Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
p.36 #1Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
DavidBM wrote:
Here's a thought, though I don' know if its true.
If all the CV15s has a bit of extreme corner mush, we wouldn't be complaining. We'd just think it was a pretty good lens, pity about the extreme corner (indeed that's what Fred thought before he tested Choppy)
What if the mush is the expected outcome by design, because some of the elements are such that that's what you will typically get given the level of precision of manufacture? And it's just that there's some chance that you'll get better than expected extreme corners, if it happens that a number of elements,...Show more →
Well, now that we know superb copies of this lens do exist in M- and E-mount why settle for less?
My auestion, what percentage of buyers out there even knows about the QC issues or cares?
So, maybe a large number of defective copies don't get returned to alarm CV?
K-H.
Here's a thought, though I don' know if its true.
If all the CV15s has a bit of extreme corner mush, we wouldn't be complaining. We'd just think it was a pretty good lens, pity about the extreme corner (indeed that's what Fred thought before he tested Choppy)
What if the mush is the expected outcome by design, because some of the elements are such that that's what you will typically get given the level of precision of manufacture? And it's just that there's some chance that you'll get better than expected extreme corners, if it happens that a number of elements,...Show more →
Well, now that we know superb copies of this lens do exist in M- and E-mount why settle for less?
My auestion, what percentage of buyers out there even knows about the QC issues or cares?
So, maybe a large number of defective copies don't get returned to alarm CV?
K-H.
May 10, 2016 at 05:50 PM
p.36 #2Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Good points on this thread.
I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better. (Mid-field was always better on the CV though)
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy kept saying his copy was better and I reluctantly tested his lens. It changed everything.
I was shocked when I saw the IQ from his lens. Sharp corners at f/5.6 and f/8. Wow!
I thought...if he has one, there are others available. So, I rented 2 M-mount versions which were bad, got another E-mount which was bad and when I was about to give up again, I received a great copy replacement from Camera Quest. Finally!!
So, I lost count on the number of copies I tested to find a good one. I'm starting to agree with David that the design tolerance for this lens gives smeared extreme edges even though the lens is capable of better performance. Every now and then someone gets a 'choppy' but it's not the norm.
After regretting selling my 16-35/4 a few months back, I decided to get another one to complement my Loxia 21/2.8. Tried 2 copies and they were both badly decentered! That's when I tried the Leica WATE and was very surprised how well it works on the A7RII. It is now my official 'zoom' lens for landscapes. I will still keep my Loxia 21/2.8 and possibly try the new Samyang 14/2.8 and CV 10/5.6 even though I had terrible QC experiences with both brands.
I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better. (Mid-field was always better on the CV though)
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy kept saying his copy was better and I reluctantly tested his lens. It changed everything.
I was shocked when I saw the IQ from his lens. Sharp corners at f/5.6 and f/8. Wow!
I thought...if he has one, there are others available. So, I rented 2 M-mount versions which were bad, got another E-mount which was bad and when I was about to give up again, I received a great copy replacement from Camera Quest. Finally!!
So, I lost count on the number of copies I tested to find a good one. I'm starting to agree with David that the design tolerance for this lens gives smeared extreme edges even though the lens is capable of better performance. Every now and then someone gets a 'choppy' but it's not the norm.
After regretting selling my 16-35/4 a few months back, I decided to get another one to complement my Loxia 21/2.8. Tried 2 copies and they were both badly decentered! That's when I tried the Leica WATE and was very surprised how well it works on the A7RII. It is now my official 'zoom' lens for landscapes. I will still keep my Loxia 21/2.8 and possibly try the new Samyang 14/2.8 and CV 10/5.6 even though I had terrible QC experiences with both brands.
May 10, 2016 at 06:11 PM
p.36 #3Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Fred Miranda wrote:
Good points on this thread.
I
After regretting selling my 16-35/4 a few months back, I decided to get another one to complement my Loxia 21/2.8. Tried 2 copies and they were both badly decentered!
You have just persuaded me to take my 16-35 off Ebay! Even though I have far too many primes in the range, it's a perfectly centred copy and it may be hard to buy back. (I was unsure anyway - there are trips where a good zoom is a sensible choice)
Good points on this thread.
I
After regretting selling my 16-35/4 a few months back, I decided to get another one to complement my Loxia 21/2.8. Tried 2 copies and they were both badly decentered!
You have just persuaded me to take my 16-35 off Ebay! Even though I have far too many primes in the range, it's a perfectly centred copy and it may be hard to buy back. (I was unsure anyway - there are trips where a good zoom is a sensible choice)
May 10, 2016 at 06:17 PM
p.36 #4Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Choppy changed the world. Lol
Seriously I saw the thread and I kept saying mine was better. No one believed me. I almost forced Fred to try mine out.
Fortunately he decided to try it. The bad news is what follows is a rampant case of bad corners. I told him he should try the WATE and he did from Joshua and bought it and for me he sold me Choopy E which I really appreciate him doing that.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Good points on this thread.
I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better.
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy kept saying his copy was better and I...Show more →
Seriously I saw the thread and I kept saying mine was better. No one believed me. I almost forced Fred to try mine out.
Fortunately he decided to try it. The bad news is what follows is a rampant case of bad corners. I told him he should try the WATE and he did from Joshua and bought it and for me he sold me Choopy E which I really appreciate him doing that.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Good points on this thread.
I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better.
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy kept saying his copy was better and I...Show more →
May 10, 2016 at 06:27 PM
p.36 #5Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
k-h.a.w wrote:
Great lens and thank you for your tests! I do regret selling mine but there were many new lenses coming out and you just cannot keep them all.
I have another theory is that specific lens designs are very critical of manufacturing tolerances and I suspect the CV 15 is one of them. It may prove hard to get a great copy. Is it lens alignment or lens geometry. If it is just lens alignment, there are many camera labs that will pull the lens apart and realign the elements to the optimum possible for a relatively low cost I have done this with about 10 different Leica M lenses and the improvement was quite dramatic in a number of lenses, like the 50 Lux Asph, 50 Cron DR. In the end in may prove more cost effective and knowing exactly how your lens performs on the bench.Thanks Charles. I have some Leica lenses that might benefit from an alignment. I know you are in Australia, could you please recommend a lab here in the US? TIA.
Regards, K-H.
In Australia I use Camera Clinic in Melbourne and just ask for Wayne Rogers. Quite often if he has time he will run a virtual MTF test on the lens store in their database for later re calibrations. At the moment I have my 50 Cron IV(Mandler) with 2 VM-E adapters to fully align the 50 Cron IV and the VM-E's. It is an interesting discussion as he will quite often discuss the comparison test results and how they compare to other lenses they have recently tested. Not so long ago I sent my 50 Lux Asph to be recalibrated and they also realigned the lenses at the time. It is interesting to note there was a very wide variation in the test results with different 50 Lux Asph wide open. Something I did not expect. After the realignment the 50 Lux Asph was much sharper wide open on the test bench and was up with the best 50 Lux Asph's.
Also there are a number of other labs here that will re collimate and test lenses here in Australia that are also excellent.
K-H, unfortunately I cannot assist in the US, as I have had no experience with the US labs.
charles.K wrote
Congratulations Fred on the awesome WATE Great lens and thank you for your tests! I do regret selling mine but there were many new lenses coming out and you just cannot keep them all.Gary Clennan wrote
The CV lenses I have owned in the past have actually been quite good. It's really too bad that their level of quality has dropped so much recently. Nobody should really have to go through multiple copies of any lens for a good one but I suppose it happens every now and then. Just because some other manufacturers have quality issues doesn't make it any easier to accept....Regards, K-H.
In Australia I use Camera Clinic in Melbourne and just ask for Wayne Rogers. Quite often if he has time he will run a virtual MTF test on the lens store in their database for later re calibrations. At the moment I have my 50 Cron IV(Mandler) with 2 VM-E adapters to fully align the 50 Cron IV and the VM-E's. It is an interesting discussion as he will quite often discuss the comparison test results and how they compare to other lenses they have recently tested. Not so long ago I sent my 50 Lux Asph to be recalibrated and they also realigned the lenses at the time. It is interesting to note there was a very wide variation in the test results with different 50 Lux Asph wide open. Something I did not expect. After the realignment the 50 Lux Asph was much sharper wide open on the test bench and was up with the best 50 Lux Asph's.
Also there are a number of other labs here that will re collimate and test lenses here in Australia that are also excellent.
K-H, unfortunately I cannot assist in the US, as I have had no experience with the US labs.
May 10, 2016 at 06:38 PM
p.36 #6Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
I am facing a dilemma! I retested my copy of CV15. I agreed with Guy that it has a smearing at very extreme end, while the rest of the image looks great. For most of my landscape shots, I might be able to get away with the extreme end (for example, at Lower Left Corner) or I could just crop it a bit to get rid of that very extreme corner. Now, my dilemma is that I have a very good copy of FE 16-35/f4. I wonder if I should return this copy of CV and keep the FE 16-35 (although I prefer the smaller size of the CV15), or I could play the game of returning lens till I get a perfect copy of CV15 then I sell my FE 16-35. What do you guys think?
Guy: I also retested my copy of Batis 18mm. It is awesome and quite sharp. See my sample images. I love the lens, but 15 is a much wider angle. If I keep the Batis, it must be for the night photography due to its f/2.8.
Henry
Full CV 15
Lower Left Corner - CV 15
Cropped - CV 15
Full - Batis 18
Lower Left Corner - Batis
Guy: I also retested my copy of Batis 18mm. It is awesome and quite sharp. See my sample images. I love the lens, but 15 is a much wider angle. If I keep the Batis, it must be for the night photography due to its f/2.8.
Henry
Full CV 15
Lower Left Corner - CV 15
Cropped - CV 15
Full - Batis 18
Lower Left Corner - Batis
May 10, 2016 at 06:46 PM
p.36 #7Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Fred Miranda wrote:
Good points on this thread.
I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better. (Mid-field was always better on the CV though)
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy...Show more →
Hey Fred:
I asked earlier but you may not have seen it - how is the field curvature on the WATE?
Thanks,
Chris
Good points on this thread.
I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better. (Mid-field was always better on the CV though)
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy...Show more →
Hey Fred:
I asked earlier but you may not have seen it - how is the field curvature on the WATE?
Thanks,
Chris
May 10, 2016 at 06:47 PM
p.36 #8Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
I could be wrong, but I would suspect when a lens is sent into Leica Camera for a CLA they take extra care in the alignment of the optics and check the performance on their equipment prior to shipping the lens back to the owner. I know that when my R 100mm f2.8 Apo-Macro-Elmarit had a CLA soon after I purchased it several years ago I was told that was a particularly fine performing 100mm Apo-Macro-Elmarit. I will have to check my R 50mm f2 Summicron that was just returned to me from Leica Camera USA.
I am certainly not suggesting sending lenses to Leica Camera for an alignment because they would certainly charge their full CLA rate which would be much for many lenses would be at least for R lenses $250 to $350 and for some of the more exotic Apo lenses would be quite costly. As I recall an R 280mm f4 Apo Telyt would be sent back to Wetzlar and may well cost about $750 for a CLA.
Rich
Edited on May 10, 2016 at 07:04 PM · View previous versions
I am certainly not suggesting sending lenses to Leica Camera for an alignment because they would certainly charge their full CLA rate which would be much for many lenses would be at least for R lenses $250 to $350 and for some of the more exotic Apo lenses would be quite costly. As I recall an R 280mm f4 Apo Telyt would be sent back to Wetzlar and may well cost about $750 for a CLA.
Rich
Edited on May 10, 2016 at 07:04 PM · View previous versions
May 10, 2016 at 06:51 PM
p.36 #9Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Fred Miranda wrote:
Good points on this thread.
I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better. (Mid-field was always better on the CV though)
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy...Show more →
Overall the WATE may end up being the most cost effective alternative to having the range of 16 - 21mm for landscapes, having 3 lenses in 1. In Australia with the AUD exchange rate the WATE is a great option now. Only problem after this thread with test results the WATE will quickly inflate in price again
Allowing for the frustrations, not knowing if you have a great copy, the WATE just works superbly. The other factor in viewing the corner sharpness comparisons, the WATE is very much true Leica rendering. It is not until you push the PP'ing in the shots that you really see how good the WATE is.
Good points on this thread.
I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better. (Mid-field was always better on the CV though)
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy...Show more →
Overall the WATE may end up being the most cost effective alternative to having the range of 16 - 21mm for landscapes, having 3 lenses in 1. In Australia with the AUD exchange rate the WATE is a great option now. Only problem after this thread with test results the WATE will quickly inflate in price again
Allowing for the frustrations, not knowing if you have a great copy, the WATE just works superbly. The other factor in viewing the corner sharpness comparisons, the WATE is very much true Leica rendering. It is not until you push the PP'ing in the shots that you really see how good the WATE is.
May 10, 2016 at 06:55 PM
p.36 #10Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Fred Miranda wrote:
Good points on this thread.
I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better. (Mid-field was always better on the CV though)
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy...Show more →
Reading Fred's post makes me to reconsider of keeping my FE 16-35!
Good points on this thread.
I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better. (Mid-field was always better on the CV though)
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy...Show more →
Reading Fred's post makes me to reconsider of keeping my FE 16-35!
May 10, 2016 at 07:02 PM
|
p.36 #11Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
k-h.a.w wrote:
My auestion, what percentage of buyers out there even knows about the QC issues or cares?
K-H.
Very few I would imagine....
My auestion, what percentage of buyers out there even knows about the QC issues or cares?
K-H.
Very few I would imagine....
May 10, 2016 at 07:05 PM
p.36 #12Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Schlotkins wrote:
I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better. (Mid-field was always better on the CV though)
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy kept saying his copy was better and I reluctantly tested his lens. It changed everything.
I was shocked when I saw the IQ from his lens. Sharp corners at f/5.6 and f/8. Wow!
I thought...if he has one, there are others available. So, I rented 2 M-mount versions which were bad, got another E-mount which was bad and when I was about to give up again, I received a great copy replacement from Camera Quest. Finally!!
So, I lost count on the number of copies I tested to find a good one. I'm starting to agree with David that the design tolerance for this lens gives smeared extreme edges even though the lens is capable of better performance. Every now and then someone gets a 'choppy' but it's not the norm.
After regretting selling my 16-35/4 a few months back, I decided to get another one to complement my Loxia 21/2.8. Tried 2 copies and they were both badly decentered! That's when I tried the Leica WATE and was very surprised how well it works on the A7RII. It is now my official 'zoom' lens for landscapes. I will still keep my Loxia 21/2.8 and possibly try the new Samyang 14/2.8 and CV 10/5.6 even though I had terrible QC experiences with both brands.Hey Fred:
I asked earlier but you may not have seen it - how is the field curvature on the WATE?
Thanks,
Chris
I missed that question Chris. The answer is lower than expected. It does have inwards field curvature but lower than the Loxia 21/2.8's.
I tested the new Leica Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH on the A7RII and although it was capable of razor sharp corners, field curvature was ridiculously high (see here). I was expecting lower FC with the WATE but was surprised by how flat field it was at all FLs.
Fred Miranda wrote
Good points on this thread.I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better. (Mid-field was always better on the CV though)
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy kept saying his copy was better and I reluctantly tested his lens. It changed everything.
I was shocked when I saw the IQ from his lens. Sharp corners at f/5.6 and f/8. Wow!
I thought...if he has one, there are others available. So, I rented 2 M-mount versions which were bad, got another E-mount which was bad and when I was about to give up again, I received a great copy replacement from Camera Quest. Finally!!
So, I lost count on the number of copies I tested to find a good one. I'm starting to agree with David that the design tolerance for this lens gives smeared extreme edges even though the lens is capable of better performance. Every now and then someone gets a 'choppy' but it's not the norm.
After regretting selling my 16-35/4 a few months back, I decided to get another one to complement my Loxia 21/2.8. Tried 2 copies and they were both badly decentered! That's when I tried the Leica WATE and was very surprised how well it works on the A7RII. It is now my official 'zoom' lens for landscapes. I will still keep my Loxia 21/2.8 and possibly try the new Samyang 14/2.8 and CV 10/5.6 even though I had terrible QC experiences with both brands.
I asked earlier but you may not have seen it - how is the field curvature on the WATE?
Thanks,
Chris
I missed that question Chris. The answer is lower than expected. It does have inwards field curvature but lower than the Loxia 21/2.8's.
I tested the new Leica Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH on the A7RII and although it was capable of razor sharp corners, field curvature was ridiculously high (see here). I was expecting lower FC with the WATE but was surprised by how flat field it was at all FLs.
May 10, 2016 at 07:33 PM
p.36 #13Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Charles - interesting point and I was thinking similar. My understanding is the wider the lens, the more critical alignment, which I think most of us here already know.
From a few pages back:
k-h.a.w wrote:
Well, I have Choppy and a WATE and did some tests yesterday with the TechArt Pro LM-EA7 adapter. Of course, I am aware that AF introduces new variables into the comparison. However, I can also use the adapter in manual mode and replace the AF variability with that of my aging eyes.
The comparison I did yesterday reminded me of the comparisons hiepphotog and I did of many rangefinder lenses, including my WATE, on my stock A7r2 and a Kolari modified version 2 with thinner sensor cover glass, let's refer to that as A7r2.mod2.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1392833/2#13289195, p.3 #3 ยท Kolari Mod's Improvements: A...Show more →
Karl-Heinz - do you have any digital Leica M bodies? Could you test Choppy on one against your a7R non-mod? Curious to see how consistent the performance is between the two platforms. My gut feeling is the CV15III was designed from the outset in consideration of the Sony cover glass and eventual E mount offerings....
From a few pages back:
k-h.a.w wrote:
Well, I have Choppy and a WATE and did some tests yesterday with the TechArt Pro LM-EA7 adapter. Of course, I am aware that AF introduces new variables into the comparison. However, I can also use the adapter in manual mode and replace the AF variability with that of my aging eyes.
The comparison I did yesterday reminded me of the comparisons hiepphotog and I did of many rangefinder lenses, including my WATE, on my stock A7r2 and a Kolari modified version 2 with thinner sensor cover glass, let's refer to that as A7r2.mod2.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1392833/2#13289195, p.3 #3 ยท Kolari Mod's Improvements: A...Show more →
Karl-Heinz - do you have any digital Leica M bodies? Could you test Choppy on one against your a7R non-mod? Curious to see how consistent the performance is between the two platforms. My gut feeling is the CV15III was designed from the outset in consideration of the Sony cover glass and eventual E mount offerings....
May 10, 2016 at 07:42 PM
p.36 #14Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Fred Miranda wrote:
I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better. (Mid-field was always better on the CV though)
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy kept saying his copy was better and I reluctantly tested his lens. It changed everything.
I was shocked when I saw the IQ from his lens. Sharp corners at f/5.6 and f/8. Wow!
I thought...if he has one, there are others available. So, I rented 2 M-mount versions which were bad, got another E-mount which was bad and when I was about to give up again, I received a great copy replacement from Camera Quest. Finally!!
So, I lost count on the number of copies I tested to find a good one. I'm starting to agree with David that the design tolerance for this lens gives smeared extreme edges even though the lens is capable of better performance. Every now and then someone gets a 'choppy' but it's not the norm.
After regretting selling my 16-35/4 a few months back, I decided to get another one to complement my Loxia 21/2.8. Tried 2 copies and they were both badly decentered! That's when I tried the Leica WATE and was very surprised how well it works on the A7RII. It is now my official 'zoom' lens for landscapes. I will still keep my Loxia 21/2.8 and possibly try the new Samyang 14/2.8 and CV 10/5.6 even though I had terrible QC experiences with both brands.Hey Fred:
I asked earlier but you may not have seen it - how is the field curvature on the WATE?
Thanks,
ChrisI missed that question Chris. The answer is lower than expected. It does have inwards field curvature but lower than the Loxia 21/2.8's.
I tested the new Leica Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH on the A7RII and although it was capable of razor sharp corners, field curvature was ridiculously high (see here). I was expecting lower FC with the WATE but was surprised by how flat field it was at all FLs.
Thanks Fred!
Schlotkins wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
Good points on this thread.I always thought the CV 15 III had smeared corners...
About 6 months ago, I posted corner crops from two brand new copies (M-mounts). The consensus was that perhaps the lens was not optimized for infinity distances. I tried another one with the same results and gave up on the lens since my FE 16-35/4 was better. (Mid-field was always better on the CV though)
Fast forward to last month, I received 2 lenses from CameraQuest. The brand new E-mount and a new M-mount.
Both performed equally bad. That's when I started this thread with my findings...
Guy kept saying his copy was better and I reluctantly tested his lens. It changed everything.
I was shocked when I saw the IQ from his lens. Sharp corners at f/5.6 and f/8. Wow!
I thought...if he has one, there are others available. So, I rented 2 M-mount versions which were bad, got another E-mount which was bad and when I was about to give up again, I received a great copy replacement from Camera Quest. Finally!!
So, I lost count on the number of copies I tested to find a good one. I'm starting to agree with David that the design tolerance for this lens gives smeared extreme edges even though the lens is capable of better performance. Every now and then someone gets a 'choppy' but it's not the norm.
After regretting selling my 16-35/4 a few months back, I decided to get another one to complement my Loxia 21/2.8. Tried 2 copies and they were both badly decentered! That's when I tried the Leica WATE and was very surprised how well it works on the A7RII. It is now my official 'zoom' lens for landscapes. I will still keep my Loxia 21/2.8 and possibly try the new Samyang 14/2.8 and CV 10/5.6 even though I had terrible QC experiences with both brands.
I asked earlier but you may not have seen it - how is the field curvature on the WATE?
Thanks,
Chris
I tested the new Leica Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH on the A7RII and although it was capable of razor sharp corners, field curvature was ridiculously high (see here). I was expecting lower FC with the WATE but was surprised by how flat field it was at all FLs.
Thanks Fred!
May 10, 2016 at 07:45 PM
p.36 #15Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
OK. I have had 3 copies of the CV 15 E mount from 2 dealers, one was sent back to dealer A for a refund, one was sent back dealer B for an exchange. Today I received the replacement copy from dealer B. Took some shot at infinity to check the corners. This time the right corners look OK to my untrained eyes, the left corners still look smeared. I don't really know how to do 100% crop but you get the drill. What do your guys think?
Douglas
Top left:
[url=https://flic.kr/p/H3VXsn]
DSC00398 by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url]
[url=https://flic.kr/p/G8pqAE]
398crop by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url]
Bottom left:
[url=https://flic.kr/p/GWUc9X]
DSC00364 by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url]
[url=https://flic.kr/p/G8pqFu]
364crop-1 by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url]
Top right:
[url=https://flic.kr/p/H3VYBB]
DSC00389 by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url]
[url=https://flic.kr/p/G8v8ZF]
389crop-1 by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url]
Bottom right:
[url=https://flic.kr/p/GCKSwE]
DSC00367 by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url]
367crop-1 by Douglas Liu, on Flickr
Edited on May 10, 2016 at 08:32 PM · View previous versions
Douglas
Top left:
[url=https://flic.kr/p/H3VXsn]
DSC00398 by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/G8pqAE]
398crop by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url]Bottom left:
[url=https://flic.kr/p/GWUc9X]
DSC00364 by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/G8pqFu]
364crop-1 by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url]Top right:
[url=https://flic.kr/p/H3VYBB]
DSC00389 by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/G8v8ZF]
389crop-1 by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url]Bottom right:
[url=https://flic.kr/p/GCKSwE]
DSC00367 by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url]367crop-1 by Douglas Liu, on FlickrEdited on May 10, 2016 at 08:32 PM · View previous versions
May 10, 2016 at 08:22 PM
p.36 #16Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
charles.K wrote:
Great lens and thank you for your tests! I do regret selling mine but there were many new lenses coming out and you just cannot keep them all.
I have another theory is that specific lens designs are very critical of manufacturing tolerances and I suspect the CV 15 is one of them. It may prove hard to get a great copy. Is it lens alignment or lens geometry. If it is just lens alignment, there are many camera labs that will pull the lens apart and realign the elements to the optimum possible for a relatively low cost I have done this with about 10 different Leica M lenses and the improvement was quite dramatic in a number of lenses, like the 50 Lux Asph, 50 Cron DR. In the end in may prove more cost effective and knowing exactly how your lens performs on the bench.Thanks Charles. I have some Leica lenses that might benefit from an alignment. I know you are in Australia, could you please recommend a lab here in the US? TIA.
Regards, K-H.In Australia I use Camera Clinic in Melbourne and just ask for Wayne Rogers. Quite often if he has time he will run a virtual MTF test on the lens store in their database for later re calibrations. At the moment I have my 50 Cron IV(Mandler) with 2 VM-E adapters to fully align the 50 Cron IV and the VM-E's. It is an interesting discussion as he will quite often discuss the comparison test results and how they compare to other lenses they have recently tested. Not so long ago I sent my 50 Lux Asph to be recalibrated...Show more →
Many thanks Charles. I know now what kind of expertise you were referring to.
In the US there is Leica New Jersey and Leica certified service technicians.
My favorite is Don Goldberg or DAG. I have also used Leica in Germany.
Thanks again, K-H.
k-h.a.w wrote
charles.K wrote
Congratulations Fred on the awesome WATE Great lens and thank you for your tests! I do regret selling mine but there were many new lenses coming out and you just cannot keep them all.Gary Clennan wrote
The CV lenses I have owned in the past have actually been quite good. It's really too bad that their level of quality has dropped so much recently. Nobody should really have to go through multiple copies of any lens for a good one but I suppose it happens every now and then. Just because some other manufacturers have quality issues doesn't make it any easier to accept....Regards, K-H.
Many thanks Charles. I know now what kind of expertise you were referring to.
In the US there is Leica New Jersey and Leica certified service technicians.
My favorite is Don Goldberg or DAG. I have also used Leica in Germany.
Thanks again, K-H.
May 10, 2016 at 08:23 PM
p.36 #17Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
k-h.a.w wrote:
If all the CV15s has a bit of extreme corner mush, we wouldn't be complaining. We'd just think it was a pretty good lens, pity about the extreme corner (indeed that's what Fred thought before he tested Choppy)
What if the mush is the expected outcome by design, because some of the elements are such that that's what you will typically get given the level of precision of manufacture? And it's just that there's some chance that you'll get better than expected extreme corners, if it happens that a number of elements, by chance, align perfectly?
Now if that's possible you could guarantee that it happened more often by a different, more precise and repeatable manufacturing process. But that would cost more - maybe much more. That's part of what you pay for Leica for (aside from small numbers, expensive boutiques etc)
So maybe the problem is not a QC problem. The corner mush lenses pass QC; Choppy and his brethren surpass expectations.
I guess it depends on what the design expectations are: and since CV don't publish MTFs we don't know what those expectations are.Well, now that we know superb copies of this lens do exist in M- and E-mount why settle for less?
My auestion, what percentage of buyers out there even knows about the QC issues or cares?
So, maybe a large number of defective copies don't get returned to alarm CV?
K-H.
I imagine a large group wouldn't care of even notice. If we put this in perspective, we are examining extreme corners at 1:1 from a 42MP sensor. That's pixel peeping and I'm guilty as charged.
Nowadays very few photographer print their images big and most resize them for web presentation. Extreme corners would not matter as much.. However, usually lenses capable of drawing great corners have equally impressive performance at mid-field and center areas and that's what really matter.
Imo, aside from resolution and contrast, rendering, aberration control and color also plays a very important role when evaluating image quality.
DavidBM wrote
Here's a thought, though I don' know if its true.If all the CV15s has a bit of extreme corner mush, we wouldn't be complaining. We'd just think it was a pretty good lens, pity about the extreme corner (indeed that's what Fred thought before he tested Choppy)
What if the mush is the expected outcome by design, because some of the elements are such that that's what you will typically get given the level of precision of manufacture? And it's just that there's some chance that you'll get better than expected extreme corners, if it happens that a number of elements, by chance, align perfectly?
Now if that's possible you could guarantee that it happened more often by a different, more precise and repeatable manufacturing process. But that would cost more - maybe much more. That's part of what you pay for Leica for (aside from small numbers, expensive boutiques etc)
So maybe the problem is not a QC problem. The corner mush lenses pass QC; Choppy and his brethren surpass expectations.
I guess it depends on what the design expectations are: and since CV don't publish MTFs we don't know what those expectations are.
My auestion, what percentage of buyers out there even knows about the QC issues or cares?
So, maybe a large number of defective copies don't get returned to alarm CV?
K-H.
I imagine a large group wouldn't care of even notice. If we put this in perspective, we are examining extreme corners at 1:1 from a 42MP sensor. That's pixel peeping and I'm guilty as charged.
Nowadays very few photographer print their images big and most resize them for web presentation. Extreme corners would not matter as much.. However, usually lenses capable of drawing great corners have equally impressive performance at mid-field and center areas and that's what really matter.
Imo, aside from resolution and contrast, rendering, aberration control and color also plays a very important role when evaluating image quality.
May 10, 2016 at 08:26 PM
p.36 #18Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
There's a pretty funny typo in your last reply Fred.
Don't get that sensor wet.
Don't get that sensor wet.
May 10, 2016 at 08:30 PM
p.36 #19Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
I'm not seeing smearing . I do see some look good but I see some look out of focus . Doug go to target , Walgreens any big store level the camera and get center if it s out at infinity it's out at midrange but worth another test . I'm out of pocket on a gig for 3 days so I'm only on iPhone . 15 hour days too. Lol
kdrk888 wrote:
OK. I have had 3 copies of the CV 15 E mount from 2 dealers, one was sent back to dealer A for a refund, one was sent back dealer B for an exchange. Today I received the replacement copy from dealer B. Took some shot at infinity to check the corners. This time the right corners look OK to my untrained eyes, the left corners still look smeared. I don't really know how to do 100% crop but you get the drill. What do your guys think?
Douglas
Top left:
[url=https://flic.kr/p/H3VXsn]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7238/26943787965_8f59383b73_b.jpgDSC00398 by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url]
[url=https://flic.kr/p/G8pqAE]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7176/26338056514_5606c782e1_b.jpg398crop by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url]
Bottom left:
[url=https://flic.kr/p/GWUc9X]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7031/26875544851_07e84fff7b_b.jpgDSC00364...Show more →
kdrk888 wrote:
OK. I have had 3 copies of the CV 15 E mount from 2 dealers, one was sent back to dealer A for a refund, one was sent back dealer B for an exchange. Today I received the replacement copy from dealer B. Took some shot at infinity to check the corners. This time the right corners look OK to my untrained eyes, the left corners still look smeared. I don't really know how to do 100% crop but you get the drill. What do your guys think?
Douglas
Top left:
[url=https://flic.kr/p/H3VXsn]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7238/26943787965_8f59383b73_b.jpgDSC00398 by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url]
[url=https://flic.kr/p/G8pqAE]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7176/26338056514_5606c782e1_b.jpg398crop by Douglas Liu, on Flickr[/url]
Bottom left:
[url=https://flic.kr/p/GWUc9X]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7031/26875544851_07e84fff7b_b.jpgDSC00364...Show more →
May 10, 2016 at 08:31 PM
p.36 #20Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
tsdevine wrote:
There's a pretty funny typo in your last reply Fred.
Don't get that sensor wet.
That's too funny!
There's a pretty funny typo in your last reply Fred.
Don't get that sensor wet.
That's too funny!
May 10, 2016 at 08:36 PM