Fred Miranda wrote:
Sounds right to me Jannik. The 50/1.4 ZA's achilles heel is the mid-zone at infinity. There's a noticeable drop from center. Extreme edges are great starting at f/2 though.
I didn't test them directly yet but believe they will be similar at f/2.8, except for the mid-zone.
It's remarkable how well the 65/2 performs at macro AND infinity.
Yes, corners look quite good, I have to agree. The center of the 1.4/50 has got more contrast at f/2 than the 2/65 as well.
But I will definitely leave the 1.4/50 at home when it comes to landscape since I prefer the 65 for it's homogenity and mid frame performance.
You are right, the sharpness across the whole frame and! the LoCA-correction at macro and infinity are a marvel.. Something I didn't even expect to be possible at that size and price point at all. I don't know if everybody recognizes what an achievement by Cosina that is but at least some gearheads like us do
My landscape Kit looks like that now:
CV 5.6/12 III
Loxia 2.8/21
Sony 2.8/35 ZA (will be replaced as soon as a proper native alternative is on the market)
CV 2/65
and if tele is needed (not often here in the flat area though..) either the Sony 4/70-200 or the Contax 100-300
I am really happy how far we have come with the FE system when I look at the current options.
It's hard to believe it doesn't have FLE though...
UPDATE:
I just found the pre-release and Voigtlander mentions the lens has FLE:
"Sharp imaging performance is obtained from maximum aperture where you can enjoy blurring the background, and by utilizing a floating mechanism this lens delivers outstanding image quality for subjects from the minimum focusing distance of 31cm (reproduction ratio of 1:2) through to infinity."
OK, you fiends just made me cave. I didn't want to be stuck in a situation where I decide to order this lens, but it's backordered for six months while the manufacturer does another production run.
Ordered the 65 APO, the new Laowa 15/2 and the CV 10 hyperwide heliar.
Might as well get most of the remaining glass on my list in one fell swoop. If the Laowa checks out, I'll be selling the Zeiss 15/2.8 Canon mount, which will pay for about half of my order.
I just tried my 26mm tubes on it. It gets the lens to ~ 1:1 Macro.
Resolution seems to hold around center/mid area. Used the new Vello Deluxe tubes. (The Kenkos I ordered were very lose with lots of wobble with this lens).
The Vello was cheaper and solid. (although with interior flat paint instead of flocking material)
Weighs only 55 grams for both 10mm + 16mm tubes and of course I used them together for this shot.
This just hit my radar this week with Phillip's review (I've been busy/traveling). I can't in any way justify it right now (lot of expenses going on), but I think this would likely be the lens that's on my camera the most. In my native habitat that is currently the OM 90/2 and Loxia 50, though other 50s or 50ish lenses get swapped with the Loxia for smoother rendering when I want that. This seems like it would combine many of the qualities of these favorites. I tend to see a little long, usually prefer a 50 to a 35 and often lean toward 90. And I use macro lenses a lot, either the OM 90 or the OM 50/2 mostly these days. I am very tempted. I think I would have to sell something like the Loxia 50 if I got this, but I can sort of see that. Though one thing I love about the Loxia is the ability to keep it together in really high contrast/flare inducing situations, and this CV 65 doesn't seem like it quite has that going for it
I felt better today and took the 65mm out for a spin. It's rainy / overcast the whole day so nothing really exciting. I'm hopeful to catch a glimpse of USS Bonhomme Richard which was visiting Melbourne.
A7R2, F/5.6, 1/125s, ISO 100 - only processing was the keystone. I could not find CA anywhere in this shot, especially those sawtooth features at the top of the middle building. _DSC0669 copy by Kai O'Yang, on Flickr
A7R2, F/2, 1/800s, ISO 100. Focus was on the steel frame of the bridge. The bridge structure was sharp, also no CA. The background was a little blurred but still quite sharp. _DSC0666 copy by Kai O'Yang, on Flickr
A7R2, F/2, 1/250s, ISO100 - Focus on the performer's face, a little vignette at the corners. _DSC0671 copy by Kai O'Yang, on Flickr
How are you all finding bokeh balls stopped down a bit? In Phillip's review they seemed kind of nasty, but that seemed like a provoked worst-case scenario. They look a lot like the Loxia 50's. I'm guessing with the longer focal length and more macro use it would be a bigger problem than the Loxia 50.
I'm asking because I would probably have to sell the Loxia 50 to get this lens, so same situation, and like the loxia 50 I might use some other old 50s to get a smoother bokeh look than this or the Loxia might have in some situations. But also this lens would swap in for the OM 50/2 macro I use a lot. I'm assuming this lens would in general have much nicer bokeh than the 50/2 and be generally better all around. The 50/2 has an interesting bokeh ball look with its 6 bladed aperture. Usually they are distracting hexagons, and sometimes it's kind of a beautiful tiled mosaic look of the hexagons. The latter is pretty rare to work out nicely though. But I wonder if the clean hexagons might be better than the complex pointed shape that Phillip shows as "decagonal".
In general the bokeh reminds me of the Loxia 50 but of course with the slightly longer focal length and macro, which is good, in my eye. Maybe a bit smoother? I actually sold the Sony 55 in favor of keeping the Loxia 50 because I liked the Loxia's more detailed bokeh at least for landscapes. There is also a quality of the Loxia 50's bokeh that is helpful for landscapes but not always helpful when you want a lot of smooth blur. It seems to me the Loxia 50 gives about a stop more detail in slightly OOF areas than other 50s. I guess this would be hard to evaluate with the CV 65 since there aren't a lot of 65 lenses to compare directly. The CV 65 seems like a better bokeh lens than the Loxia 50 also because it is so good at f2 and wide apertures, while the Loxia 50 is best stopped down.
How are you all finding bokeh balls stopped down a bit? In Phillip's review they seemed kind of nasty, but that seemed like a provoked worst-case scenario. They look a lot like the Loxia 50's. I'm guessing with the longer focal length and more macro use it would be a bigger problem than the Loxia 50.
I'm asking because I would probably have to sell the Loxia 50 to get this lens, so same situation, and like the loxia 50 I might use some other old 50s to get a smoother bokeh look than this or the Loxia might have in some situations. But also this lens would swap in for the OM 50/2 macro I use a lot. I'm assuming this lens would in general have much nicer bokeh than the 50/2 and be generally better all around. The 50/2 has an interesting bokeh ball look with its 6 bladed aperture. Usually they are distracting hexagons, and sometimes it's kind of a beautiful tiled mosaic look of the hexagons. The latter is pretty rare to work out nicely though. But I wonder if the clean hexagons might be better than the complex pointed shape that Phillip shows as "decagonal".
In general the bokeh reminds me of the Loxia 50 but of course with the slightly longer focal length and macro, which is good, in my eye. Maybe a bit smoother? I actually sold the Sony 55 in favor of keeping the Loxia 50 because I liked the Loxia's more detailed bokeh at least for landscapes. There is also a quality of the Loxia 50's bokeh that is helpful for landscapes but not always helpful when you want a lot of smooth blur. It seems to me the Loxia 50 gives about a stop more detail in slightly OOF areas than other 50s. I guess this would be hard to evaluate with the CV 65 since there aren't a lot of 65 lenses to compare directly. The CV 65 seems like a better bokeh lens than the Loxia 50 also because it is so good at f2 and wide apertures, while the Loxia 50 is best stopped down....Show more →
OOF rendering is much smoother than Loxia 50/2's at mid-distance. It's also CA free. Bokeh balls don't remain rounded as you stop down due to the straight blade aperture shape so it's best wide open if you want them circular. Same can be said for Loxia, ZM and other VC lenses around this FL. So far my only negatives are slight onion rings on bokeh balls due to the aspheric element and weaker flare resistance due to optical design. (Not coating)
Since there has been some discussion of bokeh, I figured I would do a quick comparison. I needed a model who could hold really still. Joshua, eat your heart out. I used an assortment of lenses. All are wide open except the GM 85 which is at F2 to try to be semi-fair. See below for crops. My conclusion is that bokeh is not the CV 65's strong suit, but it is pretty good and certainly no worse than many and is better corrected than almost anything. See below for a general view and then a 100% crop to show CA in the out of focus metal edge. All images are unprocessed except to do "daylight" balance and I changed exposure on the Loxia 50 which was over exposed for some reason. All were taken from the same position so the Loxia 50 was cropped more than the CV65 etc.
Loxia 50 (bokeh not too good, but lens not at its best wide open with a lot of CA):
CV65 (well corrected tho not perfect and an improvement in bokeh):
Leica 75/2 apo (big improvement in bokeh tho worse in CA and lower global contrast):
Loxia 85 at F2.4):
GM 85 at F2 (there is a reason folks love this for portrait tho lot's of CA even down a stop):
For fun, Sony 100 STF (unrivaled bokeh tho not speed and quite well corrected):
Interesting test although all these lenses will do well at close distances. The Leica, Loxia, GM and STF were closer to the subject and that contributes to more blur. It's hard to be precise though.
I think the differences will be more noticeable at mid and longer distances.
From these samples, the CV 65 is the better corrected lens, followed by 100 STF, Loxia 85 and Leica 75 APO.
Loxia 50 and 85 GM being last to my eyes. (LoCA correction)
