p.9 #2 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
DavidBM wrote:
I do trust you!
My thought was that maybe the bad three couldn't get good corners because they were physically unable to focus far enough back -- which because of backwards field curvature was needed for the corners, even though the setting was fine for the centre. Easy to test. If true it would just involve recalibrating the focussing ring, which is a fun little task involving lots of tiny tools I always seem to have to do with Samyang lenses...
Field curvature is very well controlled with this lens. With Guy's copy, center and extreme corners are very close to the same plane of focus.
My advise is to get this lens and test for the extreme corners. It will be easy to spot the issue. With my copies, it's visible at any distance. A good copy of the CV 15 has some minimal astigmatism towards the edges but it's within normal levels.
p.9 #3 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
My hint is that it's not a focus ring miscalibration. It's something inside.
If you look at the E-mount crop (showing the strong astigmatism) you can see that the focus is actually dead on a the right section of the crop. (Only about 400 pixels away from the edge of the frame)
p.9 #8 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
This changes everything (well, maybe it changes something). I had always ruled out the 15III because the only copy I had seen in person had terrible corners (and actually was likely not as good across the field as some of these - not as good as the FE zoom)
But now I know about choppy....
Problem is Australian stores make returns a real hassle. I suppose I could just get 'em from Adorama, and swallow the $50 it'll cost to return each one; after all I'd pay an extra $150 for a lens that was that much better in the corners!!!
Does make me worry about my 10mm when it comes. That surely can't be great in the corners (the Canon 11-x zoom isn't)
But now I don't know how great I can expect, and whether a symmetrical copy is likely as good as they get!
p.9 #9 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
tsdevine wrote:
Man....the odds on getting a good one don't seem very high given your experience Fred.
I was also surprised and my bad luck made me wrongly conclude the lens didn't have good corners.
At least we all know how this lens should perform now. Thanks Guy!
Roger tests 20+ lenses and that makes sense now. We can't really say how a lens really performs testing only a couple copies. I learned a lesson here.
p.9 #10 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Your welcome Fred, glad it helped but not happy what you are going through. I have been down this road with the 35 1.4 FE. I'm so gun shy of buying a 5 th copy I can't tell ya. In the end it cost me money
p.9 #11 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
Well, there will be a bunch of E mount versions arriving tomorrow, mine included. I guess we'll know if it's variation, or some change in assembly that makes the "newer" copies all perform like your soft in the corners copies Fred.
p.9 #14 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
The cynical side of me thinks this is one reason Cosina does not publish MTFs for Voigtlander lenses.... It leaves individual lens owners somewhat in the dark in respect to a baseline level of expected performance, therefore each of us is more likely to accept a given lens's out of the box performance.
My impression about Voigtlander lenses has also been that they're somewhere between Samyang and Zeiss in respect to build quality and copy variation. The latest Voigtlander designs seem better and much more consistent in this regard, perhaps a benefit of their collaboration with Zeiss in building many of the Zeiss Z* lenses... but if you look at some of their older designs, the discussion happening here isn't anything new. For example, the 21/4 rangefinder lens is a rather old one and a case of copy variation lottery. It's possible to get a pretty good one, but requires testing multiple copies.
With the 15III it probably boils down to whether or not you can live with sub-par extreme corner performance most of the time as a tradeoff against other points in favor of the lens, such as its price, size, etc.
p.9 #17 · Official: Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III E-mount
rscheffler wrote:
The cynical side of me thinks this is one reason Cosina does not publish MTFs for Voigtlander lenses.... It leaves individual lens owners somewhat in the dark in respect to a baseline level of expected performance, therefore each of us is more likely to accept a given lens's out of the box performance.
My impression about Voigtlander lenses has also been that they're somewhere between Samyang and Zeiss in respect to build quality and copy variation. The latest Voigtlander designs seem better and much more consistent in this regard, perhaps a benefit of their collaboration with Zeiss in building many of the Zeiss Z* lenses... but if you look at some of their older designs, the discussion happening here isn't anything new. For example, the 21/4 rangefinder lens is a rather old one and a case of copy variation lottery. It's possible to get a pretty good one, but requires testing multiple copies.
With the 15III it probably boils down to whether or not you can live with sub-par extreme corner performance most of the time as a tradeoff against other points in favor of the lens, such as its price, size, etc....Show more →
Ron,
Yesterday I would agree with you but today I totally changed my mind about this lens. It took me 4 copies to see how well this lens can perform. I've been testing Guy's lens today and the results surprised me.
His lens has high resolution and contrast from center to the very corners even wide open (f/4.5).
Sweet-spot is really f/5.6 with a bump in micro-contrast throughout the entire frame. There is no detectable field curvature and that is really surprising for such wide angle lens.
The other 3 copies I tested (Including the new E-mount) were terrible at the very corners. So much astigmatism and low contrast. I was always vocal about this. But if Guy's lens is representative of how this lens really performs, I definitely have been testing defective lenses until now. It's perplexing that my bad copies are centered. This is something I have not seeing before. Either there is copy variation or I'm very unlucky.
It competes neck to neck with my Distagon 15/2.8 at f/5.6 and f/8.
There are some issues though. High vignetting even at f/5.6. Lateral CA is also an issue at the corners and stopping down does not help at all. I consider vignetting and CA something minor though as it can be fixed with LR's custom profile for it but it's a negative for sure.
There are so many positives. Incredible resolution center to corner even wide open. Strong flare resistance and beautiful sunstar (subjective). The sunstar is similar to the Loxias and I particularly love it. It is strong with a nice shape even at f/8. Gotta love the 10-blade aperture.
I will post more crops tonight or tomorrow and update this thread. I got some better light here in San Clemente. This lens is a must buy.
Now, I have not seen a good E-mount version yet. The one I received is definitely a lemon and it's going back. I hope there are good copies out there because I want one!
