Archive 2015 · A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
p.6 #1A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Zony_user wrote:
Guys, none of your photos are at infinity like Fred's....
Mine are not at infinity because I was only trying to show the real world difference between the 21/4, 15/4.5-II, and 15/4.5-III at a distance that is for all practical (and technical) purposes infinity.
AND I could only borrow the 21/4 and the -II for a few minutes.
Guys, none of your photos are at infinity like Fred's....
Mine are not at infinity because I was only trying to show the real world difference between the 21/4, 15/4.5-II, and 15/4.5-III at a distance that is for all practical (and technical) purposes infinity.
AND I could only borrow the 21/4 and the -II for a few minutes.
Aug 29, 2015 at 12:10 PM
p.6 #2A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Something else to keep in mind: The CV15III is extremely sharp/contrasty on the edges as I pointed out with samples. From my tests, it's better than the FE16-35/4 and similar to the TS-E17/4L (both great copies) which is an incredible performance for such tiny lens.
If you crop the last 2mm of the frame, the lens is a steal. Pretty much even sharpness from center to edge as a 17/4.5 lens. When composing though, this can be an issue leaving extra room for cropping in post. It's something I'm willing to do if needed.
If you crop the last 2mm of the frame, the lens is a steal. Pretty much even sharpness from center to edge as a 17/4.5 lens. When composing though, this can be an issue leaving extra room for cropping in post. It's something I'm willing to do if needed.
Aug 29, 2015 at 01:46 PM
p.6 #3A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
Something else to keep in mind: The CV15III is extremely sharp/contrasty on the edges as I pointed out with samples. From my tests, it's better than the FE16-35/4 and similar to the TS-E17/4L (both great copies) which is an incredible performance for such tiny lens.
If you crop the last 2mm of the frame, the lens is a steal. Pretty much even sharpness from center to edge as a 17/4.5 lens. When composing though, this can be an issue leaving extra room for cropping in post. It's something I'm willing to do if needed.
There may be some, as always, variability, but the extreme corners of my lens show so little degradation I am amazed. I realize you are also talking about very little deterioration but I have to go to 100% and to the extreme corners and I can be picky if need be, but I would be fine printing the full 15mm.
Something else to keep in mind: The CV15III is extremely sharp/contrasty on the edges as I pointed out with samples. From my tests, it's better than the FE16-35/4 and similar to the TS-E17/4L (both great copies) which is an incredible performance for such tiny lens.
If you crop the last 2mm of the frame, the lens is a steal. Pretty much even sharpness from center to edge as a 17/4.5 lens. When composing though, this can be an issue leaving extra room for cropping in post. It's something I'm willing to do if needed.
There may be some, as always, variability, but the extreme corners of my lens show so little degradation I am amazed. I realize you are also talking about very little deterioration but I have to go to 100% and to the extreme corners and I can be picky if need be, but I would be fine printing the full 15mm.
Aug 29, 2015 at 02:03 PM
p.6 #4A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
Something else to keep in mind: The CV15III is extremely sharp/contrasty on the edges as I pointed out with samples. From my tests, it's better than the FE16-35/4 and similar to the TS-E17/4L (both great copies) which is an incredible performance for such tiny lens.
If you crop the last 2mm of the frame, the lens is a steal. Pretty much even sharpness from center to edge as a 17/4.5 lens. When composing though, this can be an issue leaving extra room for cropping in post. It's something I'm willing to do if needed.
Fred, when you do your tests with the 15/4.5-III what's your post processing procedure?
Which raw converter, sharpness settings, CA removal, lens profile, etc. are you using?
I've found that a bit of CA removal and NOT using the ACR lens profiles betters my sharpness a bit off into the far edges and corners, though at the expense of having more distortion (but who cares for most landscapes - though not all) and taking a bit more effort in post to get the image I want.
Something else to keep in mind: The CV15III is extremely sharp/contrasty on the edges as I pointed out with samples. From my tests, it's better than the FE16-35/4 and similar to the TS-E17/4L (both great copies) which is an incredible performance for such tiny lens.
If you crop the last 2mm of the frame, the lens is a steal. Pretty much even sharpness from center to edge as a 17/4.5 lens. When composing though, this can be an issue leaving extra room for cropping in post. It's something I'm willing to do if needed.
Fred, when you do your tests with the 15/4.5-III what's your post processing procedure?
Which raw converter, sharpness settings, CA removal, lens profile, etc. are you using?
I've found that a bit of CA removal and NOT using the ACR lens profiles betters my sharpness a bit off into the far edges and corners, though at the expense of having more distortion (but who cares for most landscapes - though not all) and taking a bit more effort in post to get the image I want.
Aug 29, 2015 at 02:11 PM
p.6 #5A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
jhinkey wrote:
If you crop the last 2mm of the frame, the lens is a steal. Pretty much even sharpness from center to edge as a 17/4.5 lens. When composing though, this can be an issue leaving extra room for cropping in post. It's something I'm willing to do if needed.Fred, when you do your tests with the 15/4.5-III what's your post processing procedure?
Which raw converter, sharpness settings, CA removal, lens profile, etc. are you using?
I've found that a bit of CA removal and NOT using the ACR lens profiles betters my sharpness a bit off into the far edges and corners, though at the expense of having more distortion (but who cares for most landscapes - though not all) and taking a bit more effort in post to get the image I want.
Here is my post-processing:
SteadyShot OFF, Daylight WB, RAW
Processing in LR for both:
Sharpening: 60, 0.7, 75, 12 (My default landscape setting for the A7RII)
LR Profile: "On" for vignetting and CA. Turned "OFF" for distortion on both.
LR Color: Remove CA (checked)
If not using a profile (leaving is OFF), there is no difference on the extreme edge smearing issue I am seeing, except that without any vignetting control, it is harder to judge sharpness.
Fred Miranda wrote
Something else to keep in mind: The CV15III is extremely sharp/contrasty on the edges as I pointed out with samples. From my tests, it's better than the FE16-35/4 and similar to the TS-E17/4L (both great copies) which is an incredible performance for such tiny lens.If you crop the last 2mm of the frame, the lens is a steal. Pretty much even sharpness from center to edge as a 17/4.5 lens. When composing though, this can be an issue leaving extra room for cropping in post. It's something I'm willing to do if needed.
Which raw converter, sharpness settings, CA removal, lens profile, etc. are you using?
I've found that a bit of CA removal and NOT using the ACR lens profiles betters my sharpness a bit off into the far edges and corners, though at the expense of having more distortion (but who cares for most landscapes - though not all) and taking a bit more effort in post to get the image I want.
Here is my post-processing:
SteadyShot OFF, Daylight WB, RAW
Processing in LR for both:
Sharpening: 60, 0.7, 75, 12 (My default landscape setting for the A7RII)
LR Profile: "On" for vignetting and CA. Turned "OFF" for distortion on both.
LR Color: Remove CA (checked)
If not using a profile (leaving is OFF), there is no difference on the extreme edge smearing issue I am seeing, except that without any vignetting control, it is harder to judge sharpness.
Aug 29, 2015 at 02:20 PM
p.6 #6A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
jamato8 wrote:
If you crop the last 2mm of the frame, the lens is a steal. Pretty much even sharpness from center to edge as a 17/4.5 lens. When composing though, this can be an issue leaving extra room for cropping in post. It's something I'm willing to do if needed.There may be some, as always, variability, but the extreme corners of my lens show so little degradation I am amazed. I realize you are also talking about very little deterioration but I have to go to 100% and to the extreme corners and I can be picky if need be, but I would be fine printing the full 15mm.
Good for you John!
Fred Miranda wrote
Something else to keep in mind: The CV15III is extremely sharp/contrasty on the edges as I pointed out with samples. From my tests, it's better than the FE16-35/4 and similar to the TS-E17/4L (both great copies) which is an incredible performance for such tiny lens.If you crop the last 2mm of the frame, the lens is a steal. Pretty much even sharpness from center to edge as a 17/4.5 lens. When composing though, this can be an issue leaving extra room for cropping in post. It's something I'm willing to do if needed.
Good for you John!
Aug 29, 2015 at 02:26 PM
p.6 #7A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
jhinkey wrote:
How infinity do you want? Is 30 meters infinity on a 15mm focal length? The difference in rotation of the focusing ring from 30 meters to infinity is is barely perceptible and I could not get the corners any better or worse than what I showed.
You're totally right. The importance of 'absolute infinity' for testing smearing or vigneting is hugely overstated. Like you say, shooting a 15mm.lens at 30mtr of distance, is 2000 times the focal lenght -> infinity to practical effects.
Let's do some basic calculation. Suppose that, at infinity, the angle of incidence in the corners of this 15mm. lens is 30º, relative to the optical axis. When you refocus from infinity to 30 mtr. the optics of the lens move forward 0.008 mm. ( yes, eight microns) and the angle of incidence decreases from 30º to 29.995º. Do you guys really believe that this minuscule difference can be of any significance regarding smearing or vigneting ?
Zony_user wrote
Guys, none of your photos are at infinity like Fred's....You're totally right. The importance of 'absolute infinity' for testing smearing or vigneting is hugely overstated. Like you say, shooting a 15mm.lens at 30mtr of distance, is 2000 times the focal lenght -> infinity to practical effects.
Let's do some basic calculation. Suppose that, at infinity, the angle of incidence in the corners of this 15mm. lens is 30º, relative to the optical axis. When you refocus from infinity to 30 mtr. the optics of the lens move forward 0.008 mm. ( yes, eight microns) and the angle of incidence decreases from 30º to 29.995º. Do you guys really believe that this minuscule difference can be of any significance regarding smearing or vigneting ?
Aug 29, 2015 at 03:35 PM
p.6 #8A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
artur5 wrote:
How infinity do you want? Is 30 meters infinity on a 15mm focal length? The difference in rotation of the focusing ring from 30 meters to infinity is is barely perceptible and I could not get the corners any better or worse than what I showed.You're totally right. The importance of 'absolute infinity' for testing smearing or vigneting is hugely overstated. Like you say, shooting a 15mm.lens at 30mtr of distance, is 2000 times the focal lenght -> infinity to practical effects.
Let's do some basic calculation. Suppose that, at infinity, the angle of incidence in the corners of this 15mm. lens is 30º, relative to the optical axis. When you refocus from infinity to 30 mtr. the optics of the lens move forward 0.008 mm. ( yes, eight microns) and the angle of incidence decreases from 30º to 29.995º. Do you guys really believe that...Show more →
The smearing at the extreme edges I'm seeing happens at infinity and 15-20 feet. I posted crops of both.
So, yes, we don't need to test it at infinity to see the issue, it's just how I prefer to test.
This is the only copy I've tested so far so I can't be sure this is how the lens really performs.
jhinkey wrote
Zony_user wrote
Guys, none of your photos are at infinity like Fred's....Let's do some basic calculation. Suppose that, at infinity, the angle of incidence in the corners of this 15mm. lens is 30º, relative to the optical axis. When you refocus from infinity to 30 mtr. the optics of the lens move forward 0.008 mm. ( yes, eight microns) and the angle of incidence decreases from 30º to 29.995º. Do you guys really believe that...Show more →
The smearing at the extreme edges I'm seeing happens at infinity and 15-20 feet. I posted crops of both.
So, yes, we don't need to test it at infinity to see the issue, it's just how I prefer to test.
This is the only copy I've tested so far so I can't be sure this is how the lens really performs.
Aug 29, 2015 at 03:55 PM
p.6 #9A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
For me with a 15mm on landscape stuff my extreme corners would be more in the foreground as the upper corners would most likely be sky anyway but I still want to double check mine next week.
Little OT but steady shot on or off seems to make no difference on a tripod. I tested a 85 and a forum member tested the big Tammy zoom and we see no effects of any movement either way. Look identical
My theory and just one and like to see Sony confirm it . But when IBIS realizes there is no movement it stays at rest or pauses. But something folks should try out but that was our findings. It's posted on the A7rII batis25,85 and 35 thread.
Little OT but steady shot on or off seems to make no difference on a tripod. I tested a 85 and a forum member tested the big Tammy zoom and we see no effects of any movement either way. Look identical
My theory and just one and like to see Sony confirm it . But when IBIS realizes there is no movement it stays at rest or pauses. But something folks should try out but that was our findings. It's posted on the A7rII batis25,85 and 35 thread.
Aug 29, 2015 at 07:01 PM
p.6 #10A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
GMPhotography wrote:
For me with a 15mm on landscape stuff my extreme corners would be more in the foreground as the upper corners would most likely be sky anyway but I still want to double check mine next week.
Little OT but steady shot on or off seems to make no difference on a tripod. I tested a 85 and a forum member tested the big Tammy zoom and we see no effects of any movement either way. Look identical
My theory and just one and like to see Sony confirm it . But when IBIS realizes there is no movement it stays...Show more →
Guy, that would be the first for any stabilization system. And if it's indeed so, that's a huge plus. Even with the physical IBIS button on the A900, I forgot to turn it off sometimes when I set the darn thing on a tripod.
For me with a 15mm on landscape stuff my extreme corners would be more in the foreground as the upper corners would most likely be sky anyway but I still want to double check mine next week.
Little OT but steady shot on or off seems to make no difference on a tripod. I tested a 85 and a forum member tested the big Tammy zoom and we see no effects of any movement either way. Look identical
My theory and just one and like to see Sony confirm it . But when IBIS realizes there is no movement it stays...Show more →
Guy, that would be the first for any stabilization system. And if it's indeed so, that's a huge plus. Even with the physical IBIS button on the A900, I forgot to turn it off sometimes when I set the darn thing on a tripod.
Aug 29, 2015 at 07:26 PM
p.6 #11A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Yea I was a bit surprised the test went like it did. I thought like my Canon days you had to turn the IS off on a tripod. I'm really thinking with IBIS it senses no movement so it goes to rest. That just seems logical to me because it's based on your movement when handheld to compensate. Since it does not need to on a tripod it seems it's rests, pauses or just turns itself off. Love to hear some official statement from Sony on how it actually senses. I'm leaving it on for now. I also took it off my custom buttons as well and use that for something else. I really hope this is so. Be a huge plus and I even shot two more scenes I did not post and same thing nothing. I want to try my Minolta 200 since I just got that again for the 3 rd time. I still think even made in 1986 it's the best 200 2.8 lens made. Love this lens and will keep it til some type of replacement comes along. Anyway hope you folks try this out and see if your getting the same result
Aug 29, 2015 at 08:19 PM
p.6 #12A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
GMPhotography wrote:
Yea I was a bit surprised the test went like it did. I thought like my Canon days you had to turn the IS off on a tripod. I'm really thinking with IBIS it senses no movement so it goes to rest. That just seems logical to me because it's based on your movement when handheld to compensate. Since it does not need to on a tripod it seems it's rests, pauses or just turns itself off. Love to hear some official statement from Sony on how it actually senses. I'm leaving it on for now. I also took it...Show more →
It could be that there is not need to turn IBIS off when shooting on very stable ground with little wind and using a sturdy tripod.
But....if any of these variables change, there is a change that IBIS may sense a slight movement and get activated during exposure potentially degrading image quality even further. Just a thought...I know it's a pain to remember turn the darn thing off.
Yea I was a bit surprised the test went like it did. I thought like my Canon days you had to turn the IS off on a tripod. I'm really thinking with IBIS it senses no movement so it goes to rest. That just seems logical to me because it's based on your movement when handheld to compensate. Since it does not need to on a tripod it seems it's rests, pauses or just turns itself off. Love to hear some official statement from Sony on how it actually senses. I'm leaving it on for now. I also took it...Show more →
It could be that there is not need to turn IBIS off when shooting on very stable ground with little wind and using a sturdy tripod.
But....if any of these variables change, there is a change that IBIS may sense a slight movement and get activated during exposure potentially degrading image quality even further. Just a thought...I know it's a pain to remember turn the darn thing off.
Aug 29, 2015 at 08:27 PM
p.6 #13A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
But the thing is with previous gen. IBIS, even on a still platform, the mechanism would induce its own vibration simply because it's on.
Aug 29, 2015 at 08:40 PM
p.6 #14A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
It could be that there is not need to turn IBIS off when shooting on very stable ground with little wind and using a sturdy tripod.
But....if any of these variables change, there is a change that IBIS may sense a slight movement and get activated during exposure potentially degrading image quality even further. Just a thought...I know it's a pain to remember turn the darn thing off.
Yes good point Fred and really seems odd. Maybe I should try a fan blowing at the camera tripod to simulate that. I mean I forget to turn it off and I'm sure others do as well. Kind of a pain really
GMPhotography wrote
Yea I was a bit surprised the test went like it did. I thought like my Canon days you had to turn the IS off on a tripod. I'm really thinking with IBIS it senses no movement so it goes to rest. That just seems logical to me because it's based on your movement when handheld to compensate. Since it does not need to on a tripod it seems it's rests, pauses or just turns itself off. Love to hear some official statement from Sony on how it actually senses. I'm leaving it on for now. I also took it off my custom buttons as well and use that for something else. I really hope this is so. Be a huge plus and I even shot two more scenes I did not post and same thing nothing. I want to try my Minolta 200 since I just got that again for the 3 rd time. I still think even made in 1986 it's the best 200 2.8 lens made. Love this lens and will keep it til some type of replacement comes along. Anyway hope you folks try this out and see if your getting the same resultBut....if any of these variables change, there is a change that IBIS may sense a slight movement and get activated during exposure potentially degrading image quality even further. Just a thought...I know it's a pain to remember turn the darn thing off.
Yes good point Fred and really seems odd. Maybe I should try a fan blowing at the camera tripod to simulate that. I mean I forget to turn it off and I'm sure others do as well. Kind of a pain really
Aug 29, 2015 at 08:49 PM
p.6 #15A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
hiepphotog wrote:
But the thing is with previous gen. IBIS, even on a still platform, the mechanism would induce its own vibration simply because it's on.
That was the issue with Canon IS glass back when I shot Canon. Here I'm thinking it just turns itself off.
Just not sure what to think. Be nice to get a Sonys engineers ear on this one
But the thing is with previous gen. IBIS, even on a still platform, the mechanism would induce its own vibration simply because it's on.
That was the issue with Canon IS glass back when I shot Canon. Here I'm thinking it just turns itself off.
Just not sure what to think. Be nice to get a Sonys engineers ear on this one
Aug 29, 2015 at 08:51 PM
p.6 #16A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
hiepphotog wrote:
Just extend from what Charlie is saying above, an infinity test wouldn't take a whole afternoon to do. It took me less than 5 minutes to set up and go through the usual aperture range from WO to f/11 (one stop step). The regular wall tests would actually take more time since care must be taken to assure the wall and your camera are parallel.
Here is a list of what I can find after a 5-minute slanted infinity test:
- Field Curvature: any drastic mid-zone resolution dip. Edge/corner dip requires additional step to identify the issue. Complex field curvature due to...Show more →
Well put. I really don't understand the negative attitude toward doing such a test from some, except they are mad when we say: can't tell from your sample.
I hope those testing the CV 21 especially will just humor us and do it . Jhinkey's sample suggests it's much better than I had thought but the corner has such limited detail, you can't really tell. That's the advantage of a little distance over a neighborhood. All sorts of tiny details and everything shows up very clearly.
If you had a multi textured subject at 30 meters, equidistant minute detail, then sure, that would probably be fine. I also understand we don't always have time for various reasons. If Jhinkey can only get that snap, well I'm glad he did, cause it's very interesting. But inconclusive.
Proper test at infinity takes away the guesswork with this issue, and if you see good performance, well that's very hard to argue with.
I usually don't do the angled ones, but maybe they are even better.
I've been trying to measure RF wide performance on Sony cameras since the original Nex-5 was introduced. It was a long slow process to figure out the best way to get a clear picture. Here was the shot which really cemented the concept in my mind (though I don't have the corners), and caused me to return my new A7r in 2013, the first camera I ever sent back:
DSC04369 by unoh7, A7r 35/2 FD SSC
It's with the FD 35/2 at f/8. A first look and it seems pretty good. But go to the full and follow the details at various distances across the frame--or just take my word, there is lots of little weird stuff happening as you approach the edges mid frame. Once I saw this I realized it was not just an RF issue. In fact the only way to really milk the A7r is with the natives, the few that are really great. Which if you love lenses is very bad news.
The CV15 v3 is the first exception, but it's still behind what the D810 and M240 can do. It's very good though, and I love many shots which have been made with various A7 models and this new lens. Maybe the new ultron will be good too, but I won't hold my breath.
The A7 not R was quite a bit better with the FD 35/2, shown in the sample above. I was testing my 28's and thought I had a decent shot with the elmarit v3. I put it up over at RFF and said: somebody got a sharper 28 shot with M9? Somebody took pity and steered me to a serious infinity sample with the 28 cron (i also had one). I fell out of my chair. There was just no comparison at all. Two weeks later I had found and purchased a used M9, the best photography decision of my life. I still use the Sony, now kolaried, as my second body and it works good.
Some of us, and maybe you too, have alot of history with the sony cover glass issue, our hopes having been raised and dashed many times. I've learned the hard way to make quick clear tests. They still are not negatively conclusive, you need a few bad ones, because the focal point matters. But they can be positively conclusive. Great performance at infinity with a distant highly detailed subject is undeniable. That's the hardest thing for the lens to do with the Sonys. Jump that bar, and make a note. Next lens, please
Now, you might say: I don't need such performance. I don't shoot like that. It's still nice to know, because the boundaries become clear. The sweet spot comes out. Then you can use that knowledge.
Just extend from what Charlie is saying above, an infinity test wouldn't take a whole afternoon to do. It took me less than 5 minutes to set up and go through the usual aperture range from WO to f/11 (one stop step). The regular wall tests would actually take more time since care must be taken to assure the wall and your camera are parallel.
Here is a list of what I can find after a 5-minute slanted infinity test:
- Field Curvature: any drastic mid-zone resolution dip. Edge/corner dip requires additional step to identify the issue. Complex field curvature due to...Show more →
Well put. I really don't understand the negative attitude toward doing such a test from some, except they are mad when we say: can't tell from your sample.
I hope those testing the CV 21 especially will just humor us and do it . Jhinkey's sample suggests it's much better than I had thought but the corner has such limited detail, you can't really tell. That's the advantage of a little distance over a neighborhood. All sorts of tiny details and everything shows up very clearly.
If you had a multi textured subject at 30 meters, equidistant minute detail, then sure, that would probably be fine. I also understand we don't always have time for various reasons. If Jhinkey can only get that snap, well I'm glad he did, cause it's very interesting. But inconclusive.
Proper test at infinity takes away the guesswork with this issue, and if you see good performance, well that's very hard to argue with.
I usually don't do the angled ones, but maybe they are even better.
I've been trying to measure RF wide performance on Sony cameras since the original Nex-5 was introduced. It was a long slow process to figure out the best way to get a clear picture. Here was the shot which really cemented the concept in my mind (though I don't have the corners), and caused me to return my new A7r in 2013, the first camera I ever sent back:
DSC04369 by unoh7, A7r 35/2 FD SSC
It's with the FD 35/2 at f/8. A first look and it seems pretty good. But go to the full and follow the details at various distances across the frame--or just take my word, there is lots of little weird stuff happening as you approach the edges mid frame. Once I saw this I realized it was not just an RF issue. In fact the only way to really milk the A7r is with the natives, the few that are really great. Which if you love lenses is very bad news.
The CV15 v3 is the first exception, but it's still behind what the D810 and M240 can do. It's very good though, and I love many shots which have been made with various A7 models and this new lens. Maybe the new ultron will be good too, but I won't hold my breath.
The A7 not R was quite a bit better with the FD 35/2, shown in the sample above. I was testing my 28's and thought I had a decent shot with the elmarit v3. I put it up over at RFF and said: somebody got a sharper 28 shot with M9? Somebody took pity and steered me to a serious infinity sample with the 28 cron (i also had one). I fell out of my chair. There was just no comparison at all. Two weeks later I had found and purchased a used M9, the best photography decision of my life.
I still use the Sony, now kolaried, as my second body and it works good. Some of us, and maybe you too, have alot of history with the sony cover glass issue, our hopes having been raised and dashed many times. I've learned the hard way to make quick clear tests. They still are not negatively conclusive, you need a few bad ones, because the focal point matters. But they can be positively conclusive. Great performance at infinity with a distant highly detailed subject is undeniable. That's the hardest thing for the lens to do with the Sonys. Jump that bar, and make a note. Next lens, please
Now, you might say: I don't need such performance. I don't shoot like that. It's still nice to know, because the boundaries become clear. The sweet spot comes out. Then you can use that knowledge.
Aug 29, 2015 at 11:52 PM
p.6 #17A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
I for one am very grateful for all the work you have put into this, and others too on FM.
It has helped me understand what is going on with the A7 and my motley collection of leica and Nikon mount lenses, and to do some of my own 'tests' to pick out the gems and isolate those which dont perform as I need them too.
Thanks again, Gerry
It has helped me understand what is going on with the A7 and my motley collection of leica and Nikon mount lenses, and to do some of my own 'tests' to pick out the gems and isolate those which dont perform as I need them too.
Thanks again, Gerry
Aug 30, 2015 at 01:12 PM
p.6 #18A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Has anyone tried using filters with the CV15 III ?
It has a 58mm filter thread but I heard that the previous version (52mm) was not very filter friendly.
I wanted to use a ND on it or even a variable ND. (B+W XS-Pro)
Fred
It has a 58mm filter thread but I heard that the previous version (52mm) was not very filter friendly.
I wanted to use a ND on it or even a variable ND. (B+W XS-Pro)
Fred
Aug 30, 2015 at 02:32 PM
p.6 #19A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
Has anyone tried using filters with the CV15 III ?
It has a 58mm filter thread but I heard that the previous version (52mm) was not very filter friendly.
I wanted to use a ND on it or even a variable ND. (B+W XS-Pro)
Fred
I just have a clear B+W MRC on mine (came with it from Camera Quest). Have not tried an ND (or a CPL in place of an ND in a pinch).
Has anyone tried using filters with the CV15 III ?
It has a 58mm filter thread but I heard that the previous version (52mm) was not very filter friendly.
I wanted to use a ND on it or even a variable ND. (B+W XS-Pro)
Fred
I just have a clear B+W MRC on mine (came with it from Camera Quest). Have not tried an ND (or a CPL in place of an ND in a pinch).
Aug 30, 2015 at 02:35 PM
p.6 #20A7RII Voigtlander 15/4.5 and 21/4 wide angle lenses
jhinkey wrote:
It has a 58mm filter thread but I heard that the previous version (52mm) was not very filter friendly.
I wanted to use a ND on it or even a variable ND. (Tiffen)
FredI just have a clear B+W MRC on mine (came with it from Camera Quest). Have not tried an ND (or a CPL in place of an ND in a pinch).
It is a thin filter? Does it hard vignette at all? If it does not, I may get a few NDs instead of a variable.
The variable I use on the 16-35/4 is the B+W XS-Pro and it's very high quality. They have a 58mm version and it's thin. Not sure if thin enough for 15mm though. Here are the pictures of it:
Fred Miranda wrote
Has anyone tried using filters with the CV15 III ?It has a 58mm filter thread but I heard that the previous version (52mm) was not very filter friendly.
I wanted to use a ND on it or even a variable ND. (Tiffen)
Fred
It is a thin filter? Does it hard vignette at all? If it does not, I may get a few NDs instead of a variable.
The variable I use on the 16-35/4 is the B+W XS-Pro and it's very high quality. They have a 58mm version and it's thin. Not sure if thin enough for 15mm though. Here are the pictures of it:
 |
||
 |
||
|
|
||
 |
||
|
Aug 30, 2015 at 02:52 PM