It does look nice, and I like Voigtlander rendering overall. Not something I'm considering, though, since I'm perfectly satisfied with my 50/2 and 100/2 ZE-mount makro-planars, and I don't care whether they're native mount.
I received a copy of the lens fairly quickly from B&H and am excited to try it out. I want to use it for traditional macro and also to try out film scanning. I am still getting used to it; I took it on a hike in Ranier National Park and have a couple pictures to share.
I'd love to see some examples of this lenses bokeh (behind the subject, or both in front and behind the subject). Sharpness and chromatic correction seem excellent but not sure about bokeh.
I put 6 photos here (all taken with A9 + 65/2 wide open) that I think show the bokeh qualities to some extent (3 photos were taken from the album I shared earlier and 3 are new):
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I put 6 photos here (all taken with A9 + 65/2 wide open) that I think show the bokeh qualities to some extent (3 photos were taken from the album I shared earlier and 3 are new):
3 new ones are straight (fine) JPEGs from Camera and 3 were converted from RAW using C1 Pro with default settings.
Personally I think this lens has very appealing bokeh.
Thanks.
I found this link ( https://store-ngmd3ci.mybigcommerce.com/content/V65F2-E-003_.jpg which can be zoomed into by clicking on the picture) which seems to show a overcorrected SA, where the bokeh is smooth in front of the plane of focus and harsh behind. Of course the distance from the subject matters so I suspect the bokeh will generally be acceptable but I think it has a bias towards being a little harsh behind the subject.
I think that's a fair assessment, @JohnJ, but, in my experience, my sharpest, best corrected lenses all tend toward somewhat harsh bokeh, particularly wide open. I think it goes hand-in-hand with high contrast across the frame.
My only complaint about the build is that the tension on the focus action could be a little tighter. Otherwise, it's easy to love. The bulk of it is baffling and helicoid, so the weighty elements don't extend far enough from the mount to make it feel front heavy. Consequently, it's very easy to use handheld at MFD.
Critical tests come this weekend, but playing around with it for the past couple of days has been fun. I'm not sure I'd compare it to the Otus 55, which would be easy to do if you just considered resolution at infinity, but you'd have to ignore all the little hair-splitting differences that favor the Zeiss. I see it as the MP 50/2 perfected.
What do you guys think about the flare resistance? This morning I put it into a very demanding scenario and I wasn't impressed. First aspect were I wasn't impressed by this awesome lens.
I haven't tested shooting against the sun yet since we've had very coudy and rainy weather all August in Tokyo, hardly any sunshine. I haven't noticed any problems with flare resistance in my shooting scenarios so far though. I'm using the included hood as well.
Will try shooting against the sun when the sun comes out, looks like in 4-5 days we are expecting to see some sunshine here finally...
Phillip Reeve wrote:
What do you guys think about the flare resistance? This morning I put it into a very demanding scenario and I wasn't impressed. First aspect were I wasn't impressed by this awesome lens.
Well, I have not tested this until just now, but initially does not seem too bad to me. Upon seeing your result, I went to the back porch and tried to make it flare. I suspect your demanding scene is a worst case scenario.
Worst I got (admittedly not a thorough test) was this (F8):
Yours was at F2.5 Here is one at F2.8:
Same shot at F11:
Another at F2.5 with sun closer to the center of the frame:
That all looks pretty normal to me. Pointing any lens into the sun will do weird stuff. It's expected
Actually I like those weird effects and one should remember that this is ART so use it creatively in your images. I actually like the worst one posted. Maybe I'm weird. Lol
Phillips shot the only thing I don't like is that last circle on the right, if he moved slightly it may not be there and it would look like a nice creative shot. I say use these effects to your advantage.
Btw I think the magenta, green color are because it is a APO lens. I think and could be wrong but APO lenses are designed around color separation. I might be using the wrong terms here. But I think that's the design with APO glass.
Luvwine wrote:
Well, I have not tested this until just now, but initially does not seem too bad to me. Upon seeing your result, I went to the back porch and tried to make it flare. I suspect your demanding scene is a worst case scenario.
Worst I got (admittedly not a thorough test) was this (F8):
1) field curvature
There isn't any. My centering test showed sharp corners and the rest of the image wasn't sharp. My explanation for that is that because of the vignetting DOF is deeper in the corners and I wasn't to careful when I focused the corners so while they were reasonably sharp and just in the focal plane the center wasn't.
Vignetting is quite high at 2 stops wide open.
2) sharpness
Now that I am sure in my target: Just wow. I haven't seen something similar before. The Makro Planar 2/100 came close but it had an annoying amount of CA.
3) flare resistance
I performed another test under less demanding conditions and I think that a FE 1.8/55 would have performed better here. If someone could compare them directly that would be great though. I would still call it an average performance. It only becomes an issue if you really push the lens but I like to do that and find it a bit limiting.
Another observation: I compared it to the G 2.8/90 at 1:2.
While the Voigtlander has clearly superior CA control die Sony has a much smoother transition zone. I see no significant difference in sharpness. At f/2 the CV is a tad softer but still very good.
1) field curvature
There isn't any. My centering test showed sharp corners and the rest of the image wasn't sharp. My explanation for that is that because of the vignetting DOF is deeper in the corners and I wasn't to careful when I focused the corners so while they were reasonably sharp and just in the focal plane the center wasn't.
2) sharpness
Now that I am sure in my target: Just wow. I haven't seen something similar before. The Makro Planar 2/100 came close but it had an annoying amount of CA.
3) flare resistance
I performed another test under less demanding conditions and I think that a FE 1.8/55 would have performed better here. If someone could compare them directly that would be great though. I would still call it an average performance. It only becomes an issue if you really push the lens but I like to do that and find it a bit limiting. https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4441/35851219304_da057de917_b.jpg
I did not want to be contrary, but my initial testing did not reveal any field curvature. Glad to see you addressed that. It is as sharp as any lens I own from corner to corner at large apertures--certainly sharper than the Leica 75/2 and Loxia 50/2 at large apertures and about the same as the Loxia 85/2.4 I think tho with a slightly different drawing style. Do you have the sense that sharpness improves much as it stops down? I think I see some improvement through F4 but F4 and F5.6 seem about the same to me. I do see diffraction at F11affecting the image.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Another observation: I compared it to the G 2.8/90 at 1:2.
While the Voigtlander has clearly superior CA control die Sony has a much smoother transition zone. I see no significant difference in sharpness. At f/2 the CV is a tad softer but still very good.
Depth of field is considerably different due to focal length. Remarkable that you find the CA better in the CV as from testing I have seen, the 90 Macro is better corrected for CA at macro distances than the Leica 100 apo and the Zeiss 100 MP. This is indeed a remarkable optic. Thanks for your testing. You are doing an excellent job evaluating the lens with pleasing images. Seems like the lens is great in all areas except flare control, which is average, and bokeh, which is merely very good most of the time. Given that all lenses are compromises, this one has very few (size and weight for its focal length are two more, I guess).
Luvwine wrote:
I did not want to be contrary, but my initial testing did not reveal any field curvature. Glad to see you addressed that. It is as sharp as any lens I own from corner to corner at large apertures--certainly sharper than the Leica 75/2 and Loxia 50/2 at large apertures and about the same as the Loxia 85/2.4 I think tho with a slightly different drawing style. Do you have the sense that sharpness improves much as it stops down? I think I see some improvement through F4 but F4 and F5.6 seem about the same to me. I do see diffraction at F11affecting the image. ...Show more →
If you have solid evidence which speaks against any of my findings please show it, I do my best to avoid them but as anyone I make mistakes
If I pixelpeep I see small improvements in microcontrast from f/2 to f/2.8 and to f/4 but those are really small. Guess on the a7rii they would be a bit more noticeable.
Luvwine wrote:
Depth of field is considerably different due to focal length. Remarkable that you find the CA better in the CV as from testing I have seen, the 90 Macro is better corrected for CA at macro distances than the Leica 100 apo and the Zeiss 100 MP. This is indeed a remarkable optic. Thanks for your testing. You are doing an excellent job evaluating the lens with pleasing images. Seems like the lens is great in all areas except flare control, which is average, and bokeh, which is merely very good most of the time. Given that all lenses are compromises, this one has very few (size and weight for its focal length are two more, I guess)....Show more →
DOF does not depend on focal length (unless object-distance is the same). I just have a tripod and didn't spend much time on the comparison so to refocus I had to move the tripod which results in a different perspective.
I am not at all surprised that the Sony has less CA than the Zeiss but I am a bit surprised, that it outperformed the Leica in this aspect.
I share your conclusion. I will look a bit closer at the bokeh but I need to wait for some lenses to compare it to so that will take some time.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Another observation: I compared it to the G 2.8/90 at 1:2.
While the Voigtlander has clearly superior CA control die Sony has a much smoother transition zone. ...
Great test, Phillip! Regarding LCA, I'm interested to see how the C/V and other macros perform at different distances, wide open. In particular, a lens can be perfectly free of axial color in the focal plane, but have nasty color fringing in the defocussed area. Bokeh CA is the next performance frontier, and is (another) optical property overlooked by MTF graphs.
rico wrote:
Great test, Phillip! Regarding LCA, I'm interested to see how the C/V and other macros perform at different distances, wide open. In particular, a lens can be perfectly free of axial color in the focal plane, but have nasty color fringing in the defocussed area. Bokeh CA is the next performance frontier, and is (another) optical property overlooked by MTF graphs.
I have not seen any color fringing in out of focus water droplets. It really seems to be an optic extremely well corrected for CA.
. As guy said in the end you can get any lens to flare when contrast is high enough any my scenario had immense contrast.
