Luvwine wrote:
I shot some flower pics with tubes and did not notice a problem, of course, the subjects were not Edge to edge. I am not saying you are incorrect, just that it did not cause me difficulties i noticed in my limited use.
Don't you think your dime shot showed it clearly? Or was that an uneven surface?
freaklikeme wrote:
Don't you think your dime shot showed it clearly? Or was that an uneven surface?
Well, I looked at that pic and the lower right corner of the desk surface in the pic is not level as it has a lip down toward the edge. I also cannot swear the camera was perfectly level with the desk as I was only concerned with getting the dime in focus to show magnification. Having said this, the corners are weak and that my well be caused by FC. Still, often when going for magnification of a small subject, some FC won't matter. I used I think a 16mm tube for this shot: http://www.pbase.com/luvwine/image/166045812 And I don't think it hurts anything. My original point is that the CV is more versatile than the Loxia 85 and I think it is basically correct. I own both and love the Loxia. I also am a huge fan of my Leica R 180 apo elmarit, so I cannot quarrel with your taste in glass! 😊
To be fair to the Rodie, the a7rII has a smaller pixel pitch than that for which it was designed. It's still the king for a 40mp 33x44 sensor and has enough IC to make a nice normal PC lens for my Aptus 75. It also plays better with the Kolari mod, so, in my mind, it's the clear winner.
Luvwine wrote:
Well, I looked at that pic and the lower right corner of the desk surface in the pic is not level as it has a lip down toward the edge. I also cannot swear the camera was perfectly level with the desk as I was only concerned with getting the dime in focus to show magnification. Having said this, the corners are weak and that my well be caused by FC. Still, often when going for magnification of a small subject, some FC won't matter. I used I think a 16mm tube for this shot: http://www.pbase.com/luvwine/image/166045812 And I don't think it hurts anything. My original point is that the CV is more versatile than the Loxia 85 and I think it is basically correct. I own both and love the Loxia. I also am a huge fan of my Leica R 180 apo elmarit, so I cannot quarrel with your taste in glass! 😊 ...Show more →
Yeah, I should probably qualify "horrendous". I used postage stamps when I was testing it, and for flat surface reproduction, I think it would bother anyone. For objects with greater depth, it wouldn't be as noticeable.
And I agree with your assessment regarding the Loxia, but I do think it makes a better portrait lens.
freaklikeme wrote:
Yeah, I should probably qualify "horrendous". I used postage stamps when I was testing it, and for flat surface reproduction, I think it would bother anyone. For objects with greater depth, it wouldn't be as noticeable.
And I agree with your assessment regarding the Loxia, but I do think it makes a better portrait lens.
Sounds right. Not arguing, but curious, are you using an UT Kolari modded A7RII for testing? If so, would that exacerbate the FC versus a stock camera?
Re: Loxia 85, agreed. I too like the focal length better for portraiture than the CV 65. I like the GM 85 and 100 STF better too, but the Voigtlander will do in a pinch. Having lower native contrast than the Loxia is also nice for portraits (but does not alter or overcome the focal length advantage of 85 over 65).
Fred Miranda wrote:
Does it have lower contrast than the Loxia 50/2 at around f/5.6? I wish Voigtlander would start posting MTF graphs...
Agreed on the MTF graphs. Here are a few test shots I took where the light was similar (I think) and where both pics are shot at F5.6 with NO post processing other than lightroom import and changed color temp to "daylight" for both: Let me know if you want crops (Loxia then Voigtlander all at F5.6):
I have more if you want cityscapes or waterfalls or what have you. To me, the Loxia has a bit more contrast pre-processing and has a bit more 3D effect. Sharpness, color correction are different stories--especially at wider apertures. Tell me if you agree.
Edit: Two more both at F5.6 and same exposure (1/125):
Luvwine wrote:
Sounds right. Not arguing, but curious, are you using an UT Kolari modded A7RII for testing? If so, would that exacerbate the FC versus a stock camera?
It is worse on the UT, but I have both stock and modded, so all of the tests were with both cameras. I was nervous about the mod, so I picked up a second body during the spring sale. I planned to sell the unmodded once I was satisfied nothing critical to me was negatively impacted, but then I got curious about other lenses, and the 100-400 looked promising, as did this lens. After having spent time with both those lenses and few other rentals, I have this strong and foreign feeling of contentment with my UT kit. I can forgive both the Rodie and Cron for not being as strong objective performers as the CV, mostly because they're not so far off that I'll feel the impact and, put together, they take up less space in my bag.
This lens although a shorter focal length seems to be a true successor to the 125 f/2.5 APO macro. Everything about it reminds me of that lens except the focal length.
Jannik Peters wrote:
Three more samples. The first one was captured at f/2 and shows once more the crazy LoCA correction.
Second shows that is possible to combine bokeh and sun star at f/8
Third one is f/2 as well.
Great samples Jannik. It looks like you are having fun with your new lens!
I really like the rendering. Way better than the Loxia 50's harshness!
Do you think the CV 65/2 lacks the Zeiss contrast or it's more in line with the Voigtlander look? Contrast looks very high on your shots. Did you bump it in post?
Steve Spencer wrote:
This lens although a shorter focal length seems to be a true successor to the 125 f/2.5 APO macro. Everything about it reminds me of that lens except the focal length.
Was the 125 as flare-sensitive, Steve? I couldn't remember and I don't have any shots with it pointed at a bright light source.
That was another lens well corrected for spherochromatism. I think that's part of the reason it was preferred over the Leica and Zeiss 100 macros, and now their 60's have this with which to compete.
The mighty little CV 1.7/35 is actually more flare resistant than either the ZM 1.4/35 or Loxia 2/35 so flare resistance is not a general issue of CV lenses.
And with the CV65 it is far from bad either, the Lox50 for example does not perform any better. It is just that it beats the high end competition in almost any aspect but some lenses outperform it in this aspect.
freaklikeme wrote:
Was the 125 as flare-sensitive, Steve? I couldn't remember and I don't have any shots with it pointed at a bright light source.
That was another lens well corrected for spherochromatism. I think that's part of the reason it was preferred over the Leica and Zeiss 100 macros, and now their 60's have this with which to compete.
I was never able to get a copy of the 125, so I can't really say. I wanted the lens badly at one point, but could never find one when I had the money to spend on it. I do hope to be able to try out this 65 f/2 at some point, however.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Great samples Jannik. It looks like you are having fun with your new lens!
Thank you, Fred! I'm definitely having fun, it's really exciting to play around with that lens. I'm really picky when it comes to LoCA, so this lens is heaven to me
Fred Miranda wrote:
I really like the rendering. Way better than the Loxia 50's harshness!
Do you think the CV 65/2 lacks the Zeiss contrast or it's more in line with the Voigtlander look? Contrast looks very high on your shots. Did you bump it in post?
Yes, way better than the Loxia 2/50. The Loxia is mainly a landscape lens and starts to shine at f/5.6. I think the CV 2/65 eats it for breakfast across the frame at brighter stops. The bokeh of the Loxia 2/50 can be very harsh and the spherical aberrations towards the edges are annoying.
The CV 2/65 has got high contrast, but my images were of course post-processed a little towards contrast. (whites bumped a little up, blacks pulled a little down if needed, saturation usually untouched).
