Basically the 110/2.5 has 7-inch working distance and the 90/2.8 G has ~ 5.5 inches. (Both without hoods)
Of course how much working distance matters is subject dependent. I basically do botanical stuff with macro lenses (and often for reasons of perspective am using 35mm macros (pentax APS macro adapted to full frame - surprisingly good), ultra wides and so on as well as longer ones. So I'm used to short working distance - even to the point of almost touching the front element! So 12cm is luxury, enough for any lighting plan I am likely to use. But someone chasing bugs will care a lot more!
DavidBM wrote:
Of course how much working distance matters is subject dependent. I basically do botanical stuff with macro lenses (and often for reasons of perspective am using 35mm macros (pentax APS macro adapted to full frame - surprisingly good), ultra wides and so on as well as longer ones. So I'm used to short working distance - even to the point of almost touching the front element! So 12cm is luxury, enough for any lighting plan I am likely to use. But someone chasing bugs will care a lot more!
Fred Miranda wrote:
Do you shoot 1:2 more than 1:1?
Probably pretty even between 1:1 and 1:3. (and sometimes closer).
I know when I take a 1:2 like the CV or back in the day my old makro planar Or OM into the field I’m often frustrated - occasionally because I want 1:1 but more often 1:1.5 or so seems to be the sweet spot for what I do. Australian wildflowers are often tiny!
DavidBM wrote:
Probably pretty even between 1:1 and 1:3. (and sometimes closer).
I know when I take a 1:2 like the CV or back in the day my old makro planar Or OM into the field I’m often frustrated - occasionally because I want 1:1 but more often 1:1.5 or so seems to be the sweet spot for what I do. Australian wildflowers are often tiny!
You have so many great lenses like the FE 90/2.8G and CV 65/2 but based on what you like to shoot, I have the feeling you will appreciate the 110/2.5's IQ and precision.
Fred Miranda wrote:
You have so many great lenses like the FE 90/2.8G and CV 65/2 but based on what you like to shoot, I have the feeling you will appreciate the 110/2.5's IQ and precision.
That’s my fear too. And it’s so easy not to return review copies.....almost makes buying it the default
RobertHolloway wrote:
Nooo, Fred please say it's useless in some sort of way
I can feel my fingers twitching as it's now available.
I hate this forum.
Rob
For me personally the only negative is the 763 grams but hey it's less than the official weight.
LBJ2 wrote:
Fred, how would you compare APO performance to the Zeiss Batis 135 ?
Regarding LoCA correction, the Batis 135/2.8 is very similar in performance to the Voigtlander and noticeably better than the Zeiss 135/2 APO.
I will try post some samples later.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Great shot!
How do you like your CV 110/2.5 so far Stephen?
Thanks for your kind words. I like it very much, Fred. Only issue is one I expected. That is, the focal length does not get as much use as wider lenses —especially in the winter where there is a dearth of flowers or other likely subjects for a macro lens. I suppose I could pick a nit with the cat eyes in the corners of the bokeh, but the lovely sun stars make up for it. I will need to wait till spring to really give it a flower workout. Now, if I were at Yosemite or something, then longer focal lengths come into play a lot more than for the NC mountains and waterfalls I am mostly shooting right now.
I fear it will not be a big seller as many have already bought the Sony 90 macro and are happy with their 70-200 or 100-400 for general use. It is supremely well corrected and as sharp as any other lens in the stable, but these merits may not be enough to sell a medium fast manual focus medium telephoto prime lens in large numbers.
I also just bought the Sony GM 100-400 so it is competing a bit with that lens for my attention at the moment, but I will try to post some more pics here as I take them.
Edit: Here is a less than wonderful images from just after sunrise when the sun hid behind the clouds--just to prove that it is not just sitting on a shelf!
G'day. Got mine on Monday and took it out for a spin in Melbourne yesterday.
So far I'm very impressed with its resolution, yet found the focus ring very sensitive near infinity, more so than the 65.
I saw its a similar design to the ol' Tamron Adaptall 90mm f2.5 SP macro - which used to be a favorite of mine. The front extends quite far out, which makes macro focusing very easy, but means a VERY short throw from 3m to infinity. Tricky, but doable, especially with focus magnify.
Beautiful shots, by the way.
kaioyang wrote:
G'day. Got mine on Monday and took it out for a spin in Melbourne yesterday.
So far I'm very impressed with its resolution, yet found the focus ring very sensitive near infinity, more so than the 65.
