Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4              37       38       end
  

Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review

  
 
sebbe
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


Fred Miranda wrote:
And most are not nearly as well corrected. Even the Zeiss 135/2 'APO' can't compete with this level of axial CA correction.
There is always the option (and need) of focus stacking when shooting serious macro and the CV 110 @f/2.8 still produces rounded specular highlights.
Apertures like f/5.6 and f/8 are definitely the sweet stop but I had to go out of my way to include specular highlights when shooting near 1:1 magnification. In other words, it will be uncommon to encounter this in a macro composition.


Sorry for coming up with that every time: Did you tested the CA without the lens profile? I don't trust LR in this case. Or may you share the RAW files from your infinity test?



Dec 10, 2018 at 12:04 PM
elimoss
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


sebbe wrote:
Sorry for coming up with that every time: Did you tested the CA without the lens profile? I don't trust LR in this case. Or may you share the RAW files from your infinity test?


If we are talking strictly about axial CA correction -- I could be wrong, but -- I don't think the inbuilt lens profiles, even sneaky ones, correct axial CA to any significant extent. Lateral CA, certainly.





Dec 10, 2018 at 12:33 PM
hiepphotog
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


NO need to buy an optical bench to know how good your lenses are. Just pitch them against these CV APOs... Now I need a CV WA APO as well.


Dec 10, 2018 at 12:43 PM
tsdevine
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review



28mm please.

-Tim

hiepphotog wrote:
NO need to buy an optical bench to know how good your lenses are. Just pitch them against these CV APOs... Now I need a CV WA APO as well.





Dec 10, 2018 at 01:07 PM
sebbe
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


elimoss wrote:
If we are talking strictly about axial CA correction -- I could be wrong, but -- I don't think the inbuilt lens profiles, even sneaky ones, correct axial CA to any significant extent. Lateral CA, certainly.



I don't expect to see much difference to what Fred posted here. But as he also did his default sharpening it's difficult to judge if there is something. I'm thinking to replace the Sony FE 90/2.8 and if the lens really shows no CA this may be a good reason. The 90 shows the same bokeh balls when you stop it down and it seems to perform similar at 1:1.



Dec 10, 2018 at 01:34 PM
GMPhotography
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


It maybe correcting in C1. I know you use that program over Fred using LR


Dec 10, 2018 at 01:36 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


bjornthun wrote:
It is also just about the only issue I find. Your image displayed the decagonal bokeh "balls" very clerly. These lenses are by no means bad. It's just that I will think much more carefully about Sony 90 G vs CV 110/2.5. Though the Sony 90 G is not apochromatic, it's still much better corrected than the Zeiss 100/2 MP. I have until spring/summer to do my thinking. Maybe I want both?

We are in a situation of luxury here, with several great macro lenses to choose from. Who would have thought that the mirrorless system with 3-5 lenses in
...Show more

I too really like the APO lenses for Sony FE mount, but Canon and Nikon both have more native mount APO lenses when you include Zeiss Milvus and Otus lenses. There is of course the Otus 28, 55, 85 (and a 100 has been announced) and the Miluvs 135 f/2 APO. Of course all of these lenses can be used on Sony with an adapter. There are also older CV lenses for these mounts including the 125 f/2.5 APO macro which is of course the forefather to the lens described here and not too far away in performance, and the 180 f/4 APO, and 90 f/3.5 APO (although the 90 in my experience really wasn't all that well corrected as it had pretty strong purple fringing.), and finally there is the Coastal Optics 60 f/4 which is available in Nikon mount. So Sony can use the most APO lenses, and has a nice selection of APO lenses in native mount, but still doesn't have more native mount APO lenses than Canon or Nikon.



Dec 10, 2018 at 02:04 PM
DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


Fred Miranda wrote:
And most are not nearly as well corrected. Even the Zeiss 135/2 'APO' can't compete with this level of axial CA correction.
There is always the option (and need) of focus stacking when shooting serious macro and the CV 110 @f/2.8 still produces rounded specular highlights.
Apertures like f/5.6 and f/8 are definitely the sweet stop but I had to go out of my way to include specular highlights when shooting near 1:1 magnification. In other words, it will be uncommon to encounter this in a macro composition.


It'll depend what you do. I often shoot botanical images backlit in the forest in the early morning. Specular highlights are the main feature of the background. Often focus stacking is not a goer because there is too much movement, or else I am stacking but only two or three images in which case still need f5.6 or smaller. In these situations the straight blades would be a real nuisance

Lovely lens, it seems, in every other way though, and few people probably are shooting frequently in this situation.
I actually have no idea if the 65 does this, because I rarely use it as a macro lens rather than a general purpose long normal. (I tend to use the 90, or else longer lenses or much shorter ones, or when I'm hiking I'll often use the 2.8/50 because it's so light: but that last lens has ugly seven sided bokeh balls in the situations I described.



Dec 10, 2018 at 03:12 PM
DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


sebbe wrote:
I don't expect to see much difference to what Fred posted here. But as he also did his default sharpening it's difficult to judge if there is something. I'm thinking to replace the Sony FE 90/2.8 and if the lens really shows no CA this may be a good reason. The 90 shows the same bokeh balls when you stop it down and it seems to perform similar at 1:1.


The 90, in most situations I've use it in, has much rounder balls at f6.3 than this.
The axial CA of 90 is a touch worse, but still plenty low enough not to bother me.
The FBW is excellent on the 90, but I'd still prefer the real helicoid.
OTOH I like that the 90 doesn't extend.
The 90 is a touch worse at infinity.
At macro distances the 90 is about as good and contrasty as I think I can detect even life size, so I'll call that a draw with the CV based on the samples I've seen.
Of course the 90 means you don't need to pack an AF portrait lens with you on macro trip. (not I think that I've ever used it that way except as a test)



Dec 10, 2018 at 03:23 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


DavidBM wrote:
The 90, in most situations I've use it in, has much rounder balls at f6.3 than this.
The axial CA of 90 is a touch worse, but still plenty low enough not to bother me.
The FBW is excellent on the 90, but I'd still prefer the real helicoid.
OTOH I like that the 90 doesn't extend.
The 90 is a touch worse at infinity.
At macro distances the 90 is about as good and contrasty as I think I can detect even life size, so I'll call that a draw with the CV based on the samples I've seen.
Of course the 90 means you
...Show more

The FE 90/2.8 Macro is "internal focus" and therefore focal length will be much reduced at MFD. Have you calculated the real FL at 1:1 magnification? It's different with the 110/2.5 APO as it extends to reach its maximum magnification.

What is the working distance with the FE 90? With the CV 110 at 1:1 macro, it's 7 inches. (without the hood)



Dec 10, 2018 at 03:31 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

bjornthun
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


Fred Miranda wrote:
The FE 90/2.8 Macro is "internal focus" and therefore focal length will be much reduced at MFD. Have you calculated the real FL at 1:1 magnification? It's different with the 110/2.5 APO as it extends to reach its maximum magnification.

What is the working distance with the FE 90? With the CV 110 at 1:1 macro, it's 7 inches. (without the hood)

7 inches = 7 * 25.4mm = 177.8mm
The close focus of the Sony 90 G is 28cm. So 280mm - 130.5mm -18mm = 141.5mm free working distance when length of lens and flange to sensor distances are subtracted. (Sony 90 G is 130.5mm long and Sony has a flange to sensor distance of 18mm.)

Focal lengths at lifesize magnification
Corresponding focal length of a symmetrical lens at lifesize magnification for Sony 90 G:
280mm /4 = 70mm
Corresponding focal length of a sym. lens at lifesize mag. for CV 110/2.5
350mm /4 = 87.5mm

Both lenses drop some of their focal length when going to lifesize magnification. Both lenses are floating element designs, Sony 90 G through internal focus and the CV 110/2.5 through three focus groups.

Edited on Dec 10, 2018 at 04:31 PM · View previous versions



Dec 10, 2018 at 04:04 PM
elimoss
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


bjornthun wrote:
Focal lengths at lifesize magnification
Corresponding focal length of a symmetrical lens at lifesize magnification for Sony 90 G:
280mm /4 = 70mm
Corresponding focal length of a sym. lens at lifesize mag. for CV 110/2.5
350mm /4 = 87.5mm



A better, probably more accurate way to do it is as follows:

Focus the lens at 1:1
Put an extension tube on. Measure exactly how much extension it adds, in millimeters (most tubes are marked)
Align the lens parallel to a ruler. Take a shot. Figure out the new magnification by dividing how many mm on the ruler you see by the sensor width.

FL = ExtensionTubeLength / ( NewMag - 1.0)

So, if the FL at 1:1 is 100mm, then a 10mm tube will give you 1.1 magnification,
because 10mm/1.1 = 100mm


EDIT: you can also do the same kind of measurements with a closeup diopter, but the math is a bit more involved to solve for the FL.

EDIT 2: It's probably not a totally safe assumption, for any random lens, that whatever is marked 1:1 magnification is exactly 1:1. It could be 0.9:1, etc. In which case, you have to measure that and substitute accordingly for 1.0 in the equation above.



Dec 10, 2018 at 04:32 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


Macro performance at 1:1

From my tests, it looks like the CV 110/2.5 APO's optimal aperture for 1:1 macro is f/4 but it's already excellent from wide open to the very corners. I didn't have another 1:1 lens at hand for a comparison but I added a 5+ achromat close-up lens to my CV 65/2 APO for a side by side comparison at similar magnification.

The CV 65 was good at center (f/4) but could not keep up towards the corners. There are many photographers using the Marumi 5+ achromat with their CV 65 in order get to 1:1 macro so I thought this could be helpful.

Here are some working distance numbers:

CV 110 (1:2 macro) = 11 inches
CV 110 (1:1 macro) = 7 inches
CV 65 (1:2 macro) = 6 inches
CV 65 + Marumi achromat (1:1 macro) = 3 inches

For serious 1:1 macro, I would recommend the CV 110/2.5 instead. Here are some images:





thumbnail showing center and edge location







Center crop: CV 110mm @f/2.5 vs @f/2.8 - very slight improvement







Edge crop: CV 110mm @f/2.5 vs @f/2.8 - Not much difference







Center crop: at f/4 (1:1 macro) - CV 110 (left), CV 65 + Marumi 5+ (right)







Edge crop: at f/4 (1:1 macro) - CV 110 (left), CV 65 + Marumi 5+ (right)







Center crop: at f/5.6 (1:1 macro) - CV 110 (left), CV 65 + Marumi 5+ (right)







Edge crop: at f/5.6 (1:1 macro) - CV 110 (left), CV 65 + Marumi 5+ (right)




Dec 10, 2018 at 05:05 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


Here is f/8:












Dec 10, 2018 at 05:23 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


DavidBM wrote:
Huh. Thanks Fred.
I think that might mean that I need to keep the Sony 90 as a dedicated macro (I never use it as a general short tele: it's very good for that but unnecessarily large).

In which case, absolutely superb lens though it seems to be, I may find it hard to justify, although something in the 2/100 range is useful enough.


I hope Phillip does not mind me posting an image from his FE 90/2.8 G Review.
It seems that at f/4 and f/5.6, even the FE 90's rounded blades can't render circular specular highlights. Having said that, it's definitely more rounded than what we can get with the CV 110 at similar apertures.







Dec 10, 2018 at 05:32 PM
elimoss
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


Fred Miranda wrote:
It seems that at f/4 and f/5.6, even the FE 90's rounded blades can't render circular specular highlights. Having said that, it's definitely more rounded than what we can get with the CV 110 at similar apertures.


The Sony 90 is not even fully circular at f/2.8, when shooting macro, since the aperture closes a little. It is pretty circular, but if you want to nitpick, there is geometry showing.



Dec 10, 2018 at 05:58 PM
realVivek
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review




Dirt on the sensor > flare from the lens > shape of the lens iris.

Milage may vary for others.

Fred Miranda wrote:
I hope Phillip does not mind me posting an image from his FE 90/2.8 G Review.
It seems that at f/4 and f/5.6, even the FE 90's rounded blades can't render circular specular highlights. Having said that, it's definitely more rounded than what we can get with the CV 110 at similar apertures.





Dec 10, 2018 at 06:25 PM
GMPhotography
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


I donít know if it really makes sense expecting a APO lens to create great smooth bokeh. Kind of runs against it.


Dec 10, 2018 at 06:34 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


bjornthun wrote:
7 inches = 7 * 25.4mm = 177.8mm
The close focus of the Sony 90 G is 28cm. So 280mm - 130.5mm -18mm = 141.5mm free working distance when length of lens and flange to sensor distances are subtracted. (Sony 90 G is 130.5mm long and Sony has a flange to sensor distance of 18mm.)

Focal lengths at lifesize magnification
Corresponding focal length of a symmetrical lens at lifesize magnification for Sony 90 G:
280mm /4 = 70mm
Corresponding focal length of a sym. lens at lifesize mag. for CV 110/2.5
350mm /4 = 87.5mm

Both lenses drop some of their focal length when going to lifesize
...Show more

Basically all modern macro lenses drop focal length when they go to 1:1. Here are some examples:

Canon 100 f/2.8L - drops to 75mm
Nikon 105 f/2.8 G VR - drops to 78.5mm (25% drop)
Sony 90 f/2.8 G - drops to 70mm (22% drop)
Leica R 100 f/2.8 APO - drops to 75mm with elpro 1:1 adapter (no drop at 1:2)
Voigtlander 125 f/2.5 APO - drops to 95mm (24% drop)
Voigtlander 110 f/2.5 APO - drops to 87.5 (20% drop)
Zeiss Milvus (or ZE/ZF) - drops to only 97mm at 1:2 (when lenses only go to 1:2 we tend to not see them drop in focal length)

Even the Medium format 120mm macro do it a little:

Fuji G 120 f/4 - drops to 112.5mm (6% drop)
Hasselblad X 120 f/3.5 - drops to 107.5mm (10% drop)
Pentax 645 FA 120 f/4 - drops to 97.5mm (19% drop)
Mamiya/Phase One 120 f/4 - drops to 100mm (17% drop)
Contax 645 120 f/4 APO - drops to 106mm (11% drop)
Leica S 120 f/2.5 APO - doesn't drop but only goes to 1:2 (again the exception that seems to prove the rule it seems it is primarily the lenses that go to 1:1 that the focal length drops)



Dec 10, 2018 at 07:18 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar Review


Steve Spencer wrote:
Basically all modern macro lenses drop focal length when they go to 1:1. Here are some examples:

Canon 100 f/2.8L - drops to 75mm
Nikon 105 f/2.8 G VR - drops to 78.5mm (25% drop)
Sony 90 f/2.8 G - drops to 70mm (22% drop)
Leica R 100 f/2.8 APO - drops to 75mm with elpro 1:1 adapter (no drop at 1:2)
Voigtlander 125 f/2.5 APO - drops to 95mm (24% drop)
Voigtlander 110 f/2.5 APO - drops to 87.5 (20% drop)
Zeiss Milvus (or ZE/ZF) - drops to only 97mm at 1:2 (when lenses only go to 1:2 we tend to not see them drop
...Show more

Great resource Steve!



Dec 10, 2018 at 07:22 PM
1       2      
3
       4              37       38       end






FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4              37       38       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username      Reset password