dave unwin wrote:
Phillip would you say the 110mm gives a similar look to the 65mm for landscapes? The 65mm continues to blow me away regardless of aperture, and I'm using it a lot for handheld stitching. Looking for something longer (for stitched images as well as single captures) and am weighing up the 110mm vs the Sigma 135mm. (I realise they are quite different lenses, but the sigma would be handy for AF at times and I consider them both 'heavy' ish lenses).
When I owned both, I couldn't tell the difference between the images made by the CV 65/2 and the CV 110/2.5 without looking at EXIF
dave unwin wrote:
Phillip would you say the 110mm gives a similar look to the 65mm for landscapes? The 65mm continues to blow me away regardless of aperture, and I'm using it a lot for handheld stitching. Looking for something longer (for stitched images as well as single captures) and am weighing up the 110mm vs the Sigma 135mm. (I realise they are quite different lenses, but the sigma would be handy for AF at times and I consider them both 'heavy' ish lenses).
It’s just possible, looking at my catalogue, that the 110 has even a touch more contrast at the same magnifications! But basically they are twins.
The family resemblance among the Voigtlander APOs is very strong (color/contrast performance especially), so what tends to happen to users is: if you like one you will very likely like the others, with a different angle of view being the main difference. The 1:1 really hurts the 110mm for more general work, more with the weight of the folding extension sleeves than the quality at infinity. It was really the new 125mm, made afresh.
Many buyers really got on board the 65/2 despite the focal length, with it being the first one released. And they harbour a soft spot for it - a kind of imprint. Dustin Abbott is one, many here too. He recently reviewed the 50/2 and spent more time disliking the very functional lens hood than anything else.
We really need to have the CV guys complete the job though, at shorter FLs - right now they jump from (two at) 21mm to a fast 35mm, for the modern ones. Back in the day, they made some great ones for SLR (125/2.5 and 180/4, for examples), then suspiciously they went walkabout.
The siren song of them making yet more Leica M lenses is always a threat to us, as if several dozens already is not enough. They have retired more M lenses than they make for Sony.
Thanks for the info. I do think the 50 f2 would suit me better than the 65, but I don't think I could ever part with it and can't quite justify having both. A high quality 28mm would certainly find a home though!
Are there any smaller/lighter telephotos that you think can match the CV110 at infiinity?
Well......I am so disappointed with my manual focusing abilities. I am using an A7R4 with magnification and peaking and use the rear screen monitor a good portion of the time.
My hit rate is maybe 25% in focus compared to using autofocus on my Sigma Art 70mm which i hit probably 75% or better with the monitor. I am in my 60´s and wear glasses so I am considering swapping for a Sony 90mm which unfortunately is a crap shoot in getting a good copy and also is in a back order situation.
Do any of you use the monitor more than the viewfinder for focusing or do I just need to retrain myself.
Guitarcmf wrote:
Well......I am so disappointed with my manual focusing abilities. I am using an A7R4 with magnification and peaking and use the rear screen monitor a good portion of the time.
My hit rate is maybe 25% in focus compared to using autofocus on my Sigma Art 70mm which i hit probably 75% or better with the monitor. I am in my 60´s and wear glasses so I am considering swapping for a Sony 90mm which unfortunately is a crap shoot in getting a good copy and also is in a back order situation.
Do any of you use the monitor more than the viewfinder for focusing or do I just need to retrain myself....Show more →
That's odd, I find my CV65/2 snaps into focus quite easily and noticeably. I shoot "from the hip" a lot now using the monitor with focus magnification (C3). Even with moving subjects (dogs) I can get a high focus hit rate, but it does take practice. Picture Styles settings likely also have an impact on perceived viewing sharpness.
You folks are killing me with the shots from these new CV lenses, particularly the APO's.!
Guitarcmf wrote:
Well......I am so disappointed with my manual focusing abilities. I am using an A7R4 with magnification and peaking and use the rear screen monitor a good portion of the time.
My hit rate is maybe 25% in focus compared to using autofocus on my Sigma Art 70mm which i hit probably 75% or better with the monitor. I am in my 60´s and wear glasses so I am considering swapping for a Sony 90mm which unfortunately is a crap shoot in getting a good copy and also is in a back order situation.
Do any of you use the monitor more than the viewfinder for focusing or do I just need to retrain myself....Show more →
I have been working on developing reliable manual focus skills for the last few months. It does take work and practice. I have arrive at a level where I can focus reasonably quickly, with an acceptable hit rate. Play with you peaking and zoom setting t find a combo that works for you. Then practice a lot.
Guitarcmf wrote:
Well......I am so disappointed with my manual focusing abilities. I am using an A7R4 with magnification and peaking and use the rear screen monitor a good portion of the time.
My hit rate is maybe 25% in focus compared to using autofocus on my Sigma Art 70mm which i hit probably 75% or better with the monitor. I am in my 60´s and wear glasses so I am considering swapping for a Sony 90mm which unfortunately is a crap shoot in getting a good copy and also is in a back order situation.
Do any of you use the monitor more than the viewfinder for focusing or do I just need to retrain myself....Show more →
I use the viewfinder more often than the monitor. I find I hit focus better there. There is a diopter adjustment there as well on the viewfinder which I've adjusted because I wear glasses and my eyes aren't that young. I do have to admit that I'm coming from film cameras so MF matches my typical mode. My experiences over the years with digital AF (and Sony's hellish menu system) were so disappointing that it turned me off. I got an A7RIV thinking that the AF was going to be so good that it would help me focus since my low light vision is getting worse. I started out using my old film lenses and with peaking and magnification it was great. Now I've been shooting with the 65mm Apo-Lanther and it's fantastic. The 110mm is going to be my next lens.
I know I've not put in the time and effort for get better at AF, but MF is so reliable, and I don't mind the extra time for reliability yet. I don't think it's sustainable, but it is fun.
letchhausen wrote:
I use the viewfinder more often than the monitor. I find I hit focus better there. There is a diopter adjustment there as well on the viewfinder which I've adjusted because I wear glasses and my eyes aren't that young. I do have to admit that I'm coming from film cameras so MF matches my typical mode. My experiences over the years with digital AF (and Sony's hellish menu system) were so disappointing that it turned me off. I got an A7RIV thinking that the AF was going to be so good that it would help me focus since my low light vision is getting worse. I started out using my old film lenses and with peaking and magnification it was great. Now I've been shooting with the 65mm Apo-Lanther and it's fantastic. The 110mm is going to be my next lens.
Guitarcmf wrote:
Well......I am so disappointed with my manual focusing abilities. I am using an A7R4 with magnification and peaking and use the rear screen monitor a good portion of the time.
My hit rate is maybe 25% in focus compared to using autofocus on my Sigma Art 70mm which i hit probably 75% or better with the monitor. I am in my 60´s and wear glasses so I am considering swapping for a Sony 90mm which unfortunately is a crap shoot in getting a good copy and also is in a back order situation.
Do any of you use the monitor more than the viewfinder for focusing or do I just need to retrain myself....Show more →
I never use the monitor for manual focusing, primarily for stability reasons. Having the camera against my head helps me reduce camera movement. This is particularly important when focusing with a very small depth of field.
On the other hand, my wife only uses the monitor on her camera, but she is autofocus all the way.
Of course I refer only to handheld shooting. On a tripod I would use the monitor more, I think. But I have not done a lot of that.
'any smaller/lighter telephotos that you think can match the CV110 at infiinity?'
For similar sharpness and resolution, there are very few you could call small or light, at say 100mm or so. It's quite surprising when you look at all the lens that fit Sonys. The CV110 is stronger than the 100MP or Leica's 100/2.8 R, and both need adapters. At 135mm, the other contender is the light Batis 135mm.
Leica make some light M lenses at 90mm, at f2 (an APO) and f2.8. I also use a CY 100/3.5 (280g) for people, but wanted something more croppable and contrasty, with CV colour. Either an updated low element count lens like a longer 75/1.5 VM or a 90/100 f2 APO would be great, at under 500g. Still waiting..
Just Z7 body and Voigtlander 110mm lens. It was a bright morning. Used either f8 or f11 with iso mainly between 500-1000. Simply set lens to desired magnification and then moved slightly backwards and forwards until I considered the hornet in focus to take the shot. Although the camera has peaking and magnification, for handheld closeups magnification results in an unsteady image (my movement) and I rarely see the peaking effect. Cannot give aperture for each photo as the lens is used with a dumb adapter, hence f stop is not recorded in the exif file. Due to the limited depth of field its a little like taking birds in flight in that you can expect a high percentage of misses. Of the 70 shots I took about 20 were worth keeping.
Thanks dwalk, that’s pretty much what I do but I have been keeping my iso at 320 which is the sweet spot which is quite hard to do and get a good clear shot. I will try higher ISO’s and see what I get.
I do use a flash a lots with a diffuser and I do get decent results but it’s hard to beat a good natural light photo..
