p.13 #1 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
Fred Miranda wrote:
I hope you are wrong even though I know you are probably not!
I actually hope he is right, and that it means better mechanics than in the old CV 125/2.5, which could have used an improvement to some of the internal parts, plastic, screws that would work lose.
p.13 #2 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
Fred Miranda wrote:
You can expect a 2-stop loss at 1:1.
Yes, that is perfectly correct for a bellows lens like the Zuiko 135/4.5 macro which I use. The CV 125/2.5 Apo Lanthar uses internal focusing to a degree with focal length shortening and loses about 1 1/4 stop ( to best of my recollection) going from infinity to 1:1. I would expect something similar with the new 110. I wonder if my 125 will be dethroned.
p.13 #3 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
You're always going to lose 2 stops going from infinity to 1:1, regardless of lens, bellows, etc. It's due to physics (the image circle doubles, "stretching out" the light), not to lens design.
p.13 #4 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
You're always going to lose 2 stops going from infinity to 1:1, regardless of lens, bellows, etc. It's due to physics (the image circle doubles, "stretching out" the light), not to lens design.
I just mounted the CV 125 lens and that is not what I measure--closer to 1 stop with a very quick test. John Shaw's "Closeups in Nature" comments that internally focusing macro lenses lose less light than lenses that solely use extension. There are many members dramatically good at optics here that can confirm or refute--- though empirically my experience does not conform with the contention of an obligate loss of 2 stops at 1:1.
p.13 #5 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
OK, I don't doubt what you are seeing, although it has to mean that other factors are at play.
I shot large format for many years, and used a hand meter to determine exposure, along with a "Quick Disc" to figure closeup bellows factor for anything larger than 1:10 ratio. One determines the amount of exposure compensation by placing the Quick Disc on the ground glass and using the disc's ruler to measure it: a subject that is 1:1 will always need 2 stops of extra exposure, regardless of focal length, etc., because the image circle at 1:1 is twice as large across (i.e. 4x the surface area) compared to infinity. Doubling the image circle loses 2 stops of light, in other words.
p.13 #6 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
Yes, I get that. Suspect it is the focal length shortening playing a major role. My physics is a tad rusty but suspect do not need to invoke effects of dark energy.
p.13 #7 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
OK, I don't doubt what you are seeing, although it has to mean that other factors are at play.
I shot large format for many years, and used a hand meter to determine exposure, along with a "Quick Disc" to figure closeup bellows factor for anything larger than 1:10 ratio. One determines the amount of exposure compensation by placing the Quick Disc on the ground glass and using the disc's ruler to measure it: a subject that is 1:1 will always need 2 stops of extra exposure, regardless of focal length, etc., because the image circle at 1:1 is twice as large across (i.e. 4x the surface area) compared to infinity. Doubling the image circle loses 2 stops of light, in other words....Show more →
If the focal length stays the same, the loss of light is exactly two stops at 1:1. In case of the CV 125/2.5, and most modern macro lenses the focal length is shortened, which means that you lose less than two stops of light. That's the extra variable at play. I suppose that the large format lens is unit focusing, i.e. it is focused by extending the bellows, and then the focal length doesn't change.
p.13 #9 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
DavidBM wrote:
Now I agree CV have not yet wowed us with a great slow wide. But I think that’s nothing to do with design goals or designation. They just haven’t managed it yet. Maybe this time.
My feeling is a lot of those slow wides were produces as a budget friendly match for their Bessa cameras, which were a budget friendly alternative to a Leica or a Zeiss Ikon rangefinder camera. Shooting stopped down and zone focused on Tri-X, you probably would be forgiven for thinking those lenses were good for the price. But on 24MP+ digital, it's a different story both due to resolution and complications related to sensor stack thickness.
From what I recall in the Leica images thread, there was one member here who went through a few copies of the 21/4 before finding one that was really good on his digital M, so it could be possible. It might be that to hit the price point, quality control is sacrificed. Or those lenses are produced to an older benchmark.
philber wrote:
Steve, I do agree that CV did turnout some really good lenses over the years, although, with the exception of the 125, no world-beater IMHO. And quite a few lenses that were substantially less appealing. Matters have changed recently, again IMHO. If FM is a reasonable sample of the high-end market, CV's penetration seems to have increased quite a bit. Interestingy, when I discussed this with a senior person at Zeiss, he was totally unresponsive, as though he didn't know/care. Which I very much doubt, personally. Hence my guess that there is something afoot which they don't care to talk about....Show more →
It's likely that when you use a third party to build your in-house designs, that the third party will learn a thing or two (or few) that will also improve their own designs. Plus as suggested, improvements in manufacturing, hardware, software, new lens designers with fresh ideas to respond to changes in the photography market?
p.13 #10 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
DavidBM wrote:
The 40 though is a remarkably compact f1.2 lens which, as far as I know, could not be corrected any better at the size it is. It's very much a masterful set of trade-offs that we couldn't possibly expect not to have oddities.
The 21, on the other hand, is f3.5, and it may well be possible to get Loxia performance in a smaller size by giving up that half stop. So I'd be more optimistic than I would have been with the 40 (in fact the 40 exceeded my, somewhat low, expectations handily)
I'm in the same boat. As the 65 and 40 generated a big hype around Viogtländer lenses I just wanted to lower the expectations to a normal level.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree. The 21mm is compact but also pretty slow. We could only hope for high IQ wide open with f/5.6 as its optimum aperture... so yes, a landscape lens candidate.
I'll hope but I stay skeptical until we can look at the RAWs. Well I have the loxia anyway. Therefore even if it performs great I would hardly buy it.
p.13 #11 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
bjornthun wrote:
If the focal length stays the same, the loss of light is exactly two stops at 1:1. In case of the CV 125/2.5, and most modern macro lenses the focal length is shortened, which means that you lose less than two stops of light. That's the extra variable at play. I suppose that the large format lens is unit focusing, i.e. it is focused by extending the bellows, and then the focal length doesn't change.
We know that the focusing distance of this lens at 1:1 is 0.35 mt. Thus, the focal length becomes 87.5 mm at this magnification. Therefore, the effective aperture of the Apo Lanthar 110/2.5 at 1:1 will be roughly F/4. That’s 1.3-1.4 stops of light loss.
p.13 #12 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
Can you also calculate how much distance will be between the subject and the front element with the data available?
Mar 05, 2018 at 06:08 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.13 #13 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
nampramos wrote:
Can you also calculate how much distance will be between the subject and the front element with the data available?
That one is pretty easy. The MFD is measured from the sensor and is 35 cm. The lens is about 10 cm and there is about 2 cm from the lens mount to the sensor, so the distance between the front element and the subject is about 23 cm at the MFD. We could be more precise in measurement of the lens and the distance between the lens and sensor, but I am not sure the 35 cm is all that precise, so it is probably best to just say 23 cm.
p.13 #14 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
Steve Spencer wrote:
That one is pretty easy. The MFD is measured from the sensor and is 35 cm. The lens is about 10 cm and there is about 2 cm from the lens mount to the sensor, so the distance between the front element and the subject is about 23 cm at the MFD. We could be more precise in measurement of the lens and the distance between the lens and sensor, but I am not sure the 35 cm is all that precise, so it is probably best to just say 23 cm.
These figures are for infinty distance. In the macro range we need to know how much the lens extends.
Mar 05, 2018 at 08:01 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.13 #15 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
bjornthun wrote:
These figures are for infinty distance. In the macro range we need to know how much the lens extends.
Yeah, of course. I should have thought about that. The 35 cm MFD is of course in the macro range and the 2 cm distance between the flange and the sensor remains constant, but we don't know the length of the lens when it is fully extended and it will be longer than 10 cm, we just don't know how long. Sorry about that.
p.13 #16 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yeah, of course. I should have thought about that. The 35 cm MFD is of course in the macro range and the 2 cm distance between the flange and the sensor remains constant, but we don't know the length of the lens when it is fully extended and it will be longer than 10 cm, we just don't know how long. Sorry about that.
Let's guess that in the worst case the lens extends 10cm and in the best case 7cm. That gives a free working distance somewhere in the range between 13-16cm at 1:1 close focus limit. We'll need an actual lens to know for sure.
For comparison, the Sony 90/2.8 gives
free working distance = 280mm close focus - 18mm flange distance -130.5mm length of lens = 131.5mm
We can guesstimate that the CV 110/2.5 will give 0-3cm better free working distance than the Sony 90/2.8 macro, with both set to 1:1 magnification.
Mar 05, 2018 at 08:21 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.13 #17 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
bjornthun wrote:
Let's guess that in the worst case the lens extends 10cm and in the best case 7cm. That gives a free working distance somewhere in the range between 13-16cm at 1:1 close focus limit. We'll need an actual lens to know for sure.
For comparison, the Sony 90/2.8 gives
free working distance = 280mm close focus - 18mm flange distance -130.5mm length of lens = 131.5mm
We can guesstimate that the CV 110/2.5 will give 0-3cm better free working distance than the Sony 90/2.8 macro, with both set to 1:1 magnification.
Totally agree. Looking at the pictures on the previous page, with the lens at full extension I would say it extends closer to 7 cm than 10 cm. So, it is probably closer to 3 cm more working distance.
p.13 #18 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
The big question is, Will this lens survive the car jack test? When I used to sell cameras, and we specialized in Leica, it was reported that back in the day, way back, a car had a flat and having no jack, they used a 135 to jack up the car little by little, using something under it at each step up, and were able to change the tire (1930's). That was testament to the mechanical properties and durability of the Leitz lens. True. :^), at according to the Leica salesman (1974).
p.13 #19 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
jamato8 wrote:
The big question is, Will this lens survive the car jack test? When I used to sell cameras, and we specialized in Leica, it was reported that back in the day, way back, a car had a flat and having no jack, they used a 135 to jack up the car little by little, using something under it at each step up, and were able to change the tire (1930's). That was testament to the mechanical properties and durability of the Leitz lens. True. :^), at according to the Leica salesman (1974).
I only know a different version of the Leica sales pitch which is a least as true
So someone asked the Leica salesman back in the day why he should pay three times as much for a Leica M as for a similar Nikon rangefinder. The salesman takes his M throws it against the wall, takes a picture and answers: "That's why".
p.13 #20 · Pre-order: Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro APO for $1,099
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I only know a different version of the Leica sales pitch which is a least as true
So someone asked the Leica salesman back in the day why he should pay three times as much for a Leica M as for a similar Nikon rangefinder. The salesman takes his M throws it against the wall, takes a picture and answers: "That's why".
Never heard that one. lol I do have an M2 that was new, but was dropped on the floor. The edge by the film advance was dinged in and the whole top shifted, so not sure about throwing it against the wall as it would not work. Anyway, I bought it from the store (why I don't know why since it didn't work) but new for 200 seemed like a good deal back then. I took it to Haig, who I had do my camera repairs as he used to be a Rollei repairman and was excellent. He looked at me and said, why did you buy this? We were good buddies and I always sent business his way from our store. He took pity on me, tore the camera totally down, realigned everything and got the dent out to where there is a tiny crease along the edge. Then gave me a bill for 25 dollars. He said, I felt sorry for you. What a guy! The camera after 38 years, still functions and all the speeds are right even though I have not had it cleaned or lubed again.
