overall sharpness/micro contrast. To me it feels like it has more bite while the 35/1.2 Nokton is more mellow/smoother.
p.10 #10 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Regarding the color shading, the lens profiles of the M240 seem to be better than the M9, so if you shoot mostly Leica lenses, or do in camera correction, you will probably prefer the M240. But for someone like me who uses non Leica lenses, without in camera correction, the difference is dramatic I would say. All three zm 35 now show noticeable shading, while there was none on the M9. The zm 25 shading is quite serious on the M240. I think the increase in pixel density partially affected the shading but as we see with the a7r2, offset microlenses can do magic.
p.10 #11 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
edwardkaraa wrote:
I think the increase in pixel density partially affected the shading but as we see with the a7r2, offset microlenses can do magic.
I thought the huge improvement with the A7rII with regard to color shading was due specifically to the BSI technology. Both the A7 and A7r sensors for instance have offset microlenses but that in addition to the BSI technology results in an even wider angle of acceptance.
p.10 #12 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I thought the huge improvement with the A7rII with regard to color shading was due specifically to the BSI technology. Both the A7 and A7r sensors for instance have offset microlenses but that in addition to the BSI technology results in an even wider angle of acceptance.
If I understand it correctly, the BSI improves vignetting, but the cross talk between the pixels that causes the color shifts is not affected.
Sep 19, 2015 at 08:39 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.10 #13 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
edwardkaraa wrote:
If I understand it correctly, the BSI improves vignetting, but the cross talk between the pixels that causes the color shifts is not affected.
Edward, because BSI dramatically improves the incident angles I think it is a big improvement for colour shift as well.
p.10 #14 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Steve Spencer wrote:
Edward, because BSI dramatically improves the incident angles I think it is a big improvement for colour shift as well.
I probably misunderstood it then
p.10 #15 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
can't believe this has been out almost a month and still no samples with the A7R2. If it shows incremental improvement on that BSI sensor I'll probably go ahead and pick one up. Still shooting original A7 but either upgrading to used A7R2 or A7III (if it gets a BSI sensor <42mp).
p.10 #16 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
theophilus wrote:
can't believe this has been out almost a month and still no samples with the A7R2. If it shows incremental improvement on that BSI sensor I'll probably go ahead and pick one up. Still shooting original A7 but either upgrading to used A7R2 or A7III (if it gets a BSI sensor <42mp).
The sharpness will not improve with the A7r2 off axis vs the A7r, but the color vignetting certainly will improve/ vanish. The sharpness issue off-axis with the Sony's is caused by the thick cover glass which has not changed. This has already been demonstrated/ proven with other problematic lenses when comparing A7r to A7rII in other threads.
p.10 #17 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The sharpness will not improve with the A7r2 off axis vs the A7r, but the color vignetting certainly will improve/ vanish. The sharpness issue off-axis with the Sony's is caused by the thick cover glass which has not changed. This has already been demonstrated/ proven with other problematic lenses when comparing A7r to A7rII in other threads.
Thanks, for some reason I had it in my mind that the corner sharpness improved with the BSI.
p.10 #20 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Jonas B wrote:
Thank you Phillip. I enjoyed the new images in your Flickr album. It seems as the lens can be used wide open with confidence.
You are welcome :-)
