p.40 #2 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
rscheffler wrote:
Douglas - if it was me I'd live with it. While it's not Choppy perfect, it's much better than the 'defective' ones we've seen.
Karl-Heinz - thanks for taking the time to test the lenses on the M9 alongside the Sony! I downsized the Sony+Choppy file to match M9 dimensions (which will still benefit the Sony with better fine detail resolution) and while the light changed a lot between images, I think the lens performs slightly better on the Sony. I also think Choppy+M9 performs better than my copy on my M240.
Many thanks Ron (Please correct me if R doesn't stand for Ron). Your feedback is much appreciated.
With regards to M9 performance I believe my WATE is well rangefinder adjusted whereas Choppy isn't. So I will have DAG take care of that.
I am using the TechArt Pro adapter on the A7r2 because it really helps my aging eyes. Of course, that adapter introduces uncertainties into the lens assessments.
However, my eyes would introduce bigger errors. :-( So, I have to live with that. BTW, the M9 rangefinder focusing isn't a problem for me yet.
I really need to do some controlled measurements with a flat surface, with focus stacking as well on the A7r2. and reduce my error bars. :-)
But I did two series of images with the TechArt Pro adapter, one with AF and the other with MF.
Looking at those images from the A7r2 at 200% magnification I get the impression that at f/8 Choppy resolves a tiny bit more detail than my WATE.
So my preliminary impression is that Choppy is better at micro-contrast than my WATE. I wouldn't take this as gospel though.
In any case, having sent back my lemon 15/4.5 E-mount version, I am very happy with the performance of Choppy, but also of my WATE. They are keepers for good.
With kind regards, Karl-Heinz.
PS: My 2009 M9 finally seems to have gotten sensor leprosy and needs to have its sensor replaced. But images look fine until about f/8. Beyond that it looks grim.
p.40 #3 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Thanks for the additional background info, Karl-Heinz. Yes 'r' = Ron.
Not to derail the thread too much - my M9 also shows the sensor glass degradation spots. I'll probably send it in eventually. I've considered paying for the M240 upgrade instead but am not entirely convinced it's a sweet enough trade-in price. Especially now that the M240 is nearing end-of-line.
I will live with my CV15III as it is since it's a low-use lens for me. I'm interested to see how the 10 and 12 perform in comparison. I have the 12/5.6 LTM now, but it sees even less use than the 15. 10 is cool just for being 10mm, but wonder how useful/practical it will be...
p.40 #4 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Hi folks,
I wonder if I could get your opinion regarding my just delivered CV15III E-mount. I have not tested it extensively, and I am not positive I have the right methodology. I shot this image at f/8, with focus at infinity.
I don't have a good right upper crop to share; the upper left and lower right corners have smearing, whereas the lower left actually looks decent. I think with a little bit of cropping I would be happy with these images. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
p.40 #8 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
walaszek wrote:
Hi folks,
I wonder if I could get your opinion regarding my just delivered CV15III E-mount. I have not tested it extensively, and I am not positive I have the right methodology. I shot this image at f/8, with focus at infinity.
I don't have a good right upper crop to share; the upper left and lower right corners have smearing, whereas the lower left actually looks decent. I think with a little bit of cropping I would be happy with these images. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
There's something odd going on here: are you sure you shot at infinity? The lower left looks to be much closer than infinity, and yet it's sharp, whereas the things actually likely at infinity are less so.
p.40 #9 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Looks nice. I have Fred's E copy in my hands now. It's mine all mine. Lol
See how it does on Big Bronco this weekend. Compare it to Choppy's last test
I may chop this one too. It's actually easier to do than the M plus I came up with a better idea how to do it. If I do it I will document my steps just in case anyone wants to give it a shot. Lol
rscheffler wrote:
Hard to tell at 1600px wide, but edges and near corners look OK at f/11....
p.40 #18 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
My sample #4 arrived today. Corner performance is similar bad as the other three.
This is the result at f/8 (100% corner crop):
I will return sample #4.
But sample #5 from a different vendor also arrived today. The corner sharpeness with this sample is much better.
Here is the result of sample #5 at f/8 (100% corner crop):
It's still not very good at f/5.6, but is quite ok at f/8 and at f/11 there is no visible smearing in the corners. I will probably keep this sample. At the moment (and according to the forecast also in the next days) it is raining cats and dogs. I will therfore postpone my further testing to next week. At least there is a real chance that I finally got a good sample.
p.40 #20 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Karl-Heinz, due to the bad weather I could not use my usual test subject where I can compare center focus and corner focus. The above images were focused at the corner, center focus was not possible.
.
