Etherton wrote:
IQ on the 90 FE is as good as the CV 110?
I've never compared them side by side but from the comments and samples I've seen, they are very similar at 1:1, except that the Voigtlander is better corrected for LoCA. (Although they are very similar at f/4)
The CV 110 provides a little bit longer working distance (5.6" vs 7") and higher FL at life size mag. (70mm vs 87.5mm)
At infinity, I am sure the Voigtlander 110/2.5 will provide more resolution.
The other issue with the Sony would be copy variance from what I've read. The CV line up doesn't seem to suffer as bad. Only other issue would be the weight (but not near as much as expected) 110mm 1.7 lb / 771 g vs. 90mm 1.3 lb / 602 g
bjornthun wrote:
It’s got strong competition from the Sony 90/2.8 G, which is great too.
I'm ashamed to admit that I never tried the Sony 90/2.8G.
The variation talk keep me away from it. @DavidBM said his copy is even sharper than his CV 110 at macro magnifications.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm ashamed to admit that I never tried the Sony 90/2.8G.
The variation talk keep me away from it. @DavidBM@ said his copy is even sharper than his CV 110 at macro magnifications.
bjornthun wrote:
And macro is why you buy these lenses, Fred.
Yes, macro is one reason to buy these lenses, but for me absolute sharpness is not. Both the Sony 90 f/2.8 G and the CV 110 are incredibly sharp lenses such that one being sharper than the other would not affect my decision for either. For macro I much prefer manual focus and the CV has exceptionally good MF. It also is wonderfully corrected for aberrations, and it is very useful at non-macro distances including excellent, even exceptional, infinity focus performance. So yes the Sony 90 f/2.8 G is a wonderful macro lens and if you really want AF for macro I can see choosing it, but for overall phenomenal performance I am very very happy with the CV 110.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm ashamed to admit that I never tried the Sony 90/2.8G.
The variation talk keep me away from it. @DavidBM@ said his copy is even sharper than his CV 110 at macro magnifications.
Right. It took me three copies to get a Sony 90 without tilt, and Roger Cicala's data suggest this wouldn't be unusual. And I'll put up with more slight difference between corners than some here.
I think the slight contrast and resolution advantage at life size I found for the Sony 90 (on a par by 1:2) ought not affect anyone's buying choices (especially given the difference is larger, in the opposite direction, at infinity). Both are terrific, and the difference in haptics and overall use cases is what you should be moved by.
(in the mean time I have both, and probably shouldn't)
Just got a message from delivery man saying mine will arrive tomorrow,
I was tempted to sell the 65 to fund it, because why have 2 macros right, but I now see it that you are getting an excellent lens that can do macro,
Got a portrait shoot on tomorrow evening and I am very tempted to give the CV 110 and 65 a go
