rico wrote:
I don't understand the buzz regarding this C/V macro: hefty, manual focus, 1:2. My contenders range from the Yashica 55/2.8 ML macro for 1:2, the CZ SP60/2.8 C/Y for 1:1, and the Sony 100 GM with attached Canon 500D for about 1:1.25 and STF/AF/OSS. Even the Sony 50/2.8 FE macro seems to be a nice option. The C/V fast aperture may help as a general-purpose prime but the weight doesn't. (Insert head-scratching emoji here.)
For myself I can add the Sony 90/2.8 G macro, which is very well corrected wrt. axial CA, so I will have to do a whole lot of justifying to get the Voigtländer 65/2. As I said earlier, the competition in well corrected lenses has got harder, much more so than when Cosina made the 125/2.5 Macro Apo Lanthar about 15 years ago.
CV had their chance at the big time. Too late to the party with a weird Harold lens few now want, excellent short macros are a dime a dozen. In a time of proliferation of fine optics, the timing of lens releases is far more important than anyone wants to admit.
Many makers have been very risk-averse about developing product for the Sony a7 series cameras, the series is approaching four years old. Now the open flood gates force the johnny come latelys to compete with well-established lines; many will fall by the wayside.
bjornthun wrote:
For myself I can add the Sony 90/2.8 G macro, which is very well corrected wrt. axial CA, so I will have to do a whole lot of justifying to get the Voigtländer 65/2. As I said earlier, the competition in well corrected lenses has got harder, much more so than when Cosina made the 125/2.5 Macro Apo Lanthar about 15 years ago.
I don't understand why CV didn't leverage the cachet of the Macro-Apo-Lanthar 125/2.5 by releasing an updated version of that lens for E-mount.
genji wrote:
I don't understand why CV didn't leverage the cachet of the Macro-Apo-Lanthar 125/2.5 by releasing an updated version of that lens for E-mount.
I wonder if they are trying to create a lens that is so technically amazing that it creates some kind of halo. I'm thinking of the Coastal Optics 4/60 here, which is colour corrected way into the IR and UV. 60mm is, some tell me, an easy focal length to go for if that kind of quasi perfection is what you are going for.
How many people will actually buy it, I don't know.....
To the best of my knowledge, this Voigtländer is the first native MF macro lens for the Sony system. It comes from people who have demonstrated that they know how to design and produce great lenses in that style. It may not be a huge target market segment, but it is a legitimate one. Now I understand that this is not necessarily everyone's choice, but I find the dismissiveness with which it is being met unwarranted. Every owner into the A7 system should welcome increased choice and options
Cosina makes two things for the Voigtlander brand; specialty lenses and tier two and three RF gear. The 15 and 35/1.7 are the closest they come to making broad-appeal lenses, and even there, we're stretching that label. So, if you're not interested in what they're producing, it probably shouldn't come as a surprise.
Personally, I am interested. I like the focal length and won't find the weight and size bothersome if it lives up to its performance promise. I have questions related to the performance regarding spherochromatic issues, bokeh (how bad are the onion rings?), resolution over distance and, most critical to me, performance lost on a Kolari-modded camera. I'll answer those questions with a rental and, assuming the answers are positive and it's a good copy, I'll buy it, thereby avoiding the CV good-copy lottery. It's a lens that has the potential of replacing my frankenlensed Rodenstock HR 60/4 and Summicron 75 which, to me, is worth checking out.
And @philip_pj, late to the party? What about the UWA trio in e-mount, not to mention their VM-to-E helicoid adapter and the tiny little 40/2.8 that turns it into the smallest lens dedicated to the system? And they've got the 40/1.2 and 35/1.4 coming. They've been in it and they're sticking with us, weird Harold lenses and all.
Well, QC fails kills off interest fast, so happy to be a CV party pooper; I remember when they were champs. They have to earn their place back after a stint in second grade, lol. Agree we really need more 70-75mm lenses, and I wish them well for when their next go at Sony-specific lenses see the light of day. First one to make something as good as a Milvus 35/1.4 in the right proportions in native mount gets my vote. Inertia seems to run deep in lens manufacturer management, it's like turning around the Queen Mary.
The Australian Voigtlander distributor, Mainline Photographics, has just announced that the Macro Apo-Lanthar 65/2 will be available from August 3rd for AUD1295.00 (~USD1032, EUR883, 789GBP) with a free 67mm Heliopan Clear filter, a two year warranty, and (most unusually for Australian vendors) a 14-day return period.
I agree wholeheartedly about the QC issues. Even more so as they don't seem to plague the Cosina-made Zeiss lenses, which means "they know how to do it right", so they could do the same for the CV range.
Agreed also with the desirability of a good 70-75mm native E-mount lens.
But that doesn't negate my point that the present APO-Macro is a contribution to the E-system.
Do we know of a history of poor QC for cv? Yes there was/is the 15mm debacle, but other than that I can't recall big problems. Of course the lack of after sales service is another issue...
The 15's had problems since vI, so the latest issues are just the same story, different verse. Personally, I had so many problems getting a decent 35/1.4 SC from them, I gave up and went to the 40, and then gave up completely. It was such a miserable experience, I tend to forget the 35/1.2 vII, LTM 90/3.5, and PK 180/4 that were all excellent, probably because they were purchased used from people who had thoroughly tested them. it's also ancient history, but it made a lasting impression.
philber wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly about the QC issues. Even more so as they don't seem to plague the Cosina-made Zeiss lenses, which means "they know how to do it right", so they could do the same for the CV range.
I am not so sure about that. Centering of my Zeiss 35mm 1.4 was far from great and needed to be fixed.
Apart from that I have the feeling Leica users rarely check their gear for defects, as many of them rarely use it..
I can tell you, friends tell me that Leica lenses/cameras need to be adjusted more than once for rangefinder calibration if you intentd to use fast lenses wide open.
philber wrote:
I can tell you, friends tell me that Leica lenses/cameras need to be adjusted more than once for rangefinder calibration if you intentd to use fast lenses wide open.
Bastian used it on his a7rii and it improved a lot after a visit to Oberkochen. Jannik had to send his Loxia 2.8/21 there twice before it worked as it should.
I suffered from a decentered CV 1.7/35 myself but I don't think we have sufficient data to say that CV quality control is good or bad relative to other manufacturers. We have sufficient data to say that it was/is really bad for the new 4.5/15.
By my count, I must have bought at least 17 Zeiss-made-by-Cosina lenses (ZE, ZF.2, ZM), and didn't find fault with one. That must mean that I am not as demanding as others. And it must say really ugly things about Sony-Zeiss lenses, of which I returned 3 out of 4.
philber wrote:
By my count, I must have bought at least 17 Zeiss-made-by-Cosina lenses (ZE, ZF.2, ZM), and didn't find fault with one. That must mean that I am not as demanding as others. And it must say really ugly things about Sony-Zeiss lenses, of which I returned 3 out of 4.
Well we have enough data from lensrentals like this to say that Zeiss lenses in general have less variance than most other company's lenses but of course it also depends on the lens, some Zeiss lenses have higher variance than others and you are not safe from a decentered lens when you buy a Zeiss. So your own experience illustrates those findings.
And it is the same with Sony where we know from lensrentals data that some (but certainly not all) of their lenses have above average variance.
We don't have data of such quality for Cosina's Voigtländer lenses and individual experience is not a good indicator unless the evidence is really strong like with the 15mm. So my point was that it is quite possible that their lenses show relatively high variance but that is speculation and it should be handled as such.
BastianK wrote:
I am not so sure about that. Centering of my Zeiss 35mm 1.4 was far from great and needed to be fixed.
Apart from that I have the feeling Leica users rarely check their gear for defects, as many of them rarely use it..
I wonder if I am the only reader who is amazed by the (so far) eight pages of comment about the supposed qualities of a lens about which there have been no proper reviews and of which none of us have had hands-on experience ... and much of which has been negative.
Some have even called into question the capacity of Cosina to produce a high quality lens in their own Voigtlander name despite the generally acknowledged legendary status of the 125 and the excellent 180. Many of their Leica mount lenses are very good indeed and a couple come within close distance of the comparable spec Leica lenses themselves at a fraction of the price.
There also appears to be a deep disregard for practical commercial practice. Manufacturers commonly produce goods to sell at different price levels by distinguishing quality and specifications to meet those different cost/price points. Also manufacturers who produce for larger companies are generally restricted by the necessary agreements and contractual limitations from direct competition with the products of the larger company.
Specifically and personally the well constructed metal bodied Voigtlander M mount series have served me very well over many years (whilst not matching my Leica lenses) and whilst I would love a new version
125 I am very happy with my 'old' one with adapters for both Leica and Sony cameras.
I shall be interested to assess the new 65/2 when there is evidence about it's performance and if the indications are positive will likely buy one and test for myself.
P.S. As for Bastian's comment about Leica shooters - it does him no credit, is far below the usual standards of the FM community and and is not worth further comment.
jarek0423 wrote:
Wow, what a ridiculous and ignorant comment...
---------------------------------------------
krug wrote:
I wonder if I am the only reader who is amazed by the (so far) eight pages of comment about the supposed qualities of a lens about which there have been no proper reviews and of which none of us have had hands-on experience ... and much of which has been negative.
Some have even called into question the capacity of Cosina to produce a high quality lens in their own Voigtlander name despite the generally acknowledged legendary status of the 125 and the excellent 180. Many of their Leica mount lenses are very good indeed and a couple come within close distance of the comparable spec Leica lenses themselves at a fraction of the price.
There also appears to be a deep disregard for practical commercial practice. Manufacturers commonly produce goods to sell at different price levels by distinguishing quality and specifications to meet those different cost/price points. Also manufacturers who produce for larger companies are generally restricted by the necessary agreements and contractual limitations from direct competition with the products of the larger company.
Specifically and personally the well constructed metal bodied Voigtlander M mount series have served me very well over many years (whilst not matching my Leica lenses) and whilst I would love a new version
125 I am very happy with my 'old' one with adapters for both Leica and Sony cameras.
I shall be interested to assess the new 65/2 when there is evidence about it's performance and if the indications are positive will likely buy one and test for myself.
P.S. As for Bastian's comment about Leica shooters - it does him no credit, is far below the usual standards of the FM community and and is not worth further comment....Show more →
Is it really in question many Leica lenses are merely treated as highly valuable collectables than actually being used?
Wasn't aware of that and didn't mean to offend anyone who is actually using these lenses (as I do, too).
Leica makes great lenses where I find most of their problems is really the sensors. Now they switched sensors around lately so not sure what they are up too but in the past like the S my Phase back trounced it. But let's not go there. I do respect them very much but not all is sunshine and honey in Leica land either.
As far as Voightlander I have had good and some bad experiences with them but this 65 looks really good to me. Will see how it does in real world . Bottom line everyone has a few dogs in their lineup along with some outstanding optics.
