Phillip Reeve wrote:
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.
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. ...Show more →
Depth of field formula uses I think focal length, aperture, and distance to subject. In macro testing with a lens that extends when focusing (which changes magnification because of change in distance) being exact is difficult! I was not trying to be critical, just making an observation. Also, while I doubted your comments on field curvature, I did not have my initial files with a distant city-scape and thus was not confident enough to challenge your comments as I thought perhaps I had missed the field curvature you found.
Regarding the Leica 100 apo, I have long considered buying that lens. Jim Kasson did some testing that shows at macro distances, the Sony seems better corrected than the Leica. I suspect the Leica might be better at infinity, but that is just a hunch. Both are fine lenses, of course. Here is the link to the test I am referencing. Jim also posts here and on DPreview. http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-leica-r-1002-8-apo-macro/
Luvwine wrote:
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.
Yes, those droplet shots at medium distance were very impressive. My Sony 100 STF is a razor at all distances, but does exhibit some defocus fringing: a great lens, but not perfect.
rico wrote:
Yes, those droplet shots at medium distance were very impressive. My Sony 100 STF is a razor at all distances, but does exhibit some defocus fringing: a great lens, but not perfect.
I have the STF as well. It is a great lens--sharp at infinity will ideal bokeh tho less of it than one would expect. I want to compare the Voigtlander and the Sony for flowers as I bet they both will do well. I have tubes and got a close up lens for the Sony. The Sony is also great at infinity-sharp across the board. No lens is perfect. Sony users are really starting to be spoiled with so many excellent lenses from which to choose.
Luvwine wrote:
Depth of field formula uses I think focal length, aperture, and distance to subject. In macro testing with a lens that extends when focusing (which changes magnification because of change in distance) being exact is difficult! I was not trying to be critical, just making an observation.
I did not understand it as criticism but since both lenses were set to the same 1:2 magnification and aperture DOF should be more or less the same:
"Generally, when two lenses are compared at the same image magnification and F-number one must discern between two cases. When for both lenses the object distance is much smaller than the hyperfocal distance, the depths of field are essentially the same." http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html]Source[/url] (btw: does anyone know why Toothwalker's site is offline?)
As far as Bokeh given I have the Batis 135 as well. I really think APO lenses are really not designed to be great Bokeh lenses as they are made for extreme sharpness in the design. I don't know the technology behndr this but it seems apparent they are not going to be like a GM 85 1.4 for instance. We all have noticed this when we compared the Batis 135 to the Sigma 135 for instance. I think this is the case here. For myself I'm Kay with the look of these APOs as for a macro lens like this you want sharp more than anything else.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I did not understand it as criticism but since both lenses were set to the same 1:2 magnification and aperture DOF should be more or less the same:
"Generally, when two lenses are compared at the same image magnification and F-number one must discern between two cases. When for both lenses the object distance is much smaller than the hyperfocal distance, the depths of field are essentially the same." http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html]Source[/url] (btw: does anyone know why Toothwalker's site is offline?)
Makes sense, but then if magnification was the same, I don't know why depth of field was different in your example. One of life's little mysteries I guess. 😀
Actually this lens sets the new standard for fast macro lenses. It is really exciting to have that lens in the FE-lineup and I admire Voigtländer for their courage to introduce a lens with that focal length and for putting the 10 blade aperture in a (universal) macro lens. Really all I have dreamed of.
I have bought that lens and am waiting for the shipping.
GMPhotography wrote:
As far as Bokeh given I have the Batis 135 as well. I really think APO lenses are really not designed to be great Bokeh lenses as they are made for extreme sharpness in the design....
I certainly don't agree that they are made for 'extreme sharpness' although this may happen as a consequence of a higher level of (colour) correction, often using more elements in the design.
TBH, I think people read too much into the 'APO' designation on lenses which is often used with gay abandon and sometimes means very little. The apo designation only refers to three colours focusing in the same location at the plane of focus, nothing else. People seem to read way more into it than that. It may have implications for sharpness across the plane of focus, by virtue of better correction, but certainly not bokeh or anything outside the plane of focus.
I read "APO" from German manufacturers pretty much the same way I read Sony's "GM", Canon's "L" or Nikon's "ED". That is, "They're some unquantified amount better corrected at wider apertures and throughout their focus range, so give us a lot more money." Sometimes it's worth it, sometimes not.
In some ways, given Cosina's previous use of the APO-Lanthar label, I actually think they should've adopted a new label to differentiate it from those lenses. So far as resolution and close-focusing correction, it's playing in an entirely different league.
freaklikeme wrote:
I read "APO" from German manufacturers pretty much the same way I read Sony's "GM", Canon's "L" or Nikon's "ED". That is, "They're some unquantified amount better corrected at wider apertures and throughout their focus range, so give us a lot more money." Sometimes it's worth it, sometimes not.
In some ways, given Cosina's previous use of the APO-Lanthar label, I actually think they should've adopted a new label to differentiate it from those lenses. So far as resolution and close-focusing correction, it's playing in an entirely different league.
I think APO is not a bad label, as you said it signals "pro" quality like CaNikOny's labels. Sure APO itself means not that much but their 2.5/125 and 4/180 carried it and that is not a bad heritage. The 3.5/90 seems to be solid but nothing exceptional.
Just look at Sony's mess with G, GM and ZA labels, I think one label ist a better solution.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I think APO is not a bad label, as you said it signals "pro" quality like CaNikOny's labels. Sure APO itself means not that much but their 2.5/125 and 4/180 carried it and that is not a bad heritage. The 3.5/90 seems to be solid but nothing exceptional.
Just look at Sony's mess with G, GM and ZA labels, I think one label ist a better solution.
I was half-kidding about the new label, but I do believe it distinguishes itself nicely compared to the prior APO-Lanthars. On a stock a7rII, anyway. The long edges suffer with the Kolari UT, enough that it loses its wow-factor at wide apertures, and never completely catches up stopped down. The brilliant center resolution is still there, though.
So, it's not love for me, but I do admire what they accomplished with this lens.
Seems this lens is pretty well received and useful not only at MFD. To those of you who have already done some infinity testing: Is it up there with or even better than the 55 1.8, the Loxia 50 and the 50 1.4 in terms of resolution for landscapes?
Chris_88 wrote:
Seems this lens is pretty well received and useful not only at MFD. To those of you who have already done some infinity testing: Is it up there with or even better than the 55 1.8, the Loxia 50 and the 50 1.4 in terms of resolution for landscapes?
I compared it against Loxia 50, Leica 75, and Loxia 85. Only one that competes at large apertures with the new Voigtlander for resolution and CA correction is Loxia 85. Stopped down, results are closer, but Voigtlander is a great and versatile lens. Here is where I put up some of my own comparisons: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1504525
Luvwine wrote:
I compared it against Loxia 50, Leica 75, and Loxia 85. Only one that competes at large apertures with the new Voigtlander for resolution and CA correction is Loxia 85. Stopped down, results are closer, but Voigtlander is a great and versatile lens. Here is where I put up some of my own comparisons: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1504525
Thanks, Stephen. I just took a closer look at your comparison. I guess, the old Planar zm design is starting to show its age when pitted against state of the art designs like the Loxia 85 and this CV.
Chris_88 wrote:
Thanks, Stephen. I just took a closer look at your comparison. I guess, the old Planar zm design is starting to show its age when pitted against state of the art designs like the Loxia 85 and this CV.
In fairness I still love the drawing style of the Loxia 50 and it performs superbly stopped down to F5.6.
The CV is at its sharpest across the frame at 5.6 (f/4 yields the sharpest center) and I suspect that most lenses would be. It would be splitting hair then I say. But at WO, in both the color correction and sharpness, I don't think any lens would rival the CV at similar focal length and price range. Leica 50 APO has more CA (might be sharper but I don't have my 50 APO anymore to do direct comparison) than this one. Otus might have a similar performance.
hiepphotog wrote:
The CV is at its sharpest across the frame at 5.6 (f/4 yields the sharpest center) and I suspect that most lenses would be. It would be splitting hair then I say. But at WO, in both the color correction and sharpness, I don't think any lens would rival the CV at similar focal length and price range. Leica 50 APO has more CA (might be sharper but I don't have my 50 APO anymore to do direct comparison) than this one. Otus might have a similar performance.
Agreed on all counts. The Loxia 85 is the closest I have at a similar focal length. It would be splitting hairs between them and the Loxia 85 is also very well corrected for CA. I would buy one or the other based upon focal length, drawing style, versatility (CV wins here due to macro) and aperture differences but not sharpness. It is remarkable to me that a moderately priced lens marketed as a macro lens (and it does do very well at macro distances) is competing with the very best lenses made and in some cases beating them even at landscape distances.
Phillip Reeve demonstrated that it is better corrected for CA at macro distances than the Sony 90 macro (which, according to Jim Kasson's blog seems a bit better corrected than the Leica R 100 Apo and the Zeiss 100 MP). This really seems to be a remarkable effort all round. Sure, it would be nice if it were a 1:1 macro, but no lens can do everything. This one does most things as well or better than any lens I know. The bokeh is not up to the GM 85 or GM 100 STF, of course, but it is fine. Phillip Reeve has demonstrated that the lens has only average flare resistance, but these are picking nits. It is a great lens.
